As It Happened In The Australian Senate On Thursday 10 August 2023: a case of the biter bit

 

Having left it to the last day both the Upper House and Lower House chambers were sitting in August, to spring what the Opposition obviously thought was a clever raid on Labor's legion holding the Senate, the Liberals smugly alerted the media to their intention to save pharmacists across Australia from a non-existent threat. Rather swiftly the plan began to go awry.

However Opposition forces rallied. 

As Business of the Senate a postponement notice was promptly lodged ie., Notice of Motion No. 1 (to disallow government dispensing reforms making medicines cheaper for six million Australians) in the name of Shadow Minister for Health Liberal Senator Anne Ruston and others, seeking postponement to 4 September 2023.

Then the wheels spectacularly fell off the Liberal Party chariot......

The Guardian, extracts from Live News, 10 August 2023:

15.59 AEST

What happened in the Senate today

This is for those who have asked me what was going on with all that procedure because it was a bit to keep track of.

Yesterday the Coalition gave notice it was going to move a disallowance motion to stop the 60-day dispensing changes coming in from 1 September.

It had to be moved today, because the parliament doesn’t resume until 4 September, after the changes came into effect.

At one point, the Coalition thought it had the numbers to make this happen, or at least could spook the government into thinking it had the numbers to make it happen, and force the government to delay the start date itself.

Along came the Greens who said, actually, no thank you to the disallowance motion, we have been chatting to the government and they are bringing negotiations on the next community pharmacy agreement forward by a year and that is what we wanted.

So that meant the Coalition needed to get all the remaining crossbenchers on board to beat the government on numbers.

The government needed the Greens to all show up in the chamber and one other crossbench MP. Cue late night chats and Mark Butler emerges this morning on the interview circuit saying “watch what happens in the Senate, but we have had VERY PRODUCTIVE chats with the crossbench”.

Very productive chats in that context is “we have the support we need, but can’t say so officially”.

The Coalition, realising it is about to lose, then tried to delay the disallowance motion, pushing it into the next sitting.

Labor, who wanted it dealt with once and for all, decided, actually no, we ARE going to have that disallowance motion today, senate what do you think? And all the senators who were voting with Labor on the motion agreed, meaning it the Coalition couldn’t delay it.

BUT (continued in next post):

Updated at 16.15 AEST

16.03 AEST

How Labor 'adopted' the disallowance motion – and defeated it

(Continued from previous post)

It is very difficult to move another senator’s disallowance motion and shadow health minister Anne Ruston wasn’t moving it (because the Coalition wanted it delayed). Labor tried to force it, but couldn’t because it wasn’t their motion.

So in a bunch of boring procedural motions, Labor managed to de-couple the motion from Anne Ruston’s name, making it an orphan.

The poor little orphaned disallowance motion was sent into the senate orphanage as as a delayed motion to wait out question time, when SURPRISE, it was adopted by Labor senator Louise Pratt.

Before it even had time to see its new bedroom, Labor called to suspend standing orders so it could call it on for a vote, where it was once again centre stage, despite Liberal senator Simon Birmingham objecting very loudly.

But this time all the procedural ducks were in a row, the motion was in Pratt’s name, so Labor had control and a vote was called.

And the disallowance motion was decided in the government’s favour – 33 votes to 28.

Which means that the two-for-one prescriptions slated to begin on 1 September will go ahead, the disallowance motion is defeated and this probably won’t be an issue again until six months time when the next tranche of medications join the list.

We hope that little motion gets to live out its dreams in the hansard now.

Updated at 16.20 AEST

16.34 AEST

Opposition to try to disallow 60-day medicine move again in September

Bridget McKenzie, the Nationals leader in the Senate, has said the opposition will launch a further attempt to disallow the government’s 60-day pharmacy dispensing changes when parliament returns in September.

On Thursday, the Senate voted down a Coalition push to tear up Labor’s changes.

McKenzie, speaking to the ABC, said the opposition had already moved to try to disallow it again.

We have lodged this afternoon another disallowance for this mechanism. This highlights for the government that we are very very serious, it is not good enough to say is not going to have a negative impact, the people’s healthcare delivery and particularly in the regions won’t be impacted when it actually will.

Updated at 16.41 AES

The 60-day script dispensing reform is due to commence on 1 September 2023 and the Senate Chamber does not sit again until 4 September 2023.

Statement of retiring Liberal Party Senator for NSW since 2005 Concetta Anna Fierravanti-Wells in the Senate Chamber on the evening of 29 March 2022

Offered without comment. The Hansard record may be found at:

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard

Media diversity and media monopolies' impact on Australian democracy are again under the microscope at today's Senate public hearing - where Sky News CEO will be asked to answer questions concerning News Corps influence

In June 2019 News Corp Australasia had ruled out any move by Rupert Murdoch's multinational media conglomerate to acquire a free-to-air television channel in Australia.

However by May 2021 a multi-year agreement had been signed between Sky News Australia (operated by Australian News Channel Pty Ltd a News Corp subsidiary) and media company Southern Cross Austereo (SCA) for a 24-hour Sky News channel to broadcast in regional markets.

The free-to-air Sky News Regional channel was launched on 1 August 2021 and broadcasts to SCA’s 17 regional markets across Victoria, Southern NSW and Queensland including Cairns, Townsville, Sunshine Coast, Canberra, Wollongong, Wagga Wagga, Orange, Bendigo and Ballarat, as well as in WIN Network’s NNSW regional markets Northern NSW, Griffith, NSW and South Australia.

Sky News Regional carries all the Sky News regular rightwing commentators, including Andrew Bolt, Peta Credlin, Alan Jones, Rita Panahi, Rowan Dean, Paul Murray, Chris Kenny, Laura Jayes, Kieran Gilbert and Sharri Markson as well as broadcasting a three-hour breakfast show.

It would appear that the 'Sky After Dark'  format pushing conspiracy theories, misinformation, barely disguised Coalition propaganda and hard right political figures - which replicates the U.S. Fox News format - has carried over to the new channel. 

On 11 November 2020, the Australian Senate referred an Inquiry into the state of media diversity, independence and reliability in Australia to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee.

It came on the heels of a a petition to Parliament signed by more than 500,000 people which called for a royal commission into media diversity.

This Senate Inquiry has received 3,659 submissions and, today will hear evidence from Google Australia, Sky News Australia, former prime minister Kevin Rudd, Depart. of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), and the Victorian Branch of the United Firefighters Union.

To date News Corp co-chairman Lachlan Murdoch has refused the Inquiry’s invitation to appear before it. Instead CEO of Sky News Australia Paul Whittaker will be appearing before the Inquiry today.

Apparently presenters Alan Jones, Rita Panahi and Rowan Dean have agreed to appear before the Inquiry and answer questions.

It is the opinion of more than one political commentator that Sky News Australia was an active player in the sustained push within the Liberal Party to oust Malcolm Turnbull as Australian Prime Minister.

Sky News Australia is already on the radar of major Internet platforms and social media - on the same day that Sky News Regional was launched YouTube announced it was suspending the Sky News account for seven days due to the COVID-19 misinformation it was pedalling.

Sustained concerns about the dominance of News Corp in the media industry hit a nerve last month when Fox News threatened to take the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) to court concerning the content of a "Four Corners" program titled FOX & THE BIG LIE.

Both former prime minister Kevin Rudd and GetUp! continue to voice concerns that the new Sky News Regional channel will be shaped by Rupert Murdoch into a southern hemisphere version of that toxic misinformation and rightwing propaganda U.S. television channel, Fox News.

Malcolm Turnbull, another former prime minister, has also voiced concerns about the closeness of News Corp, including Fox News, to authoritarian and conservative governments.

“..the Murdoch media are much more influential within the coalition than they are in the electorate at large, just like Fox News in the States is much more influential among Republican voters than it is in the electorate at large……

The point is they are, I think, the single most influential political player in Australia but they are unelected and they are utterly unaccountable. That is what we're talking about. They do not hold themselves to traditional journalistic standards of accuracy and balance and so forth.

They would say, 'Oh look, it's a business model. We've got a percentage of the population who love being told this stuff and they like the extreme political views and so that's what we're going to do.'

Fox News in the States is commercially very successful. But that is not a justification that we can tolerate if the consequences are so much damage to our democracy”.

Morrison’s plan to use whatever is left in Coalition MPs and Senators electoral communications parliamentary allowance to fund his national election campaign has been scuttled

Australian Senate Hansard, 3 April 2019, excerpt:

REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019 Disallowance Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (21:29): I move: That item 4 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019, made under the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, be disallowed [F2019L00177]. The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Farrell, relating to the disallowance of item 4 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019, be agreed to. The Senate divided. [21:34] (The President—Senator Ryan)

Ayes ......................34 Noes ......................26 Majority.................8

The New Daily, 4 April 2019:

The Morrison government has lost a bid to allow MPs to use taxpayer-funded electoral allowances to pay for TV and radio advertisements during the looming federal election campaign.

Late on Wednesday night – in one of this parliament’s last votes before the election is called – the Senate dumped a government regulation allowing $22 million of public money to be used for political ads in the lead up to May’s federal poll.

MPs have a budget of about $137,000 for electorate communications, while senators have up to $109,000.

Under existing rules, they cannot use office expenses money to pay for content on television or radio. The government’s changes would have allowed them to use printing entitlements to buy TV and radio ads for the first time.

The Coalition had argued lifting the ban on TV and radio promotions would have put Australian media on a level playing field by ensuring all communities had the same access to information from their federal MP.

But Labor frontbencher Don Farrell, who moved the disallowance motion in the Senate, accused Prime Minister Scott Morrison of wasting taxpayers’ money in a bid to save his job.

“Publicly funded office budgets are for members and senators to communicate with their constituents – not for spamming voters with hollow election slogans from the ad man, Scott Morrison,” he said.

With the support of the Greens and a handful of crossbench senators, Labor won the disallowance vote.... 

The heroes of the hour who saved us all from what was clearly an attempt to create a lasting rort at taxpayer’s expense were:

Bilyk, CL. Carr, KJ. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Di Natale, R. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. Faruqi, M. Gallacher, AM. Griff, S. Hanson-Young, SC. Hinch, D. Ketter, CR.  (teller) Kitching, K. Lines, S. Marshall, GM. McAllister, J. McCarthy, M. McKim, NJ. O'Neill, DM. Patrick, RL. Polley, H. Pratt, LC. Rice, J. Siewert, R. Smith, DPB. Steele-John, J. Sterle, G. Storer, TR. Urquhart, AE. Waters, LJ. Watt, M. Whish-Wilson, PS. Wong, P.

Well done one and all!

What one woman from Australia intends to tell the United Nations about the Morrison Government's war on low income women with young children

“We know that poverty is unpleasant; in fact, since it is so remote, we rather enjoy harrowing ourselves with the thought of its unpleasantness, but don't expect us to do anything about it. We are sorry for you lower classes, just as we are sorry for a cat with the mange, but we will fight like devils against any improvement of your condition. We feel that you are much safer as you are.”  [George Orwell, 1933, “Down and Out inParis and London”]

If ever Australia’s captains of industry and, those elected members of the two conservative political parties they support. ever knew a period of poverty it is now so long ago that an abundance of personal income has driven all thought of it from their memories.

Thus it takes a lone woman to bring to the notice of the United Nations some of the economic and human rights injustices perpetrated by Prime Minister Scott Morrison & Co on single mothers with young children. 

The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 March 2019:

Imagine having to get someone else to provide proof you aren’t shagging anyone on a regular basis and that even if you are, you aren't getting financial support. Your own word isn't good enough any more.

That’s what happens to single mothers in Australia if they want to be eligible for welfare.

There’s a lot that goes wrong for single mums in Australia. They already have difficult lives, managing kids, jobs and life on their own. And on top of all that, there are a whole range of compliance tasks in order to get benefits, from signing endless forms to applying for a ridiculous number of jobs, a huge task all on its own.

It's a miserable life for a single mother on welfare in Australia, so hard that one woman, Juanita McLaren, has decided to take her complaint all the way to the United Nations. She says the way Australia treats single mums breaches human rights and now, the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, will be hearing from her directly at a UN Women’s conference in New York next week.

In fact, he will be presenting by her side. Huge honour and some of us might have put that on our credit cards. She had to crowdfund to get there.

McLaren, who has also had to get proof she’s not in a financially-bound relationship in order to be eligible for Newstart, worked full-time when her kids were little. Then her husband, who was the primary carer, left the family and now lives overseas.

“I just hit a wall and headed into casual work because there was always something happening with the kids.”

She had to ditch her part-time studies because she couldn’t manage financially on Newstart even though her studies were a pathway to getting better work.

Benefits were erratic and in one case, took eight weeks to arrive – finally some money arrived on Christmas Eve. She entered the wrong year on a form (who else has mixed up their birth year with the current year?) and was told it couldn’t be corrected over the phone.

It was all the little things on top of the poverty that motivated her to make a complaint.

In some respects, McLaren is fortunate. She’s had steady part-time work for a couple of years now, which is slightly seasonal. She remains registered for Newstart because of the off-season.

But it’s the constant battle with Centrelink, with managing her family and money, with being forced to apply for hopeless work she doesn’t want, that forced McLaren to turn to the UN. So far, it’s the Australian government and the UN in a deadlock about what’s harmful to single mothers.

For years now, Terese Edwards, the CEO of the National Council for Single Mothers, has campaigned for better financial support for her members. Edwards helped McLaren write her complaint, which was the first individual complaint using the optional protocol of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women; and will be at her side when she speaks at the conference…..

Cassandra Goldie, the CEO of the Australian Council of Social Services, says single mothers are easy to target and easy to vilify.

She says it’s not just impoverishment that has been relentless, it is the way in which both autonomy and agency have been removed from single mothers in direct contrast to what’s happening in the aged care sector. And she’s not just talking about the ridiculous requirement to get someone else to guarantee your relationship status.

Here’s some shocking news: One in three sole parents and their children are living in poverty according to the latest ACOSS-UNSW Poverty report. In just two years, the rate of poverty amongst unemployed single parents rose from 35 per cent to 59 per cent.

Hopefully, the United Nations will also examine the Morrison Coalition Government's punitive ParentsNext policy.

Canberra Times, 3 March 2019:

“I don’t know how you do it!” we say to them, and in the next breath: “Here, let me make it harder for you.”

This attitude is stitched into the heart of a welfare program called ParentsNext, which can require some single parents on the parenting payment to report to the state that they have taken their children to improving activities, such as swimming lessons or story time at the local library.

If they don’t comply, they can have their payments cut off, often with no notice, and no clear line of appeal. The arbiter of complaints is also the provider, the company privately contracted by the government to administer the program.

Some mothers have reported being asked to provide photographs as proof they have attended the child-focused activities. Others report the provider phoning the library, or the local pool, to verify their attendance.

Librarians as monitors, swimming instructors as social police: it’s a level of surveillance and control that would make Orwell twitch.

The program has faced a barrage of criticism from welfare groups, and was the subject of a Senate inquiry last week.

Peter Davidson, senior adviser to the Australian Council of Social Service, says the program was previously "less heavy handed”.

I spoke to one single mother-of-three this week, 32-year-old Sarah, who had a positive experience of the program in its previous incarnation. She had a good case worker who helped her into a small business course, assisting her to set up her own florist’s business. Now she is earning some income and intends to get off the parenting payment as soon as possible.

But in July 2018, the Coalition government (then led by Malcolm Turnbull) extended the program from a smaller pilot to about 70,000 single parents, 95 per cent of them women. In its expanded form, the “targeted compliance framework”, which applies to other payments such as Newstart, was imposed on ParentsNext. It is language that would make Orwell’s fingers itch.

Davidson says about a fifth of single parents on the program have had their payments suspended.

Parents are put on participation plans, ranging from vocational training to taking their children to a playgroup or "story time". This muddies the waters between the practical objective of helping women back into work after the child-rearing and the insidious policing of their parenting.

The result is bureaucrats invigilating parents from a moral, child-welfare stance, making payments dependent on proof that parenting is being done correctly.

This is a qualitative difference from other “mutual obligation” welfare requirements, because it is not about getting people off taxpayer money. It is predicated on the assumption that parents (read: mothers) on welfare must not be as “good” as other parents.

These measures assume that the poor have different social standards than the middle class, who know the correct way to nurture children, with story time and swimming classes.

They are also cruelly detached from the chaotic reality of raising small children, where leaving the house with everyone fed and clothed is itself an achievement, but one that almost never runs to time. Some days, the bad days, it doesn’t happen at all.

This kind of compliance-and-penalty system stems from the belief that the poor are not just unlucky, but they are fundamentally different from other people; that they lack the correct values, and the rectitude to pull themselves up. This is not so far from the Victorian-era belief that Orwell upturned with his memoir: that poverty is a moral failing.

This attitude can exist only when you wilfully ignore the fact that the majority of Australians will rely on government support at some stage in their lives, with millions of us slipping in and out of the safety net as our circumstances change.....

Australian Parliament, Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Inquiry into ParentsNext, including its trial and subsequent broader rollout, public hearing, Melbourne, 27 February 2019, excerpts:

Ms Edwards [Chief Executive Officer, National Council of Single Mothers and their Children]: It is unfettered power. It is shown up in a lot of ways, even as to participants' knowledge about signing a participation plan. The participation plan is like the blueprint for the engagement. You have your goals on your participation plan and then, from that, you have the flow of your activities that are meant to support those participation goals. In theory, you're allowed 10 thinking days after meeting and developing your participation plan. What we discovered in our survey which supported what women were telling us was that they would sign it in that meeting, and they would sign it because they were so compliant because the person they were sitting in front of had the power to affect their life, in terms of their payment but also in terms of their commitments. What is not well known by participants is: there is no minimum weekly activity requirement, like mutual obligations. But, because women are so aware of those mutual obligations, they start thinking that they have a similar sort of level that they must do, and they won't upset the provider because the provider can determine the activities; they can breach them—and, as Jenny said, in the blink of an eye they can breach. If the participant disagrees with the breach, the person who umpires that is the provider—they decide whether they have operated appropriately or not. There is not one independent body that manages or oversees that process. So that is why women are compliant—they're in this, and it's like they've gone down this slippery slope into hell and the only way they can come out is if they sign and do what's required. They won't upset a provider.

Ms Davidson: They don't even know about that 10-day period. With the lack of information that people are provided, they don't know about the 10-day thinking period.

Senator WATT: The way the system is supposed to work is that people are supposed to have 10 days to have a think about the proposed plan before they commit to it.

Ms Edwards: Which implies that it's two people having a mutually equal conversation about: 'What would actually help you get to where you need to go?'

Senator WATT: Yes, but, in fact, many people feel pressured to sign there and then?

 Ms Edwards: Yes, and then what else is happening, which is where the providers are working outside of their guidelines, is that they will unilaterally change activities and times. 

Senator WATT: The providers will?

Ms Edwards: Yes. And they will do that in writing, they will do that in phone calls and they will do that in texts......

Ms Buckland [Private capacity]: I'll give you an example, and it's a complicated one, because there are many issues with it, but I was contacted by a woman who had a newborn baby—she'd had it the day before. She should be exempt from ParentsNext—

CHAIR: It's supposed to apply at the very most when the baby's six months.

Ms Buckland: Yes. So it's from 34 weeks pregnant to the child being six months that there's an exemption. She wasn't able to speak to anyone about her exemption. She was still expected to mark her attendance at an activity; she was expected to attend an appointment one-week post birth. I think that there are obviously inherent issues with that kind of system. Her payments were suspended.

CHAIR: With a newborn?

Ms Buckland: With a newborn baby......

Prof. Croucher [President, Australian Human Rights Commission]:….

The commission's submission identifies five key problems with the compliance framework of ParentsNext. I will briefly remark on two of these problems. First, the detrimental effect of punitive compliance can be unjustifiably harsh. Many of Australia's most valuable parents and children rely on the parenting payment to afford basic day-to-day essentials. This includes single mothers living on or below the poverty line. Yet, under ParentsNext, these struggling families face automatic payment suspensions. This can happen for a single instance of noncompliance with a program requirement, despite having a reasonable excuse like a sick child. In the worst cases, their parenting payment can be reduced or cancelled.

Without money to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter for your family, how can human rights be realised? How can there be human dignity? Poverty erodes the enjoyment of many human rights, such as access to education, health care and participation in public life. The current operation of ParentsNext risks further entrenching poverty and inequality in Australia. It already risks reducing a parent's resilience to the complex challenges they already face, including homelessness, domestic violence and mental illness.

The commission is also concerned that there are insufficient safeguards to prevent inappropriate compliance action. For example, some punitive financial measures are automatic. Others can be made by private commercial service providers rather than by public officials.

Secondly, the claimed success of ParentsNext is not appropriately evidence based. On the basis of the evaluation of the program to date, it is not possible to conclude that the program is achieving its aims or that it has had a positive effect which outweighs the detriment of undermining the right to social security. For example, the department's evaluation of the trial program relied heavily on a survey of participants, but it didn't disclose how many people participated in the relevant survey, and it's unclear whether the sample size was statistically significant. The design and methodology of the survey were not disclosed. The department's evaluation also draws many positive conclusions about the efficacy of the program—for example, that it increases chances of employment. However, many of these conclusions are based on the opinions of survey participants rather than on objective data.

Lastly, the commission is seriously concerned about the discriminatory impacts of the program. ParentsNext is only applied to a small and targeted proportion of people receiving the parenting payment. Women and Indigenous Australians are disproportionately affected, with women comprising approximately 96 per cent of the 68,000 participants and Aboriginal and Torres Islander people approximately 19 per cent.

The human right to social security should be enjoyed equally by all, regardless of sex, race or age. Australia's domestic legislation, such as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 at the Commonwealth level, also protects the right to equality and nondiscrimination. It is unfair that the parents who are required to participate in ParentsNext are at risk of losing essential support, while the majority of parenting payment recipients can access their social security without meeting the additional onerous obligations of ParentsNext.....

People in rural and regional Australia – those bearing the brunt of climate change, drought, floods, limited services and inadequate infrastructure – deserve to know how the Morrison Government is spending their hard-earned tax dollars

Scratch the surface of that mismanaged super federal government department – the Dept. of Home Affairs in the portfolio of Minister for Home Affairs & Liberal MP for Dickson Peter Dutton – and one finds disturbing information.

Usually this information concerns the abuse of detained asylum seekers' human rights, including right to timely medical treatment and legal advice/representation.

This latest concerns a corporate entity variously identified as the Paladin Group (Paladin Australia Pty Ltd, formerly Paladin Group Pty Ltd, High Risk Security Group (Asia-Pacific) Pty Ltd, Nepean Bay SA), Paladin Solution PNG Ltd (Nepean Bay SA) and Paladin Holdings PTE Ltd (Singapore) and its est. $423 million in federal government contracts paid for from the taxpayer's dollar.

It is Paladin Holdings PTE Ltd out of Singapore (reportedly owned by Craig Trupp and Ian Stewart) which now appears to hold the primary government contract.

Despite Paladin's thin capitalisation, despite lack of corporate transparency, despite allegations of poor service delivery, despite Craig Trupp/s less than stellar business history and the fact that it appears he is no longer allowed entry to Papua New Guinea and despite another director of Paladin Solutions PNG Ltd allegedly being investigated for fraud/money laundering the Dept. of Home Affairs continues to make exclusive contacts with the Paladin Group.

This Paladin contract is fast shaping up as the new catchphrase for suspected political corruption………..

Paladin premises, Port Moresby. Image Dan Ilic

Financial Review, 17 February 2019:

The family of one of PNG's most powerful politicians is directly benefiting from Paladin's $423 million worth of security contracts on Manus Island, awarded by the federal government in a closed tender.

Documents released under Freedom of Information show in January last year Paladin Solutions PNG entered into an agreement with Peren Investment, a company controlled by the brothers of PNG's parliamentary speaker, Job Pomat.

Mr Pomat is the local member for Manus, a key ally of Prime Minister Peter O'Neill and deputy leader of the ruling People's National Congress. His family are among those who claim traditional ownership of the land where the refugees are being housed.

The agreement, for local employment and the provision of other services, came just a month after landowners blockaded the refugee transit centre in December 2017, demanding a greater share of the money being spent on the island.

When asked about any link between Paladin and PNG politicians, Attorney-General Christian Porter said it was not in his portfolio area, but such claims warranted further investigation.

"I don't have any line of sight into those sorts of claims and they have to be investigated thoroughly," he told the ABC's Insiders program on Sunday.

The issue is set to be examined further at Senate Estimates hearings on Monday and Tuesday, after a series of articles in the The Australian Financial Review raised questions about how the thinly capitalised Paladin, which had little experience, a poor reputation and no corporate structure, was awarded such a lucrative contract.

The contracts were awarded as part of a "limited tender", which typically means only one party was invited to bid.

In the days following the first Financial Review articles Paladin shuffled its ownership structure, removed information from its website and changed its Australian registered office from a beach shack on Kangaroo Island to a serviced office in Canberra. That office did not have the phone connected on Friday.

Financial Review, 15 February 2019:

One issue that raised concern was Paladin's peculiar head office set-up. The Kangaroo Island address had no listed phone number and could not receive mail from Australia Post, highlighting a general air of secrecy around the company.

The Financial Review, 13 February 2019:

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has moved to distance himself from a controversial government contractor that is providing security on Manus Island, arguing he had "no sight" of the tender process and it was a matter for department officials.

In the first public comments since The Australian Financial Review revealed little-known company Paladin was earning up to $17 million a month to provide security at three refugee centres on Manus Island after a closed tender process, Mr Dutton said those responsible were "the secretary of the department ultimately or delegated to someone within the department".

The Financial Review, 11 February 2019:

The key beneficiary of a $423 million government contract to provide security for refugees on Manus Island left a string of bad debts and failed contracts across Asia, raising further questions about how the Paladin group won such a lucrative tender.

As pressure builds on the government to explain the hefty cost of its offshore processing regime, further details have emerged about the Paladin founder, Craig Thrupp, and his time in East Timor and Indonesia.

The Financial Review, 10 February 2019:

As federal Parliament prepares for another fractious debate around refugees on Monday, an investigation by The Australian Financial Review has found the Department of Home Affairs overlooked allegations of deception, lying during the tender process and questionable payments when it extended Paladin's contract on January 3. These allegations emerged during a bitter legal dispute between Paladin and its former chief executive for PNG, Craig Coleman, who is suing the company for breach of contract.

In addition, Paladin's founder and key executive, Craig Thrupp, is no longer able to enter PNG, while another local director, Kisokau Powaseu, was detained in Port Moresby last month and charged with misappropriating funds and money laundering……

Paladin, controlled by Mr Thrupp, a former Australian soldier, and his business partner Ian Stewart, has also recently purchased the contentious PNG security outfit Black Swan, a company repeatedly forced to deny rumours it has links to the family of Prime Minister Peter O'Neill…..

"Australian taxpayers are expending a huge amount of money but we don't see much of it being utilised on the ground in Manus," said Abdul Aziz, a Sudanese refugee who has been on the island for five years.

"The maintenance service is very poor … and they have not bought any new equipment in many years," says Mr Aziz.

This was confirmed by a UNHCR report published last July which noted rooms at the East Lorengau camp were below international shelter standards for accommodation over three months, while other areas had leaking pipes, a lack of fire alarms and showers that were not working.

The report did however note improvements in other areas like the ratio of toilets and the general accommodation conditions in other camps.

Calculations by the Financial Review indicate Paladin is being paid on average $20.8 million a month by the government to provide security at all three sites and manage the East Lorengau Transit Centre. That amount has risen 48 per cent from an average of $14 million a month last year. A Home Affairs spokesperson said there were now 422 people housed at the three camps – 213 at East Lorengau, 111 at West Lorengau and 98 asylum seekers at Hillside Haus.

That means on a daily basis it now costs the Australian government over $1600 to house each refugee on Manus, not including food and welfare services, more than double the price of a suite at the Shangri-La hotel in Sydney.

Typically, profit margins are as much as 40 per cent on these contracts because of the risks involved. However, Paladin's margin is "unbelievable", according to one source familiar with the this type of work. That's because the company uses mostly local staff and its security guards earn about $2 an hour.

The company is believed to have just over a dozen expatriate staff, who might be earning $150,000 each. Home Affairs says it provides security, transport, IT services and emergency management. Even if you build in generous contingencies for evacuations, emergency response teams and local consultants, Paladin's total costs are estimated to be less than $3 million a month. That means they are pocketing more than $17 million a month to manage the East Lorengau centre and secure the three camps, which have been used as primary accommodation for refugees and asylum seekers since the offshore processing centre at the nearby Lombrum naval base was closed in October 2017.

The Guardian, 17 February 2019:

Penny Wong has indicated Labor will target the Paladin offshore detention security contract in Senate estimates this week, accusing the government of failing to explain why the company was awarded $420m in contracts through closed tender…..

Wong told reporters in Adelaide the Paladin contract had “a lot of questions around it” and it was “deeply concerning” a company with “such a poor track record” was awarded $420m.

Wong accused Porter of giving answers that were “not consistent” with Dutton’s because “this went to a closed tender – not an open tender, [it was] not an open competitive process”.

Wong accused Dutton of “trying to wash [his] hands of it”. “Tomorrow is Senate estimates – what I’d say to the government is: stop hiding.

“Why don’t you front up and tell the truth about why that contract is awarded in such circumstances, why it went to closed tender?”

Financial Review, 18 February 2019:

Paladin, the security firm at the centre of the $423 million contract scandalhas a secret office in Canberra, just three kilometres from Parliament House.

The Australian Financial Review visited an office location near the fashionable Kingston Foreshore precinct in which Paladin staff are based.

That address, however, is different to the Canberra location that was provided to corporate regulators as the company's registered office and principal place of business, in a filing last week.

Paladin had previously advised the corporate regulator that its registered office and principal place of business was a remote location on Kangaroo Island in South Australia that had no post box and was therefore unable to receive mail.

But as coverage of the secretive company, which has been awarded contracts totalling $423 million to provide security on Manus Island, has intensified, Paladin has since made changes to its address and shareholder structure.

Paladin Australia notified regulators that its shareholding had transferred from the company's Hong Kong-registered entity to the Singapore company, which is the entity granted a government contract worth $333 million. The company is owned by 38-year-old, Canberra-born former soldier CraigThrupp and 41-year-old Ian Duncan Stewart.

On Thursday, Paladin Australia also changed its registered address to a serviced office in the suburb of Barton. As of Friday, the company had not been set up with phones to receive calls.

But sources with knowledge of the company, said Paladin actually operated out of another Canberra location on Eyre Street in the Kingston district.

That address is two kilometres away from the Servcorp address provided to regulators.

There's no signage or branding of any kind outside the office and apartment block and the ground floor workspaces are covered by heavy blinds.

When the Financial Review buzzed the intercom for the unmarked offices on the ground floor, a woman answered and Mr Thrupp came to the entrance.

He did not identify himself or make any comment before going back inside the locked entrance.

Staff walked back and forth between the two secure office areas, using electronic access cards to enter and exit.

The secret office location raises further questions about Paladin and its apparent attempts at hiding its principal place of business.

Paladin's previously registered office in Kangaroo Island had no mail box, which made it near impossible for the company to receive mail and be served legal documents.

Financial Review, 19 February 2019:

Paladin affair: Fact-checking what Home Affairs said in Senate Estimates

The beach shack

Home Affairs dismissed Paladin having its Australian head office at a "beach shack" on Kangaroo Island as unimportant, saying that entity was not involved in the Manus Island contract.

Court documents show Paladin's former chief executive, Craig Coleman, who was the project director for Manus Island and exercised control over the Commonwealth contract was employed by the Australian company, which was registered to that beach shack on Kangaroo Island.

In November 2017, two months after Paladin Solutions signed its first letter of intent with the Australian government it registered with Australian regulators as a foreign entity. The registered office it provided was the "beach shack". Both directors provided this location as their address.

Fraud and money laundering

Home Affairs said the Paladin director Kisokau Powaseu who has been charged with 106 counts of fraud and one of money laundering was not a director of any entities contracted to the Commonwealth.

Under questioning Home Affairs conceded Mr Powaseu was a director of Paladin Solutions, the entity which received $89 million of payments after a letter of intent was signed in September 2017.

Paladin Solutions is registered in PNG and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Paladin Singapore, the entity which currently holds the $333 million government contract. Mr Powaseu was appointed a director of the company in May 2018.

In court documents relating to Paladin's dispute with its former CEO Mr Coleman, the company agrees Mr Powaseu was a director of Paladin Solutions PNG which was "engaged with the Australian government".

The Paladin web

The department expanded and contracted the Paladin group of companies at its convenience. On the issue of Powaseu, the department was quick to stress the point that this individual had no ties to Paladin Singapore, the entity contracted by the Australian government. (This was later found to be inaccurate - see the Fraud and money laundering section of this story.)

However, when the department wished to demonstrate Paladin's long track record, it was prepared to refer to other companies in the group including Paladin Solutions, Pomwan Paladin and Paladin Aus.

'Global' Company

Home Affairs also relied on Paladin's collection of subsidiaries in stressing it was "a global company" with clients across the region. Deputy secretary Cheryl-Anne Moy said Paladin has "a very extensive and a very experienced operation" listing among its key clients the Australian Defence Force, which used it for APEC security support and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for which it had provided security in Port Moresby for nearly three years.

The department later clarified that those clients had come to the firm via Paladin's mysterious purchase of one of PNG's biggest private security firms, Black Swan, in July last year. That was followed by an interjection from one of the senators who said the purchase had come about because "you gave them so much money." At the time the government awarded Paladin the sizeable contract, it did not have these clients.

Home Affairs also conceded Paladin's lack of experience in dealing with sizeable contracts had been one of the risks identified during the tender process. While Paladin had been operating on Manus Island, as a subcontractor to Broadspectrum and Wilson Security, these had been much smaller contracts.

In his statement of claim, former CEO Mr Coleman claimed just three weeks before being awarded the September 2017 contract Paladin was "not well prepared to perform the role provided for under the Proposal".

"Paladin did not have the corporate structure, human and other resources or processes that would permit it … to perform the roles required under the Proposal," he alleged.

Money up front

When asked whether Paladin was advanced $10 million of funds by the government prior to delivering services as part of the contract, Home Affairs initially said this was false.

Upon further questioning, it emerged Paladin was paid $5.5 million as part of a letter of intent ahead of any services it provided and subsequently received further payments totalling $89 million before a formal contract had been agreed.

Access denied

Home Affairs said it had to check whether it was made directly aware Paladin managing director and part-owner Craig Thrupp was unable to enter PNG.

That is despite the PNG government confirming on Monday "the visa of one of the directors of the company [Paladin] was cancelled because of the company not adhering to the government's position on recruitment of local labour".

Paladin also confirmed to the Financial Review a week earlier Mr Thrupp's APEC Permit (a regional visa) had been cancelled and said since then he had not attempted to enter PNG…..

BACKGROUND

Australian Government, AusTender, retrieved 18 February 2019:

CN ID: CN3496748-A2

Agency: Department of Home Affairs

Amendment Publish Date: 3-Jan-2019

Category: Management support services

Contract Period: 28-Feb-2018 to 30-Jun-2019

Contract Value (AUD): $333,546,146.40

Amendment Value (AUD): $109,239,312.00

Amendment Start Date: 1-Jan-2019

Description: Garrison Services at ELRTC & additional sites PNG

Parent CN: CN3496748

Procurement Method: Limited tender

Limited Tender Condition: 10.3.e. Additional deliveries by original supplier intended as replacement parts, extensions, or continuation for existing goods or services for compatibility.

Confidentiality - Contract: No

Confidentiality - Outputs: No

Consultancy: No

Agency Reference ID:0070021821

Supplier Details

Name: PALADIN HOLDINGS PTE LTD

Postal Address: 4 Battery Road China Building

Town/City: Singapore

Postcode: 049908

State/Territory: Outside Australia

Country: SINGAPORE

ABN: Exempt

____________________________________

CN ID: CN3496748-A1

Agency: Department of Home Affairs

Amendment Publish Date: 29-Oct-2018

Category: Management support services

Contract Period: 28-Feb-2018 to 30-Jun-2019

Contract Value (AUD): $224,306,834.40

Amendment Value (AUD): $47,430,000.00

Amendment Start Date:

1-Nov-2018 Description: Garrison Services at ELRTC & additional sites PNG

Parent CN: CN3496748

Procurement Method: Limited tender

Limited Tender Condition: 10.3.e. Additional deliveries by original supplier intended as replacement parts, extensions, or continuation for existing goods or services for compatibility.

Confidentiality - Contract: No

Confidentiality - Outputs: No

Consultancy: No

Agency Reference ID: 0070021821

Supplier Details

Name: PALADIN HOLDINGS PTE LTD

Postal Address: 4 Battery Road China Building

Town/City: Singapore Postcode: 049908

State/Territory: Outside Australia

Country: SINGAPORE

ABN: Exempt

____________________________________

Provision of Garrison Services at East Lorengau Refugee Transit Centre, Manus

CN ID: CN3470670

Agency: Department of Home Affairs

Publish Date: 27-Nov-2017

Category: Management support services

Contract Period: 21-Sep-2017 to 28-Feb-2018

Contract Value (AUD): $89,243,817.76 [contract value delivered by four separate letters of intent as per Senate Estimates Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee evidence on 18.02.2019]

Original: $39,743,817.76

Description: Provision of Garrison Services at East Lorengau Refugee Transit Centre Manus

Amendments:

CN3470670-A2 - change to contract term & value (23-Feb-2018)

Amendment Value (AUD): $16,500,000.00

CN3470670-A1 - Increased value and extended end date (28-Dec-2017)

Contract Value (AUD): $72,743,817.76

Procurement Method: Limited tender

Limited Tender Exemption: Paragraph 2.6 was applied in some part. [This contract was a direct approach to Paladin by way of an initial special measures arrangement as per Senate Estimates Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee evidence on 18.02.2019. A departmental decision was later taken to include future contacts with Paladin Holdings Singapore as special measures rather than conduct open tenders]

ATM ID: RFQ1750034

Confidentiality - Contract: No

Confidentiality - Outputs: No

Consultancy:No

Agency Reference ID: 0070020581

Supplier Details

Name: PALADIN SOLUTIONS PNG LTD

Postal Address:

PARK TOWER ANNEX, SECTION 25, ALLOTMENT 35, HUNTERS STREET, GRANVILLE

Town/City: NATIONAL CAPITAL DISTRICT

Postcode:125

State/Territory: Outside Australia

Country: PAPUA NEW GUINEA

ABN: Exempt