I have been asking the Health Department across multiple estimates a simple question. Every drug approved in Australia must be made using Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP), which is a detailed standard to ensure quality and consistency in manufacturing of pharmaceutical products.
If the “speed of science” prevented using GMP then say so. Instead, the TGA and Health Department has bobbed and weaved to prevent giving me a straight answer, and today is no different.
The last response I got was to send me a list of GMP certificates issued to Pfizer. There was no ability to check the certificates back to the injection batch numbers. This looks to me like there is a coverup to hide that the vaccines were not produced using GMP until late in the rollout. This was a decision that was not open to the TGA to make. Accepting products made in a rush may have been why the original doses were accompanied by such a high and unpredictable rate of harm. I will continue to pursue this matter.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move to good manufacturing practice. I have just two questions left. At the last estimates, I tried to get to the bottom of whether every batch of Pfizer COVID injections was made using good manufacturing processes. If they were not, that may explain the huge variance in adverse events between batches. If they were made with good manufacturing processes, there is another cause we really need to understand for the huge number of excess deaths. In your answer on notice, you did not answer the question, but you gave me a list of entries in your manufacturing information database. This is a little confusing, because your answer does not allow me to check good manufacturing process certificates off against batch numbers. What your data tells me is that all of these good manufacturing process certificates were issued as a result of a desktop audit rather than an in-person inspection, which means you took the manufacturers’ word for it based on whatever it was they sent you. Is that correct?
Prof. Lawler : Thank you for the question. I would just highlight that we’ve received these questions regarding the batch testing of vaccines and the associated release a number of times before, and we’ve answered these questions—most recently, I think, SQ23-002145. Those answers are clearly on the record.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s not the one I have. Secondly, there are 44 good manufacturing process certificates for all COVID vaccines, yet there are 410 batches listed in your COVID vaccine batch release assessment. Some of those are duplications and some, admittedly, are for AstraZeneca, but the number seems off. Can you please give me on notice a full list of Pfizer batch numbers and the corresponding good manufacturing process—or is it true that good manufacturing process was only used from the bivalent vaccines onwards?
Prof. Lawler : Thank you for the question. I’m happy to either take that on notice or to return to that under outcome 1.8 when my—
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could take it on notice.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/qfO7pK-GOxQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-02-23 10:31:502024-02-23 10:31:55Good Manufacturing Practice and the COVID “Vaccines”
We’re told in the media that ‘vaccine’ mandates are over, yet my office hears from many Australians who are refused employment or threatened with being sacked from their jobs unless they take two, sometimes three jabs. What is the current guidance on mandates in the health sector? Department of Health has no particular view and says it can be the employer’s individual decision — there is no national policy or vaccine mandate in place. The Minister has not heard of anyone, including nurses, being sacked recently.
The terms of reference inquiry for a potential COVID Royal Commission involved witnesses who gave this testimony. Despite an alarming shortage of nurses and other healthcare workers, skilled and willing staff are being rejected for their decision based on informed consent. We hear from many healthcare workers and others from across Australia who are still faced with the ‘no jab, no job’ discrimination to this day.
This looks very much like the rule of “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” is being applied by the Minister and the health department. Until they take responsibility and offer a position around employers’ choices over applying mandates there will continue to be a ‘free for all’ on the use of coercion and discrimination to the detriment of individuals and our health care services.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Turning to vaccine mandates—COVID injections—while the media are being fed a line that vaccine mandates are over, my electorate office is getting reports from health workers who are being refused re-employment for not having two COVID injections. What is the health department’s current guidance on vaccine mandates for employment in the health sector?
Prof. Singer : Apologies, Senator. Could you—
Senator ROBERTS: Do you want me to repeat the question?
Prof. Singer : Yes, please.
Senator ROBERTS: While the media are being fed a line that vaccine mandates are over, my electorate office is getting reports from health workers who are being refused re-employment—some have even been sacked in the last two weeks—for not having two COVID injections. What’s the health department’s current guidance on vaccine mandates for employment in the health sector?
Prof. Singer : I’ll just need to look that up. I believe that there may be some in relation to aged care, but we don’t have any particular view on mandates generally. Obviously, they are individual agreements between employers and employees. There is no national mandate as such, to my knowledge.
Senator ROBERTS: Does it bother you, Minister, that there are some state health departments, including Queensland, where nurses are being sacked for not having their two injections and for choosing to go on their informed consent?
Senator McCarthy: I’m unaware of that. Of course, it would be a concern that they can raise in each jurisdiction. But, as the Acting Chief Medical Officer has said, there is no national policy in place on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move to good manufacturing practice. I have just two questions left. At the last estimates, I tried to get to the bottom of whether every batch of Pfizer COVID injections was made using good manufacturing processes. If they were not, that may explain the huge variance in adverse events between batches. If they were made with good manufacturing processes, there is another cause we really need to understand for the huge number of excess deaths. In your answer on notice, you did not answer the question, but you gave me a list of entries in your manufacturing information database. This is a little confusing, because your answer does not allow me to check good manufacturing process certificates off against batch numbers. What your data tells me is that all of these good manufacturing process certificates were issued as a result of a desktop audit rather than an in-person inspection, which means you took the manufacturers’ word for it based on whatever it was they sent you. Is that correct?
Prof. Lawler : Thank you for the question. I would just highlight that we’ve received these questions regarding the batch testing of vaccines and the associated release a number of times before, and we’ve answered these questions—most recently, I think, SQ23-002145. Those answers are clearly on the record.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s not the one I have. Secondly, there are 44 good manufacturing process certificates for all COVID vaccines, yet there are 410 batches listed in your COVID vaccine batch release assessment. Some of those are duplications and some, admittedly, are for AstraZeneca, but the number seems off. Can you please give me on notice a full list of Pfizer batch numbers and the corresponding good manufacturing process—or is it true that good manufacturing process was only used from the bivalent vaccines onwards?
Prof. Lawler : Thank you for the question. I’m happy to either take that on notice or to return to that under outcome 1.8 when my—
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could take it on notice.
I asked the Human Rights Commission how much they spend on legal intervention for people who lost their job due to vaccine mandates, then moved onto the topic of sex and gender.
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) subscribes to the belief that sex can be changed after birth as recognised in law throughout Australia. The meaning of the words ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ will be argued at the Federal Court level with the assistance of the AHRC. I probed Dr Anna Cody, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, about the matter she is involved with as a “friend of the court”. The HRC has intervened in a recent Federal Court case known as “Tickle and Giggle” and will be assisting in this case, which will argue that ‘sex’, as in gender, isn’t real. The biological realities of sex appear to matter less than how people express their sexuality or gender identity. Dr Cody will assist the Federal Court to understand changes to the Sex Discrimination Act that occurred in 2013, to ascertain the validity of the changes under the Constitution and the Civil and Political Rights Convention.
Make no mistake, the sex and gender insanity is a direct attack on families, originating from foreign bodies like the corrupt World Health Organisation. One Nation will fight it every step of the way.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Croucher and your team, for being here. I’d like to get some information from you about your interventions and then discuss a particular case that I understand the Human Rights Commission is involved in. First, to the information, how much has the Australian Human Rights Commission spent on legal representations in immigration matters? You’ll have to take that on notice, I’m sure.
Prof. Croucher : Yes, I will take it on notice. In terms of ‘immigration matters’, I’m not sure what you mean by—
Senator ROBERTS: Advocacy for immigrants.
Prof. Croucher : Our general human rights work could include issues pertaining to immigration, but that would be very hard to particularise, because it’s part of a general mandate. In terms of involvement in external litigation, we have a little bit of intervention work that I can speak to, but it would be very hard to speak about particulars of the kind that you’re asking for. I don’t know that we can really help there.
Senator ROBERTS: We’d just like some indication of how much money is spent by the Human Rights Commission on supporting immigration matters.
Prof. Croucher : I can certainly take the question on notice, but with respect to the answer that we might be able to give, it’ll be fairly general, I would think. But we’ll do our best, Senator.
CHAIR: You can only answer what you’ve been asked.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.
Prof. Croucher : I’ll honour your question by taking it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: How much has it spent in total on legal matters?
Prof. Croucher : Again, if I can, I’ll take that on notice. I can give, as a specific example, the amount we spent on intervening in the recent High Court case, the NZYQ matter. I know that figure off the top of my head. But in terms of total engagement, over what period are you interested?
Senator ROBERTS: The last decade.
Prof. Croucher : The last decade. To the extent that we can, we will provide that information; otherwise, if I may suggest it, we might reflect a more contained period to give an example of an answer to that.
Senator ROBERTS: We’d just like to get an indication of the priorities, that’s all—in terms of the money and where it goes. If 10 years is ridiculously impossible, then use a shorter period. I just want to get some indication.
Prof. Croucher : An indication, yes. It’s not very much. I can give you that indication.
Senator ROBERTS: How many cases has the Australian Human Rights Commission intervened in or appeared in for an Australian who lost a job due to a vaccine mandate, a COVID injection mandate?
Prof. Croucher : We don’t appear for people in that way. We may seek to intervene or our commissioners may seek to act as amicus within their mandates, but we don’t act for people in that way.
Senator ROBERTS: How many have you intervened in?
Prof. Croucher : With respect to that particular topic, I don’t know of any, but, again, I will confirm that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to a case. Can you explain the commission’s intervention in the Federal Court case Tickle v Giggle to argue that sex—as in gendered sex—isn’t real? I’m told you’ve intervened in that.
Prof. Croucher : It’s the exercise of an amicus function of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Perhaps Commissioner Cody might like to speak to you directly about that.
Dr Cody : The role that the commission is playing in that matter is as amicus curiae.
Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean?
Dr Cody : It means friend of the court. Our role is to try to help the court understand some of the complex issues. Our role in intervening is to help understand the meaning of section 5B. It’s one of the first times that the Federal Court will be considering the changes to the Sex Discrimination Act that were introduced in 2013. There’s also a constitutional challenge as to whether or not it is valid under the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We’re intervening on those two issues.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many letters after LGB does the commission recognise?
Dr Cody : We use a range of terms to refer to the communities. Sometimes we would refer to LGBTQIA+ because of the ways in which people refer to themselves. We also use the terms that are referred to in international discussions, which are sexual orientation, gender identity expression and ‘SC’, which for the moment escapes me but is another term that is used at an international level.
Senator ROBERTS: In the Human Rights Commission submission for Tickle v Giggle, apparently the commission has argued that sex is not a biological concept, nor does it refer to male or female. Is that correct?
Dr Cody : In our submissions, as in the Sex Discrimination Act itself, the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ are not defined. We refer to the understanding of ‘woman’ which can be both the sex that is identified at birth but also through identification through birth certificates at all state and territory levels. A person can change their recognised sex through the birth certificate recognition.
Senator ROBERTS: So the Human Rights Commission believes that sex can be changed after birth.
Dr Cody : That is recognised in law around all of the states and territories in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Sex is not binary, limited to male or female—another intervention?
Dr Cody : That is an argument that will occur at the Federal Court—the meanings of the words ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’.
Senator ROBERTS: To be considered female, it just needs to say ‘female’ on a birth certificate, which a male can do at any stage of life. That’s your view?
Dr Cody : No, that’s not the view of the commission. The submissions that we have made in the Federal Court and will argue when it comes to the full hearing of the case will be looking at how that is understood within the Sex Discrimination Act and the meaning that is ascribed. As I’ve referred to both, that includes, for a man or woman, the sex that you identified with at birth but also can be changed—or recognised—through the process of altering your birth certificate.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m quoting here. ‘At least as early as the 1990s, it has been accepted that sex is changeable.’ What happened before the 1990s?
Dr Cody : It was not recognised in law.
Senator ROBERTS: The words ‘female’ and ‘woman’ include men who claim to be women. You’ve validated that. Do you really believe these submissions are in line with the biological reality of sex and with most of Australians’ views? I take it you don’t, but that is the way the law sees it.
Dr Cody : My role as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is to apply the Sex Discrimination Act and to intervene to assist the Australian community to achieve gender equality and also to achieve the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community. That is a part of our role acting as friend of the court in this case.
Senator ROBERTS: What changed in 1990?
Dr Cody : I think there was a growing understanding at an international level and also domestically of the range of ways in which people express their sexuality and also their gender identity.
Senator ROBERTS: So this is about expression, not science or body.
Dr Cody : I think it’s probably a combination. Bodies haven’t changed, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that sex operations, I’m told, offer only two options: male and female?
Dr Cody : I can’t help you with that question.
Senator ROBERTS: To me it seems like this is supporting an attack on family. I recognise that there can be same-sex couples having a perfectly good family, so I’m not criticising that, but this is breaking up the family. You said it came from overseas—internationally. Broader Australians don’t seem to see this as an issue. Why are we spending so much time on it?
Senator Chisholm: You’re the one spending time on it!
Senator ROBERTS: Correct—because so many people are now concerned, including Queenslanders.
Dr Cody : I think there are many people in the community for whom these are important issues, and it’s important that we can discuss them. Many in the LGBTQIA+ communities experience severe discrimination, so we need to ensure that everyone in our community can experience the full range of human rights.
The Australia Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) will be using your money to partially fund batteries costing $2.7 billion.
These batteries are 2 gigawatt, which sounds impressive, until the officials confirm they will last only 2 hours out of the whole day. Compare that to a 2 gigawatt coal-fired power station that can be run at 95% capacity factor or 23 hours a day.
We’ll get much cheaper power per gigawatt-hour if we just use coal, abandon the net zero lunacy and all of it’s expensive requirements like grid-forming batteries.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. My questions go to the cost, capacity and suitability of large-scale battery storage. I’m going to reference the Large Scale Battery Storage Funding Round from 2022. ARENA put $176 million of taxpayers’ funds into eight batteries, with a total of two gigawatts of dispatchable power. That was in the media release from Chris Bowen on 17 December 2022. For how long could those batteries dispatch that full two gigawatts of power?
Mr Miller : On average, across that portfolio of eight batteries it’s approximately just over two hours at full power.
Senator ROBERTS: Two hours at—
Mr Miller : Full power.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total of gigawatt hours that those batteries represent?
Mr Miller : I think that 4.4 gigawatt hours is the total.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Have all eight of the batteries been constructed?
Mr Miller : Not yet. They’re under construction—at least half of them are under construction. Some of them might have been completed—a couple of the earlier ones. We announced quite recently that the AGL battery has actually doubled in capacity since we announced the funding. They’ve chosen to increase the capacity by two times. And there are another three or four that are still to be announced as reaching financial close and construction.
Senator ROBERTS: How many have been built?
Mr Miller : Do you have that?
Mr Kay : Yes. Two are currently in advanced construction—
Senator ROBERTS: So none have been built?
Mr Kay : None are operational at this stage, but there are two that are in advanced construction and others that are at various stages of planning and preconstruction.
Senator ROBERTS: So there are two at advanced stages of construction and no others under construction?
Mr Kay : Yes, that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the total cost of those projects—well, they’re still underway. What is the total cost now envisaged to be?
Mr Miller : As you suggested, correctly, ARENA’s commitment was $176 million. Mr Kay might have the precise number for the capital costs of those batteries, but I recall that our grant sizing was about seven per cent of the cost of the batteries—a substantial cost, in the billions of dollars, for those eight batteries.
Senator ROBERTS: So we’ll just have to work out the total cost by dividing by seven or eight and multiplying by 100. Something on that media release intrigued me in preparing for today—that media release from 17 December 2022. It talks repeatedly—at least three times—of ‘grid forming inverter’ technology. What is ‘grid forming’? Or is that just a mistake from ‘grid firming’?
Mr Miller : No. It’s correct language. Grid forming means that those batteries have the capability to provide very high frequency support to the energy system. So you would know that the energy system operates at 50 hertz, so 50 cycles a second. That ability to keep the grid operating at 50 cycles a second is traditionally provided by spinning generators from coal and gas plants.
Senator ROBERTS: Hydro, nuclear—
Mr Miller : Not nuclear; we don’t have that in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: No. But nuclear can provide it.
Mr Miller : In theory, yes. If we had that, it would provide it. But, in Australia, that’s provided by coal, gas and hydro. And, in the absence of coal and gas, what we need is resources to do the job of keeping the grid at that 50 hertz frequency, keeping the system stable, providing the right voltage waveform, and also being able to what’s called ‘black start’—have the grid commence operation from nothing—and that is not a service that traditional batteries without grid forming inverters can provide. What the grid forming inverters provide is the ability to form the wave signal of the grid and stand up the grid without any other support.
Senator ROBERTS: So, correct me if I’m wrong, I’ll just put it into simple language, coal, nuclear, hydro and gas are all synchronous power generation sources, and they’re stable. Whereas, solar and wind are asynchronous and need something added to make sure they’re stable and produce 50 hertz.
Mr Miller : That’s a fair lay representation of the scenario. Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I also was intrigued to notice that Minister Bowen’s press release on 17 September 2022 said:
Over the past decade, we saw policy chaos cause a reduction of 3GW of dispatchable power in the grid, enough to power over two million homes.
What was the cause of that loss of 3 gigawatts? He’s saying that it’s policy. But was that specifically coal fired or gas fired exiting?
Mr Miller : I haven’t delved into those numbers. I’m sure they are correct; but I wouldn’t be best placed to comment on generators entering and exiting the market. I’d refer that question to Minister Bowen if he [inaudible] it.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Who do I refer it to now to take on notice?
Senator McAllister: Senator, over the period in question it is the case that 4 gigawatts of dispatchable generation capacity left the system and only one was constructed to replace it, or commissioned to replace it. I do not have the source document for that fact, but I have examined it before and I can assure you that it’s possible to obtain it, so I’ll take that on notice and get back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Last question, Chair. Mr Miller, in your opening statement you say in financial year 2022-2023 ARENA approved $544.1 million—that’s over half a billion dollars—60 projects valued at over $3.5 billion, representing the agency’s largest value of funds approved in a single year. How many of those funds were deployed on investments that were needed because of solar and wind? In other words, are they additional costs to solar and wind?
Mr Miller : As a general statement, ARENA hasn’t supported to any material degree wind projects. Wind has been commercial since the agency [inaudible]
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, I wasn’t clear in my question. I didn’t mean that you’re investing in solar and wind; I meant that you’re investing in technology or equipment that is needed because solar and wind, for example, is unstable. Or are they to supplement solar and wind?
Mr Miller : If you take those battery projects, for example, which would have fed into that number of $544 million, absolutely, clearly one of the things we were trying to do in that program is provide supporting technology to allow further penetration of solar and wind. So that kind of work, plus the work we do on grid integration—one of our key priorities—would be to support increasing shares of solar and wind energy. Ultimately, all of the technologies we support are in the furtherance of increasing the renewable energy penetration and competitiveness in Australia. So even the hydrogen work that we do—while I couldn’t characterise it as being needed to support solar and wind; it is a technology set that relies on increased penetrations of cheap solar and wind to provide the energy source to make the hydrogen. So it’s ultimately all related to renewable energy supply and competitiveness. All of that funding would be [inaudible]
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for a very clear answer. So these are additional costs that are needed for solar and wind. I wonder if gen costs from CSIRO incorporates them—that’s not for you; that’s just a wonder.
Hydropower comes from flowing water and for that you need the key ingredient — water. While Snowy 2 will pump water up and then generate electricy by letting it flow down, its’ water needs are much more than just re-using the same water.
Snowy 2’s profitability depends on keeping water in storage to provide immediate baseload power when the unreliables in the grid go down from inclement weather. What we do know is there’s definitely no water in the high mountains as an insurance policy essential for underwriting the unreliable solar and wind power generation.
All the water in Tantangarra is needed for environmental flows into the upper Murrumbidgee. Water taken from the lower dam, Talbingo, is water owned by other users.
I would have thought a $12 billion scheme that uses water for electricity generation would have already sorted out where that water is coming from, but apparently not! I put questions to the department around water availability, water licences, and agreements. I also asked whether Snowy Hydro has sufficient water allocated to meet its agreed insurance policy against the shortfalls of wind and solar.
The responses suggest the disaster movie that is Snowy 2.0 is still playing Act 1.0.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I want to reference the Snowy Montane Rivers Increased Flows: Safety Management Plan 2022-2027. The plan calls for increased flows into the upper Murrumbidgee in a series of high-flow releases from Tantangara Dam. Page 37 is headed ‘Key issues/considerations’. The very first one refers to an increase of 40,755 megalitres to be released into Snowy montane rivers from Tantangara reservoir. This is an increase of 35,800 megalitres from the 2022-23 water year. Is that correct?
Ms Connell: I don’t have that document in front of me. We can take it on notice to look at that. Given conditions over the last couple of years, I wouldn’t be surprised if there had been an increase from 2021-22 to 2022-23. I would need to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems to be to repair or restore the Murrumbidgee. I am not arguing that case.
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I think you’ve heard the official say that she doesn’t have the document in front of her.
Senator ROBERTS: I will get it on notice.
Senator McAllister: If you did want to ask further questions about that, presumably we can find it. Providing the reference would assist us to do so.
Senator ROBERTS: It is by the New South Wales government. You can have this, if you like.
CHAIR: Maybe table it, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Tantangara storage holds 250 gigalitres. However, Tantangara reservoir has never been more than 70 per cent full in the 23 years to December 2020. This means there has never been water available to generate 350 gigawatt hours of electrical energy. In addition, the long-term average weekly volume of the Tantangara reservoir in the same 23 years is 18.15 per cent, which allows only 32 gigalitres to be used for generation. The long-term average storage available in Talbingo is found to be approximately 33 gigalitres. These new high-surge flows, plus the existing daily water inflow into the upper Murrumbidgee, will account for 100 per cent of the water storage in Tantangara, based on the last 23 years of inflows. There’s no water in Tantangara for Snowy 2.0. Is this correct?
Mr Fredericks: Senator, in fairness to you, the questions that you are asking are really about the business of Snowy Hydro Ltd. I suspect they will be able to give you a high-quality answer to your question. If it is okay, I will take that on notice for them to come back on notice and respond to it.
Senator ROBERTS: I would like you to answer it.
Mr Fredericks: I can’t answer it. I will take it on notice.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the officials from the department will answer what they can. In directing your questions, if the questions are about the operation of Snowy, they need to go to Snowy.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that.
CHAIR: The department can help you, via the interface they have there.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, Chair, very clearly.
Senator DAVEY: To be fair, I was at the Snowy hearing. Senator Roberts did ask these questions of Snowy, and Snowy were a bit ambivalent and suggested that he ask the department.
CHAIR: Put them on notice to both sets and then, through the committee, we’ll deal with whether the response covers your questions.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to know because Snowy Hydro 2.0 said, ‘There’s plenty of water in Tantangara.’ Clearly, there is not.
Mr Fredericks: I will take that on notice for Snowy Hydro.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I would like you to answer the question about the availability of water. This is crucial.
Mr Fredericks: That is fair enough. I will take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: The water in Tantangara cannot be used for hydro via the existing connection to Lake Eucumbene, which flows into the Murray, or the new Snowy 2.0 connection, which flows into the Tumut and then the lower Murrumbidgee. This means that all the water for Snowy 2.0 will have to be pumped up from Talbingo before coming down. That’s not a problem. We understand that, because with pumped hydro you either start with the water at the bottom or you start with the water at the top and you end up in the same place. My critical question is about the availability of water. Here is the second question. Snowy 2.0 is making one-third of its revenue from selling insurance policies to underwrite the lack of continuity of supply of unreliable wind and solar as generators. The basic idea is that if an unreliable renewable project, like solar and wind, can’t supply its contracted power then Snowy will let the water flow down the hill and generate power for them. One-third of the revenue of Snowy 2.0 comes from insurance, we were told.
That suggests the water must be available in Tantangara year round to provide for immediate electricity dispatch. We’re talking about critical peak hour generation. The water in Tantangara is fully allocated, so water will have to be pumped up the hill and stored against future needs, under these insurance contracts. Some of that will be lost in seepage and evaporation—quite a lot. How has that been dealt with in Snowy Hydro’s water licence? Does Snowy Hydro have a water licence?
Mr Fredericks: I’ll need to take that on notice. In deference to you, I’ll take it on notice for Snowy and for the department as well.
Senator ROBERTS: I would like an answer from your department in particular. We can get it from Snowy. Do they have water agreements?
Mr Fredericks: On notice.
Senator ROBERTS: If they do have any water agreements, are they sufficient to match the insurance policy that Snowy Hydro is going to be getting one-third of its revenue from?
Mr Fredericks: On notice for both—Snowy Hydro and us.
Senator ROBERTS: This deals with water in the high mountains. Thank you very much.
At Senate Estimates, I asked the National Energy Management Institute about reports that have come out regarding the massive backlog of controlled burns still to be carried out. Only 20% of annual burn offs have been completed across Australia. This puts the country at greater risk of more severe bush fires. It’s hoped that the states and territories will put additional efforts into the work that still needs to be done.
I spoke about my visit to the Far North of Queensland in the wake of Cyclone Jasper and how the local residents did amazing work, pitching in to help each other with cleaning up and getting roads open again. The community efforts are an inspiration despite the delays in help arriving and lack of leadership.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Who monitors the progress of controlled burning in relation to bushfires?
Mr Buffone : The states and territories specifically monitor the fuel reduction programs in each state. It’s different across each state. In some areas it’s rural fire services or country fire services. In other areas it’s a land management agency. But it very clearly sits with the states and territories in terms of managing, monitoring and delivering on their targets.
Senator ROBERTS: What have the various states and territories said in terms of goals for controlled burning?
Mr Buffone : Last year they had challenges meeting their targets. That was because the window to undertake burning programs was reduced quite significantly—first of all because of the wet periods, then also because of some of the extreme heat. So the window was significantly smaller. What they did do though, as things eased in relation to La Nina, was to start to bring on additional personnel to start to focus on the higher risk areas. They also looked at other options in relation to mechanical clearing and that sort of activity, and also worked with communities so that communities could undertake their own fuel reduction and fuel management across the country. But, without a doubt, the period in which to achieve that burning has reduced.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re aware that they haven’t achieved much. In fact, reporting in December by Jonathan Lea of Sky News indicated New South Wales had only achieved 20 per cent of its hazard reduction burns halfway through the year. Have you had any up-to-date figures on that?
Mr Buffone : I don’t have up-to-date figures with me. As I said, we met with the commissioners and chief officers from around the country. It was basically a collaborative discussion around this particular issue, and they advised that they were putting significant effort into trying to increase the work done to reduce the risk. The other key thing is that they are having more of a focus on higher risk areas and different techniques, around townships in particular. That’s pretty much around the country.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems to be. Sky News Australia said it:
… can exclusively reveal the RFS has “hazard reduced” around 60,000 hectares—roughly 20 percent—of its 300,000-hectare target at almost the half-way point of the … year.
The same article went on to discuss how far behind various states were. Can you please take on notice to provide anything further that you have in terms of detail around controlled burn goals being set and how much is being fulfilled across the country.
Mr Buffone : We can take that on notice. As I said, we don’t specifically monitor it, so we will ask the states and territories to provide that information.
Senator ROBERTS: If we aren’t doing controlled burns then governments are basically setting the country up to burn in worse bushfires. Why aren’t controlled burns a huge priority for you as a national emergency management agency?
Mr Buffone : It’s not that they’re not a huge priority for us. It’s actually that we don’t have any jurisdiction at all over controlled burning, nor do we have the legislation or even the human resources. It is a state and territory responsibility with all of the legislation and management arrangements that sit within those jurisdictions.
Senator ROBERTS: That answers my questions. Minister, I just thought I’d make a comment. I went up to the Bloomfield area earlier this year, mid-January. Some of the residents were saying that they had very high praise for the quality of the individual workers in various agencies—state and federal. There was a lack of leadership and coordination overall through the project. I know that’s not the liaison officer’s function so I’m not having a go at you. In Bloomfield there was a three- to four-week delay of people just getting in there and doing anything at all—even to start. And I agree with you; the locals did a marvellous job in reopening roads and sharing each other’s workloads. It was amazing.
Senator Watt: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I’m certainly aware of that. After every disaster, unfortunately, we see—you know, people go through a lot in those experiences. Sometimes people don’t get exactly the level of support that they would like to see, whether it be from local, state or federal governments. What I can say is that I know that in the relatively early stages there were Queensland government SES personnel in the communities in and around Bloomfield. I’d have to check whether, specifically, they were in Bloomfield and on what date. We also deployed people from Disaster Relief Australia to work in some of those communities as well. That’s a veteran led volunteer organisation that we are funding so it can expand its reach. There did end up being ADF personnel in some of those communities as well. Again, I’d have to work out exactly who was in Bloomfield, as opposed to [inaudible] Degarra and some of the other communities. I know that SES personnel were in Degarra, for example—
CHAIR: In the first week of January.
Senator Watt: So relatively soon. Equally, I recognise that community members did an enormous amount themselves. We do see that after disasters as well. But governments do work together as much as we can to try to get other resources in as quickly as we can. In those areas there was an additional complication around access—to simply get people in. One of the things that we ended up getting the ADF to do was to actually provide, effectively, barge services to get personnel and equipment in to help with the recovery. But we couldn’t get people in until access was available. So sometimes these things do take a little longer than what people would like to see, but I can assure you there was a lot of effort that went in across all levels of government to get people support.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/cMsWAE5N-VE/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-02-23 09:03:152024-02-23 09:03:20Backlog of Burn-Offs Runs the Risk of Severe Bush Fires
Recently, supervision of the Banking Code of Practice moved from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), who have initiated a thorough review of the code. This first draft of the new code has many shortcomings, and I asked about these. From their answers, it is clear that ASIC are across the shortcomings in the code and I felt they are serious about making the new code a better document that provides stronger protections for customers. A lot of protests have quite rightly occurred around the closure of bank branches.
The truth is that banks are allowed to do that because the banking code contains no provision requiring the banks to provide face to face banking. Also missing from the new code is a guarantee of access to cash and a guarantee of banking services. Currently banks are de-banking competitors like bullion dealers and crypto exchanges. They are also closing bank branches and ATMs to reduce access to cash which they can’t easily monitor or control.
I was encouraged by the answers from Deputy Chair, Sarah Court of ASIC and I look forward to the next draft of the 2024 Banking Code of Practice. Bank customers deserve better protections than APRA have provided in recent years.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Can I start by confirming our meeting will occur on 19 March on the subject of the security of companies offering bullion storage and sales services in Australia.
Ms Court : That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to that. Total compensation for the ‘fee for no service’ scandal was $4.7 billion. Since those compensation payments, do you believe financial institutions have fixed their systems and this practice is no longer happening?
Mr Longo : I’ll ask Deputy Chair Court to comment on that. I think it’s a truism that systems and processes of the banks are always in need of improvement and enhancement, so one can never be certain that those systems will be fixed forever. We certainly think a lot of progress has been made coming out of the royal commission. I know Deputy Chair Court has done some work in this area as well.
Ms Court : I don’t think I’d ever presume to say that the issues of fees for no service or the compliance and legacy systems of large financial institutions have been completely fixed. I think there’s been progress made. As you say, there have been billions of dollars of remediation. There have also been multimillion-dollar penalties applied by courts in relation to that conduct. We continue to have cases where fees for no service are being alleged, and we are continuing to investigate them and take court action where it’s appropriate.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s pleasing. Do you think the amount of compensation, $4.7 billion, met or exceeded the revenue that was illegally obtained by financial institutions for the ‘fee for no service’ scam?
Ms Court : I think you’d have to ask that question of those institutions. The remediation figure is eye watering.
Senator ROBERTS: I will turn now to the new mandatory Banking Code of Practice that ASIC will consider recommending to the minister. The Australian Banking Association, led by former Labor premier Anna Bligh, has extended coverage to include buy-now pay-later providers by including them in the phrase, ‘Each bank will exercise the care and skill of a diligent and prudent banker.’ Does that phrase provide a quantifiable legal protection to customers, or is it utterly meaningless?
Ms O’Rourke : I’m happy to assist in relation to the banking code. I might just clarify. In your introduction, you referred to it as a mandatory code, and you also referred to it being taken to the minister. Industry codes aren’t mandatory. You’re right that the banking industry has developed one. The approval process is also one that, if chosen by the industry association, comes to ASIC. It’s an ASIC approval process, not a ministerial one.
If I come to your particular question about the terms of the code, the code that exists now commenced in 2018. I think, as you’re alluding to, the Australian Banking Association, who wrote the code, and its members, who signed up to it, have been going through a process of updating the code and have proposed to bring it to ASIC for additional approval—for approval under the statutory scheme. One of the issues that are live in that process is the question of the inclusion of the phrase ‘prudent and diligent banker’, which you’ve called out. In the existing code, the one that exists now that was approved in 2018—and there have been some revisions approved since—that phrase is included. In the proposed code, the draft code that’s been prepared, there’s a question about whether it can come out on the basis that it’s duplicative of the responsible lending obligations that already apply to bankers. So that’s the issue.
As to its progress, I’ll give you some further information. The ABA had done a consultation process to develop the draft code. We now, at ASIC, are doing a consultation process associated with our consideration of approving it because of the importance of these codes to all banking consumers—all Australians. These codes really matter, and making sure that they are suitable in their content and meet the statutory requirements is something we take very seriously. We are undertaking a consultation process. That particular question is one of the ones we’re seeking submissions on and very carefully considering.
Senator ROBERTS: I think I’ll be coming back to that, Ms O’Rourke. I’ll move quickly because the chair’s needing to hurry.
CHAIR: I’m staring at you, Senator Roberts, but thank you for proceeding quickly.
Senator ROBERTS: I raised the fee for no service earlier for a reason. The clause in the proposed Australian Banking Association code, chapter 12, No. 31, used to read that the bank ‘will make sure we have your agreement’ on charging a fee for a new service. That clause has been removed from the new code, meaning the bank does not need to get a customer’s permission before charging them a fee for a new service. If a bank doesn’t get my permission, under the new code can they simply start charging me for services that I did not agree to or may not know I’m being charged for? Are they unwinding your good work on the fee for no service?
Ms O’Rourke : I’m not particularly aware of that proposed deletion. I think I might take on notice any background relevant to that. The general answer is that there are provisions widely in the code that would be relevant to whether fees for no service can be charged, and indeed I think my colleagues have spoken to the important work ASIC has taken to ensure that that sort of activity does not occur.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you show me in the draft code where it provides a guarantee of face-to-face banking services that means access to a bank branch?
Ms O’Rourke : I think that in both the existing code and proposed code the question around branch closures, which is what I think you’re alluding to, is covered by reference to a protocol that exists about the provisions that a bank will consider on decisions as to whether or not it provides banking services in particular communities. It’s not framed, as far as I’m aware, in the way that you’ve framed it: as a right. I can’t point to that, if that’s what you’re seeking.
Senator ROBERTS: Debanking is proving to be a real problem across businesses that are alternatives to the bank system. Banks are debanking bullion dealers, crypto brokers and third-party cash transit companies. Is there anything in this code of practice that guarantees banking services for customers who use cash, bullion or cryptocurrency?
Ms O’Rourke : I’m going to have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there anything in this draft that guarantees access to the King’s currency—cash?
Ms O’Rourke : Not that I’m aware of, but I’m happy to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you show me where it says something like, ‘We undertake to not terminate your banking services for your political views unless a criminal conviction has resulted,’ or similar? As written, the code gives no protection for a customer who exhibits wrongthink on social media, for instance. This is a problem.
Ms O’Rourke : I think that’s a statement.
CHAIR: Last question, thank you, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is the sentence, ‘We will engage with you in a fair, reasonable and ethical manner,’ being replaced with ‘efficient, honest and fair’? Is there no room for ethics in modern banking, and is the term ‘efficiency’ used so that the bank can say it’s not efficient for them?
Ms O’Rourke : I think you’re right to point out that that’s one of the important distinctions between the existing code and the proposed one, and therefore it’s one of the areas that we are consulting on to understand stakeholders’ views on that proposed change. I’m agreeing with you that it’s an important issue for us to explore to understand the basis for the proposed change and what the consequences would be.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that the Consumer Action Law Centre describes the new code as offering no overall improvements in consumer protection? Do you, ASIC, agree with this characterisation, and will ASIC add extra protections yourself before forwarding the code?
Ms O’Rourke : As I referred to, we’re right in the middle of a consultation process which includes listening to stakeholders about their perspectives on the new code. We’re taking careful consideration of all the issues that are raised before we move to the decision point that I described earlier.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I must say that I appreciate the direct and immediate answers.
There are currently two separate proposals being promoted by the WHO to increase their power. Firstly, the new Pandemic Agreement and secondly, changes to the WHO’s ‘operating manual’, the International Health Regulations. As the latest version of these documents is not online, I asked the Health Department to provide them.
Given that New Zealand has already published the changes they will be supporting in the IHR Amendments, I asked why is the Australian government’s position so secretive. Does this government take the position that these potentially sweeping changes to our health system are none of the public’s business?
Of these two proposals being put to the WHO’s member states, it’s the IHR amendments that still contain clauses giving the WHO powers of compulsion — medical tyranny. Officials and the Minister failed to actually provide the position of the Government on these changes – where is the transparency and accountability promised by the Albanese government?
Here is the Minister’s response – “The World Health Authority is exactly that. The World Health Organisation can give advice, but it has no legal mechanism to be able to enforce it upon us. As I’ve said, Australia has its own sovereignty in regards to making policy decisions around health for Australians and our border. I don’t think I can be any clearer.”
This ignores that the WHO does have a power to compel by using the UN’s powers over the SWIFT international payment system, and has used those powers against Russia and Belarus recently. The answer is specious.
Let’s hope the promise not to sign away Australian sovereignty is one promise this government keeps.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on to the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations and the so-called pandemic treaty or accord or protocol or whatever it’s called these days. The World Health Organization is currently reviewing two separate proposals to increase its powers—firstly, the pandemic agreement. A recent version of that document is on the World Health Organization website, dated 30 October 2023. Is this the latest version? If not, can I have the latest version?
Mr Exell:I do think there may have been an additional draft, but I’ll check and come back to you. I’m happy to provide the latest publicly released documents that are being considered.
Senator ROBERTS: The second proposal is for amendments to the World Health Organization’s operating manual, the International Health Regulations. These were proposed by the United States in 2022. They have apparently been modified in a negotiation process over time—several times! Do you have the latest version of this document, please?
Mr Exell:Again, the latest version of the document will be on the WHO website, but I’m happy to provide that to you, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The New Zealand government has published sections of the International Health Regulations changes it will be supporting. Clearly, their openness is more than yours on exactly the same matter. Minister, why is the government’s position to be considered none the public’s business on this very significant international health regulations draft?
Senator McCarthy:Senator Roberts, I’d totally disagree with your question in terms of the government not wanting to advise Australians on issues. I’d totally reject outright the premise of your question.
Senator ROBERTS: While the latest public version of the pandemic agreement does not sign away Australian sovereignty, the latest public version of the International Health Regulations amendments do sign away Australian’s sovereignty. Minister, will the Albanese government support the International Health Regulations amendments if they continue, as written, to include compulsion on Australia to follow World Health Organization directives?
Senator McCarthy:Our government always looks to the international sector in terms of what’s going on, whether it’s in health or any other areas, so we will always continue to do that. But of course our priority is Australians and the sovereignty of our decisions with regard to health for Australians.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re guaranteeing sovereignty?
Mr Comley:I’d don’t think we would agree with your characterisation that it cedes sovereignty. Mr Exell might want to comment on how that will operate in practice.
Mr Exell: I am happy to add that I think both draft documents that are available refer to protecting the sovereignty of nations. The process is actually a member state process. In that sense there is no WHO. The working groups are led by member states. The participation is by member states. Then, when there is consideration of the Australian government, there is a formal process through the JSCOT mechanism that individually considers each and every resolution or change or consideration that comes before it. There is no notion of Australia giving up sovereignty. There’s an active process of consideration at both levels—the World Health Organization by Australia and other counties, and then, when it reaches the domestic ledge, it is also considered very carefully.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that in earlier versions of the International Health Regulations that were strongly worded compulsions on the African nations. Several members of parliaments and congresses around the world have kicked up such a stink that the International Health Regulations have been watered back down again. But I’m very concerned about sovereignty.
Mr Exell:There are always a range of proposals and resolutions and adapted text. That is happening right now; there are consultations that are underway. The due date for a draft to go to the World Health Assembly is by May this year. They’re trying to do that, but there are lots of changes and discussions going on, so I wouldn’t want to comment on one particular draft or one particular set of ideas put forward by various countries.
Senator McCarthy:I have to reiterate that in terms of public health policies, Australia will always retain its own sovereignty in making decisions around our borders. I need that to be really clear with you, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: I need to be very clear: I’m concerned about how much the international influence, particularly through the World Health Organization, drove our response to COVID. Minister, will you give a clear statement now that the directions of the World Health Organization are not binding on Australia and that the decision to follow WHO guidance, if it’s made, is entirely a matter for the Australian government, who can then be held to account for these decisions?
Senator McCarthy: The world health authority is exactly that: the World Health Organization can give advice, but it has no legal mechanism to be able to enforce it upon us. As I’ve said, Australia has its own sovereignty with regard to making policy decisions around health for Australians and our borders. I don’t think I can be any clearer.
CHAIR:I do need to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: I hope the term ‘world health authority’ is not a Freudian slip.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/BxkLvDxePG0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-02-22 17:18:142024-02-27 15:15:52The WHO Is Taking Two Shots At Increasing Its Powers
In Senate Estimates I asked who funded and supplied the electric vehicle charging stations (58 in total) at Parliament House in the Capital. Taxpayers are funding the Canberra bubble’s fling with EVs to the tune of $2.5m in installation costs, with the vague promise that this will be recouped in the future. The reason given for the charging stations is to make it convenient for EVs to visit Parliament House. Despite most Australians owning a petrol or diesel car, there are no immediate plans to install petrol or diesel pumps at Parliament House for their convenience.
As the city with the highest average income in the country (over $100,000/year), the Canberra bureaucrats are truly out of touch with the rest of Australia.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for appearing today. The Department of Parliamentary Services has installed 10 electric vehicle charging stations in the public car park. Are they user-pays, or does the ‘Department of the Australian Taxpayer’ fork out for the cost of that electricity?
Mr Stefanic: The user pays.
Senator ROBERTS: Which company owns the chargers, then?
Mr Stefanic: I’ll have to take that question on notice. I’ll correct myself if I have misspoken, but I believe DPS owns the asset that has been installed. We contracted ActewAGL to provide the services with the installation.
Senator ROBERTS: AGL?
Mr Stefanic: ActewAGL, which is a Canberra based joint venture with AGL.
Senator ROBERTS: But DPS owns the chargers?
Mr Stefanic: I believe so.
Senator ROBERTS: How much did you pay for the installation?
Mr Stefanic: The contract for installation is about $2.5 million. We are tracking under budget. When all 58 electric vehicle charging stations are installed we anticipate the cost will be in the order—
Senator ROBERTS: Fifty-eight?
Mr Stefanic: There will be 58 in total. There are 10 in the public car park, 10 in each of the private car parks and eight in the ministerial wing.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, what was that again?
Mr Stefanic: Ten in each of the private car parks and eight in the ministerial wing car park.
Senator ROBERTS: How many private car parks?
Mr Stefanic: Four.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve got 40 chargers?
Mr Stefanic: Forty in those. Then the 10 in the public and the eight in the ministerial wing make 58.
Senator ROBERTS: So we’re paying for this, but a provider of electricity is making money out of it?
Mr Stefanic: The charges that we are levying for it have two elements: one covers both our administration cost and a recovery of the capital investment, and the other portion of it is the payment for the cost of the energy that goes to the provider.
Senator ROBERTS: So the provider is making a profit out of our—the taxpayers—investment?
Mr Stefanic: The energy provider, as it would for any electric vehicle charging station.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t realise that it was within your remit to cover the operating costs of people driving electric vehicles around the Canberra bubble?
Mr Stefanic: It’s not, because it is user-pays, as I mentioned.
Senator ROBERTS: But you’re providing a lot of taxpayer money to enable it.
Mr Stefanic: With the take-up of electric vehicles—and Canberra has, I think, the highest per capita take-up in the country—the range of those vehicles, I guess, necessitates us to lean into the issue and make sure we have availability for charging locally. To the point that Senator Hume raised around people being able to leave the building, sometimes it’s difficult, and having the convenience of a charging facility available at Parliament House is useful. In the public car park in particular, we have around 800,000 visitors a year to Parliament House. With the increase in the take-up of electric vehicles, it enhances our destination from a tourism point of view if people can see that they have access to electric vehicle charging when they arrive here.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re acknowledging that electric vehicles have some inconvenience attached to them, so you’re making provision to supplement that?
Mr Stefanic: No. I’m simply saying it’s a reality. There are electric vehicle charging stations popping up everywhere. We’re simply another building that’s installing them.
Senator ROBERTS: Subsidised by the taxpayer.
Mr Stefanic: They are not subsidised by the taxpayer because we are recovering that capital cost.
Senator ROBERTS: The installation is subsidised but then you recover, which is a pretty good deal for the providers.
Mr Stefanic: We use our capital funds to install the infrastructure, but then we recover the cost from the user.
Senator ROBERTS: How are your plans to install a diesel or petrol bowser progressing?
Mr Stefanic: There are no plans for fuel bowsers.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Mr Stefanic: You need a storage mechanism for those things. So it would be difficult to begin with, given the building, to dig massive holes in the ground to put in storage facilities.
CHAIR: No hydrogen plant then either?
Mr Stefanic: No.
Senator Shoebridge: Next we’ll all get nuclear reactors.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it because diesel and petrol are easier to refuel? You’re saying it’s an inconvenience to use an electric car, so we need to provide services for electric cars so we can make sure we have plenty of visitors to Parliament House?
The President: If I could just correct the record—the department secretary didn’t say it was inconvenient to use an electric vehicle.
Senator ROBERTS: He didn’t use those words; he used other words. Are you aware that electric vehicle sales in the United States and the European Union are plummeting?
Mr Stefanic: No. I’m simply looking at statistics in Australia and in the ACT in particular, which indicate that the take up continues to grow.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s interesting because electric vehicles are inherently much more expensive than diesel and petrol and less efficient overall in use of resources. Canberra has the highest income per capita, as I understand it, of any city in Australia.
Australia is producing less and importing more fuel than before. Australia is obligated to keep a 90 day stockpile of oil by agreements and pure common sense, yet this country hasn’t met this threshold in over 12 years.
Minister McAllister, in a breath of clarity, faces reality and admits that hydrocarbon fuels such as petrol, diesel and jet fuel are essential in our modern economy today, despite the net-zero push. In reserves we have around 38 days or 5 weeks of petrol, 31 days or 4 weeks of diesel and 24 days 3 weeks of jet fuel. Yet Australia’s 90 days of strategic crude oil reserves, which were kept in the United States, are said to have been ‘sold’. Almost all of Australia’s liquid fuel is imported and we are extremely vulnerable to a blockade. Imagine if imports ceased.
We are no longer self-sufficient in fuels, which we should be given what’s under our soil. Imagine if there were no more imports and we had only 4 weeks of fuel left. We should be exploring for and producing more oil instead of relying on China to burn our coal and use up rare minerals like cobalt and copper, to manufacture expensive, unreliable and short-lived “renewables”.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you again for being here today. I refer to a media release from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. It is entitled ‘Australia’s fuel reserves boosted to strengthen resilience and supply’. Can you please tell me how many days in fuel stocks—
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I am so sorry. Would you mind giving us the date? That will help officials track down the document that you are referring to.
Senator ROBERTS: It is 14 November 2022.
Senator McAllister: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you please tell me how many days in fuel stocks Australia currently has of petrol, diesel and jet fuel?
Ms Svarcas: Under the minimum stockholding obligation, our industries are required to have 24 days of petrol and jet fuel and 20 days of diesel. As at 16 January—I will convert that to megalitres for you—we had 1,699 megalitres, so more than the required 24 days of petrol. We had 2,780 megalitres of diesel, which is more than the required levels under the MSO. For jet fuel, we had 547 megalitres, which again is above the MSO.
Senator ROBERTS:Thank you. Are those dates of fuel reserves in Australia? Are the reserves in Australia?
Ms Svarcas: They are either in Australia or in Australian waters. Yes, they are in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS:So that count is water stocks or reserves held overseas?
Ms Svarcas: Not reserves held overseas, Senator. They are reserves held in Australia or in Australian waters.
Senator ROBERTS: So it is in Australia and in—
Ms Svarcas: And in—
Senator ROBERTS:How many in Australia?
Ms Svarcas: I’m not sure if my colleague has a breakdown of what is in the country.
Senator ROBERTS: Physically on Australian shores right now.
Mr Cano: The stockholding obligation enables the entities to count stocks that are being held within Australia’s exclusive economic zone, and that’s taken as part of the total number. So they are in Australian waters on their way to shore.
Senator ROBERTS:So the waterborne reserves are inside our economic zone?
Ms Svarcas: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re obligated to keep 30 days—that’s three months of fuel reserves—by international agreements—correct? And plain common sense says we should be doing that. How many days does the 1,699 megalitres of petrol represent?
Mr Duggan: Are you referring there to the International Energy Agency’s oil stockholding requirement, which I think may be different to the international—
Senator ROBERTS:Could you explain the difference?
Mr Duggan: Yes. With respect to oil, there is a 30-day minimum stockholding requirement through the International Energy Agency, but I’d just distinguish. In fact, three months, or 90 days, of net imports is the requirement. I’d just distinguish that, though, from what Ms Svarcas and Mr Cano just gave evidence of, which is the minimum stockholding obligation domestically imposed by the government to ensure fuel security.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the difference between the international agreement for 90 days or three months and our own, hopefully, commonsense based requirements?
Mr Duggan: Crude oil is 90 days—international energy oil—
Senator ROBERTS: And some of that is stored overseas?
Mr Duggan: Yes, it’s held in the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Senator ROBERTS: How is that a reserve for us onshore here? If China or anyone else puts a blockade on us, that’s gone.
Mr Duggan: Senator, I’m just trying to make sure you don’t conflate what are two different frameworks here. The one that Ms Svarcas and Mr Cano were referring to is a domestic fuel minimum stockholding obligation. That applies to petrol, diesel, jet fuel—
Senator ROBERTS:That was in the release from your department on 14 November 2023?
Mr Duggan: That’s correct. And then the International Energy Agency’s 90-days-of-net-imports requirement is around crude oil, and that’s obviously a separate—
Senator ROBERTS: How many days of crude oil are in Australia or within our economic zone on a boat right now?
Mr Duggan: The last reporting was in November, and we reported 50 days of holdings.
Senator ROBERTS:In Australia?
Mr Duggan: No, because as part of that we are able to count the Australian holdings and the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Senator ROBERTS:For someone sitting at home watching this who’s concerned about our oil security in a blockade by a foreign country, what sort of security have we got? Fifty days?
Ms Svarcas: I might just clarify the evidence, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS:Whose evidence? Yours or Mr Duggan’s?
Ms Svarcas: Mr Duggan’s evidence. We don’t currently have any stocks in the US stock reserve. That’s been sold. The IEA days that Mr Duggan has referred to—so the international obligation days—
Senator ROBERTS:The 90 days?
Ms Svarcas: The 90 days. We currently have 55 days of stock in there. I might just explain why it’s 55 days and why we haven’t met the 90 days. The way that’s calculated is on total eligible stocks divided by the net imports. Because Australia has been importing more fuel, it brings down the calculation of IEA days—the 90 days—which is why we’re tracking for 2023.
Senator ROBERTS:Could you explain that again?
Ms Svarcas: IEA days, the 90-day international obligation, are the total eligible stocks divided by daily net imports in the previous calendar year.
Senator ROBERTS:Daily net imports, not daily usage?
Ms Svarcas: Correct. This is why they’re two different calculations. The IEA days are about imports. Because Australia is producing less fuel and importing more, it means, just by basic mathematics, that the IEA day count will start coming off. But that does not mean in any way that we are fuel insecure, because the government has made a number of interventions—measures to ensure our fuel security—including through, as I described, the minimum stockholding obligation that means that our importers and producers must hold a certain amount of stock in Australia. So in fact we are more fuel secure now, despite the IEA days not being the 90 days.
Senator ROBERTS:So we’ve basically got three weeks or four weeks of processed fuels: diesel, petrol and jet fuel? Either on our ground or on ships near our coast?
Ms Svarcas: In our waters.
Senator ROBERTS:That’s all?
Mr Duggan: It’s 38 days of petrol, 24 days of jet fuel and 31 days of diesel.
Mr Fredericks: Senator, can we take something on notice which might help you? I’m pretty confident those numbers are reasonably higher than they have been in the past. I don’t have it here; it’s just a recollection I have. So to give you the full picture—
Senator ROBERTS: You’re saying these numbers are higher than what we’ve had in the past?
Mr Fredericks: Yes. But I’d like to test that, and I’d like to come back to you on notice with that.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, has the government done any work to determine what a reasonable and safe level of jet fuel stocks, diesel stocks and petrol stocks is? The country runs on hydrocarbon fuel. Like it or not, that’s a fact—transport, food, agriculture production.
Senator McAllister: You’re right that it’s extremely important. It has been an area of work for the government, and the secretary can talk you through the details.
Mr Fredericks: Yes, I was going to say, Senator, just to be clear, that back in, I think, the middle of last year, 2023, the government set what it regarded as the appropriate minimum stockholding obligations.
Senator ROBERTS:The current government in 2022?
Mr Fredericks: Correct, and my team can correct me if I’m getting this wrong. To answer the question you have posed, it made a judgement about what the appropriate minimum stockholding obligations for those three fuels were. To give you an example, the minimum stockholding obligation for petrol is 24 days. I understand it increases at some stage to 27, but at the moment the country holds 38. So petrol is one where the judgement—and the answer to your question, ‘What’s the minimum required?’—is 24, and current holdings are 38. So that’s a pretty good picture—
Senator ROBERTS:All the figures I’ve just been given are above the requirements?
Mr Fredericks: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS:But there’s still only a maximum of around three weeks, four weeks and five weeks, respectively?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to rotate the call. I believe they’ve taken on notice—
Senator ROBERTS: Could I put something on notice?
CHAIR: I was going to say we can come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS:Can I get the derivation of those figures on notice, please?
