I gave the following speech this afternoon in response to the Greens wanting even more damaging climate policies.
Transcript
One Nation does not support this motion. One Nation supports policies that are based on empirical scientific evidence. Without robust scientific evidence policies are not worth the paper they’re written on. By avoiding robust scientific evidence to support policies, politicians are able to base policies on their political and ideological whims and vested interests.
As we recently learned, the CSIRO, which advises the government on climate science, has been caught out relying on discredited scientific papers and unvalidated models as the basis for advice to government on climate policy.
The Liberal-Nationals and the Labor-Greens have no empirical evidence that the production of human carbon dioxide is affecting the climate and needs to be cut. Until there is, all climate policies need to be scrapped. I remind the Senate that this is day 419 since I first challenged the Leader of the Greens in the Senate to provide the evidence and to debate me.
7 October marks a decade since I first challenged her to debate me and she has not fronted after immediately refusing.
Member for the seat of Hunter, Mr Joel Fitzgibbon MP, ought to resign and offer the voters a real choice for representation at a by-election.
Senator Roberts said, “Mr Fitzgibbon’s resignation from the ALP cabinet over climate policy is damming confirmation that Labor no longer represents blue-collar workers.
“He cannot be effective sitting on the back-bench sulking over how Labor have lost their way. Hunter Valley constituents deserve better and he needs to resign.”
In the 2019 election, with a massive 14% swing against Labor, the seat of Hunter became a truly marginal seat for the first time in its 109-year history.
“Mr Fitzgibbon only started caring about blue-collar workers in his electorate when they deserted him at the last election in favour of One Nation’s Stuart Bonds.
“Labor can no longer hide from the fact that traditional working-class voters no longer support their climate and energy policies,” Senator Roberts added.
Mr Stuart Bonds, One Nation candidate in Hunter stated, “It’s over Joel. If you cannot fight for your constituents as the Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Resources from the front bench, then you will never do it from the back bench.” Mr Bonds with nearly 22% of the vote in the 2019 election said, “The Hunter deserves a strong voice and I intend to be that voice …. so game on!”
https://www.abc.net.au/cm/rimage/12867130-16x9-xlarge.jpg?v=2485862Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-11-10 15:29:232020-11-10 15:29:31Senator Roberts calls for Fitzgibbon to resign from Parliament
During Senate Estimates earlier in the year, I was able to get Coal LSL to admit that there were discrepancies in hours worked reported by employers and to start an audit. Since this questioning, many other workers have come forward with issues and questions they wanted asked in Senate Estimates. Accountability and transparency seems to be lacking and workers are in the dark as to best manage their long service leave entitlements.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you both for appearing today. Could you tell me, firstly, what has Coal LSL done since last estimates to address the errors and wrongs identified in employer data and when will people be compensated, and what is the total value of the errors to date?
Ms Perks: I’ll start with—
CHAIR: We’ve lost you, I think, again. Hello? Can we hear you? Can you speak again?
Ms Perks: Yes. We’re getting a delay.
CHAIR: You’re getting a delay; a delay on your voice? So there’s an echo? We might pull the plugs out. We will suspend briefly again, so can you log off and log on again, please? Thank you.
Ms Perks: We will.
CHAIR: Thank you. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. What has Coal LSL done since last Senate estimates to address the errors and wrongs identified in the employer data and when will people be compensated, and what is the total value of the errors to date?
Ms Perks: Thank you, Senator. The six individuals who were identified back in October who were employed by the Programmed TESA Group have had their records adjusted and it has resulted in a change of 55 hours of entitlement for the total six out of the eight that were identified. Since October, Programmed Tessa, who was the employer—
CHAIR: I think what happened there is that there was more feedback.
Ms Perks: We’re getting the question coming back, circling.
CHAIR: Okay. So the question is on repeat. That would be amusing. It’s a very important question, Senator Roberts. We will suspend again briefly and we’ll do it through Chorus Call. Someone from the secretariat will be in touch to advise you how to do that. We will get you on the phone but not via videoconference.
Ms Perks: Okay.
CHAIR: For the third time, Senator Roberts is going to ask his question. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. What has Coal LSL done since last Senate estimates to address the errors and wrongs identified in employer data and when will people be compensated, and what is the total value of the errors to date?
Ms Perks: Since the last Senate estimates in March the focus of the organisation has been on getting visibility of the issues that were identified. The six individuals who were addressed in the October Senate estimates have had their records updated, which resulted in a change of 55 hours of entitlement for the six in total. Regarding the other two individuals of the eight, it hasn’t resulted in a change in their record on that review. Now, in saying that, what has commenced outside of those six individuals has been a commitment by Coal LSL to commence an audit of the employer data for any employers who have casual employees within the Coal LSL scheme. That audit has commenced and is in train. We don’t have visibility yet of what the outcome of the audit will be or any changes to individuals’ records as a result of that audit.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The second question: why doesn’t a casual get the same Coal LSL payout as a permanent employee when they both work the same hours and roster on the same site in the same role? If this is because of the act, why hasn’t Coal LSL referred the matter to the government and why hasn’t the government fixed this?
Ms Perks: If a casual employee works a 35-hour week, which is a full-time equivalent, they will accrue the same long service leave entitlement as a full-timer. Our records for the employee are held in hours, and if the employee does work for 35 hours during the week their records will be at that full-time equivalent maximum entitlement.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are casuals made aware that they can waive the Coal LSL scheme and have the contribution paid direct to them? As you will appreciate, this would benefit a lot of casuals that may not stay for the eight-year qualifying period.
Ms Perks: I can’t talk to whether casuals, in particular, have visibility of that. It was an enhancement in our legislation back in 2010 to include waiver agreements as an option for all employees in the scheme. I can take that question on notice. From memory, we have as minimal as four waiver agreements, but I will verify that number and confirm that.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, what was that last sentence you said?
Ms Perks: From memory, I think we have four waiver agreements in place out of 426,000 records, but I will take that question on notice and verify that.
Senator ROBERTS: Why, if a casual does take the Coal LSL waiver option, do casuals only get paid two per cent when the Coal LSL payout is based upon 2.7 per cent?
Ms Perks: All employees, irrespective of their employment status, would be paid based on certain criteria in the legislation which my colleague Mr Kembrey will talk to. The two per cent that you’re talking about is our payroll levy and is not correlated with an employee’s long service leave entitlement. That percentage is in relation
to the payroll levy that employers are required to pay. It is a tax that’s imposed, and that levy of two per cent has been in place since 2018. Prior to that it was 2.7 per cent, but it was reduced in 2017 to that lower level. It’s a rate that’s applicable to all employers who are registered in the fund.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you please provide details of the number of casual employees who have contributions made to the scheme for them and detail how they may have been paid out? How many have left the industry and how much money does this represent for those employees who have not returned to the industry in, say, over three years? In other words they haven’t been paid out and they’ve left the industry.
Ms Perks: I could talk to the amount of casuals who are active in the industry today. According to our records, in round figures it’s 9,000. I will need to take your other questions on notice. They are quite detailed questions that will need to be responded to.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s fine; take them on notice. They are very important to us. Can you explain in detail why the amounts contributed by employers to Coal LSL for eligible employees, both permanent and casual, are different to the amounts paid out for those employees? Could you please explain the reasons for the discrepancy in detail, the break-up of what funds go where and the total value that this represents annually?
Ms Perks: There are two important components of the fund. The payroll levy is a tax that’s collected on behalf of the government. That is received monthly by employers. It is remitted to the commonwealth and appropriated back. Separate from that is the records that we hold for all employees in the fund, and that entitlement is accrued in hours. The payment that’s made to the employee will be reliant on their employment agreement. Our legislation does specify the minimum that should be paid. Mr Kembrey might be able to refer us to the section in the legislation that talks about minimum payments that are required on termination or in-service leave. But it is a different part of the legislation to the payroll levy collection act, which talks about levies that are received for the fund.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is Mr Kembrey going to add anything?
Mr Kembrey: The best way to break down the question is that the payment of levy is not necessarily correlated with the accrual of the entitlement. When entitlements are paid, they are paid at the rate that the employee is earning at the time that they take that long service leave.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you please reconcile the difference between employer contributions and employee payouts? Please also advise what happens to, firstly, the funds where an employee leaves the industry prior to qualifying and fails to return to the industry and, secondly, the total amount of these funds where employees have left the industry, how much is dispersed, and to whom, on an annual basis over the last seven years.
Ms Perks: The fund is a pooled fund. It’s important that employees of the fund understand we are very different to a financial institution and super funds. The fund is a pooled fund. The nature of portable long service leave means employees can move in and out of the industry, and they can have a maximum break from the industry of eight years before their qualifying service accrual is impacted. That’s important context. We must hold the funds for that period of a break in service of eight years, in case that employee returns to the industry, so that we can continue to ensure that we have sufficient funds to pay out for future long service leave.
The actuary assesses and protects the fund’s assets and liabilities based on important assumptions. One is investment returns. There is also the probability of employees reaching eight years of qualifying service. In regard to the employees that you’re talking about, the probability of an employee meeting that eight years of qualifying service starts at a base of 50 per cent. Our data tells us that an employee that’s been in the industry for less than one year has a 49 per cent chance of meeting that eight years of qualifying service. We hold the funds as a pooled fund through that duration of a maximum of eight years break period to anticipate that future liability that the fund may incur. It is a complex calculation that the actuary conducts. It has fundamental assumptions that underpin that assessment of the fund’s assets and liabilities.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you please tell us how much money is involved in people who have gone beyond the eight years and are not in the industry, and won’t ever get a payout? What happens to their money?
Ms Perks: Senator, can you ask that question again, please?
Senator ROBERTS: If someone leaves the industry and a period of eight years lapses, what happens to their money?
Ms Perks: The fund is structured as a pooled fund. Employers pay a tax to the government that is appropriated back to the fund. The actuary assesses assets and liabilities. We hold an entitlement in hours for the employee. We do not hold an asset which is financially attributed to that individual record. I’m being specific but the record doesn’t have a monetary dollar correlated with it at the record level. It is reported in hours. The actuary assesses
based on the hours that we hold, and 55 million hours of entitlements were held at June 2020. The actuary assesses the likelihood of paying liabilities out of the fund based on the entitlements that are held in hours.
Senator ROBERTS: You would still have to account for everything in a dollar sense if it’s a pooled fund, wouldn’t you? Some people are not going to come back after eight years, so what happens to that money? What happens to those hours? Where do they end up?
Ms Perks: If an employee has a break from the industry for eight years or further, their records will cease to accrue. If they return to the industry they would start from zero years of qualifying service again. So it is an eight years break, which is the most generous break that any long service leave provision allows for. The actuary assesses the likelihood of someone returning to the industry. In that assessment the actuary says that the fund needs X dollars to pay out future liabilities. With that they correlate a payroll levy that is appropriate to be imposed on employers in regard to the collection of future levies.
In the situation where we have seen a larger number of employees not returning to the fund, one would assume that could result in the pooled fund increasing and the liabilities would decrease. If our assets are in excess, that could result in us recommending to the minister to reduce that payroll levy further from that two per cent to a lower rate. The assets and liabilities are correlated continuously by the actuary to assess whether the payroll levy that’s imposed on employers is sufficient to meet the liabilities that are projected to be incurred by the fund in the future.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying that if someone is out of the industry for more than eight years, if they come back after that, they will go back to zero and start again? If there’s a surplus or an excess of funds in the pooled fund, the minister will have a recommendation to reduce the payroll levy?
Ms Perks: That is it, in a simplified manner, yes. The three correlate, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: In 2019 I drew to your attention discrepancies and outright employer misreporting. What have you done to fix all employee entitlements? What steps has Coal LSL taken? If this response took the form of, say, a review project, when will the project be completed, how much will the project have cost and will Coal LSL be prosecuting employers who have negligently or wilfully misreported or mispaid Coal LSL contributions?
Ms Perks: The important action that Coal LSL has taken since March is to commence an audit of employers of casuals; 9,000 casuals are active in the industry to date. That audit program will extend to review those records. That is in train. The outcomes of that audit will be assessed, and certainly they will be reviewed as to whether rectification or penalties would be appropriate if there’s any understanding of deliberate misreporting of hours.
Senator ROBERTS: You have the ability to penalise employers and prosecute them; is that right?
Mr Kembrey: In certain circumstances, that is correct. In terms of the time lines, it will be a rolling time line. We’re in the early stages of this. We’d expect to see some results of the audit in the next month or two, and that rolling out over the next 12 months.
Senator ROBERTS: If Coal LSL is not prosecuting any parties for negligent or wilful misreporting, could you please advise us of the assessment process that Coal LSL went through, how this assessment process was managed, by whom, and also explain in detail, despite the evidence of misreporting, why no parties were held to account? You won’t be able to do that for another month, at least, but would you be able to do that, please?
Mr Kembrey: Certainly, we can take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Could you please report whether any members of the Minerals Council of New South Wales were parties or related entities to those who misreported, and provide a list of same, including the number of instances by entity? You can take that on notice as well, because that won’t be able to be done for at least a month.
Mr Kembrey: Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I also have concerns, as we’ve spoken about in the past, with regard to the governance of Coal LSL. I’d like some data, please. Could you provide an Excel spreadsheet that includes all employers registered with Coal LSL covering the period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2020, including the company or business name, their ABN, the authorised officers, active dates, and details of payments or reimbursements made to each registered employer for the subject period?
Mr Kembrey: Senator, that would be an extensive task. Potentially, we could discuss what the information is that you’d like from that, over an eight-year period. When you say ‘authorised officers’, I’m assuming you mean directors?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, the people you’re dealing with.
Mr Kembrey: Often we’re not dealing directly with directors; we’re dealing with employees of the company. Senator, perhaps we will take this question on notice and we can talk further about how we could present the material that you’re after.
Senator ROBERTS: That would be great; thank you. Could you also please provide details of the process used to calculate payments to entitled employees; that is, how the amounts received, the entitlement and other costs, or inputs and outputs, are calculated? I’d like to understand the process.
Ms Perks: We’ll take that question on notice. We can certainly give more context to the payroll levy collection, the calculation of the entitlement and the employer reimbursement rules that relate to the outflow.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can you please provide details of where Coal LSL funds received for workers who leave the coal industry are held at all material times—I know you talked about them being in hours—who has the records, and the details of the process following the cessation of contributions for employers? Could you tell us where the hours or money goes? Could you also please include full details of where these funds are ultimately repatriated and full details of any service fees, costs or commissions paid and who they are paid to?
Ms Perks: We can take that on notice, Senator. I can say there are no commission service fees in regard to payments, but we will take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Could you please provide an Excel spreadsheet of all entities that Coal LSL pays or transfers funds to, including but not limited to company business name, ABN, authorised officers, dates and details of payments or reimbursements made to each entity, including total payments, and an explanation as to the payment—for example, fees et cetera?
Ms Perks: Is that in relation to the employers in the fund or are you talking more broadly of every transaction that the fund incurs?
Senator ROBERTS: No, just the payments that are made to people who are entitled to have Coal LSL.
Ms Perks: We’ll take that on notice, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’m led to believe that registered employers have great difficulty in reconciling the payments made to entitled employees by Coal LSL as they don’t seem to correlate to the employer contributions. Could you please detail the reasons for any differences between employer contributions and the total amounts paid to eligible employees and, in this regard, please advise where unallocated, surplus or remaining funds or hours are allocated and please advise whether this allocation complies with your constitution and governance framework? Have these matters been raised in any internal or external audit over the period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2020?
Ms Perks: The first part of the question I’m taking as being similar to a previous question; so we’ll answer that in light of the previous question. Coal LSL is audited by the Australian National Audit Office annually. The audit has been completed. There are no findings in the audit and we’ve had no findings in our audit for the last two years. We can give you a copy of that audit report. It is included in our annual report, which is going through the tabling process currently; so that is available for the public’s review.
Mr Kembrey: I note that in that question there were about five questions; so we’ll take a number of those later ones on notice. I think the first point that you raised was in regard to employers struggling to correlate the reimbursement to the payment to employees; is that correct?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s correct.
Mr Kembrey: The matter of what is paid to an employee is a matter that is to be decided between the employer and the employee. Then the employer requests a reimbursement for that payment and we need to see some evidence that the money that they are requesting from the fund was paid to the employee. And with the reimbursement, there needs to be some correlation with the levy payment that they’re paying—in a sense, the salary, the payment or the wages that they’re paying a levy on—so that we can ensure that either they’re not being over-reimbursed or the employee certainly is not receiving the reimbursement in full. That’s where the correlation should be. Without any specifics, it’s difficult for me to talk to it.
Senator ROBERTS: Then we might be in touch with you for more on that. I’ve raised many concerns in regard to the treatment and payment of Mr Simon Turner. I note that you’re aware that Mr Turner was forced to leave the coalmining industry due to workplace injuries at the Mt Arthur coalmine that left him totally and permanently disabled, TPD. I note that, approximately three years after my raising these injustices in Senate estimates, Mr Turner has had his case only partly reviewed and that Chandler Macleod, his employer, and Coal LSL have yet to resolve his termination status as being TPD. When will this status be updated and when will Mr Turner’s outstanding questions be addressed?
Mr Kembrey: As we discussed back in the estimates in March, we have been assisting Mr Turner for a number of years now. And the difficulty with that particular issue you’re raising is that that is a dispute between Chandler Macleod and Mr Turner. We have been trying to mediate that and obtain some factual evidence to support the position put forward by Chandler Macleod. At this point in time the parties are holding their positions and they don’t agree with each other. The last we were advised is that those matters are subject to court proceedings in the Federal Court at present. So there is not anything more we can do to try to resolve that, unfortunately.
Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of records would you turn to for proof?
Mr Kembrey: We would turn to contemporaneous correspondence that evidences the reasons. As you know, this is a dispute about the reason why Mr Turner was terminated by Chandler Macleod back in 2016; so we have requested contemporaneous material that supports the position that Chandler Macleod put forward or justifies that position, and that has been provided. We’re not in a position to make a legal assessment of that, because that is not our role; the Fair Work Commission has the power to do that. But I believe that Fair Work Commission proceedings are on foot and those proceedings have been transferred to the Federal Court. Hopefully, for Mr Turner, there is some resolution to that matter in the near future.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just before your next question, we will be breaking at quarter to four for the afternoon tea break and concluding with these witnesses and I know that Senator O’Neill does have some questions. If the two of you could perhaps have a conversation about timing for the remaining nine minutes that would be fantastic.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got four more questions that I’ll put to you on notice, Mr Kembrey and Ms Perks, but I’ll ask this question: Queensland and Hunter Valley coalminers and coalminers everywhere expect Coal LSL to maintain a high standard of probity. Casual coalminers expect that you will do the right thing by them and give them the freedom of choice to waive the Coal LSL contributions for them to receive the 2.7 per cent or the two per cent as additional income. I just want to make that point on the record.
I am shocked that the CSIRO came so unprepared to Senate Estimates when I gave them my questions in advance. For an organisation who claims to have been studying climate science for 60 years, their responses were truly embarrassing.
I will prepare a more detailed response in the next few days, but to be clear, the government should not be relying on the CSIRO’s climate division for advice on climate science.
Transcript
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you chair, and thank you all for being here today. My questions chair, were sent in advance about two weeks, a little bit under two weeks ago, and deal with past presentations by CSIRO. And so my first question is that, as I said in the letter, number one, do you stand by CSIRO’s implied claim that Marcott and Lecavalier, are the best evidence CSIRO has for showing that the rate of temperature change today is unprecedented in the last 10,000 years.
[Chair – Sen. Paterson]
I’ll just very briefly say this Senator Roberts, ’cause there’s obviously been an exchange of correspondency. You’ve written to CSIRO and I’ve just received a copy of their response to you and Dr.Marshall–
[Senator Roberts]
I haven’t seen CSIRO–
[Chair – Sen. Paterson]
I think it’s just about to be circulated to the committee. Dr. Marshall we are intending for that to be tabled by the committee?
[Dr Marshall]
Yes.
[Chair – Sen. Paterson]
Hopefully? Okay, all right. Well then in that case we’ll circulate copies to committee members for tabling. Sorry, Senator Roberts.
[Senator Roberts]
No, Dr. Marshal was about to answer.
[Dr Marshall]
And Senator, I’ll let Dr. Mayfield answer the detail of your questions.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Dr. Peter Mayfield, Executive Director for Environment, Energy and Resources. So Senator, yes we have prepared a response to the letter that you sent us. I do have copies of that here and electronic copy was provided to the secretary. So, there’s an opportunity to sort of look at our response and data. In regard to Marcott, yes we do stand by the conclusions of that paper.
[Senator Roberts]
Stand by Marcott.
[Dr Mayfield]
Yes.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay. And what about Lacavalier?
[Dr Mayfield]
Yes, both papers.
[Senator Roberts]
Lacavalier too?
[Dr Mayfield]
We believe our best evidence.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay, thank you, that’s good. Why did… Second question, what did CSIRO rely on before Marcott 2013? Say in the 1980s, when Bob Hawke was the first Prime Minister to raise the issue of anthropogenic climate change, said to be due to carbon dioxide from human activity.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator, so the state of the science in the Australian context is being provided by the volume in greenhouse, planning for the future, which is published by CSIRO in 1988. And it’s still available. And it was already very evident in the 1980s that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide were altering the chemistry of the atmosphere.
[Senator Roberts]
Excuse me, the chemistry of the atmosphere, but not the temperature the earth?
[Dr Mayfield]
Chemistry of the atmosphere is at that point in time and temperature record is also changing.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay, thank you. Third question. At what stage did CSIRO start giving significant advice to governments on anthropogenic climate change?
[Dr Mayfield]
So CSIRO has been providing advice to government in relation to greenhouse matters for more than 60 years. So it’s been a long history of us providing advice in this area.
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you. Then I had my fourth question was to Dr. Mayfield. I need Dr. Mayfield to specify one, a slide or slides and specific data to which he refers and on which his answer relies when I asked my previous question, which you’re familiar with, Dr. Mayfield.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator we’ve provided the details many, many times to you. You’d appreciate that in each of these papers which have been published by a peer review. The analysis around statistical substance of the various measurements.
[Senator Roberts]
No, no, no, I’m not gonna let you off the hook. That’s a dodging of the question. The question is, to which of the specific slides or specific data in the presentations do you refer to when you stood up last time, at senate estimates and said, “It’s in the presentations.” Which of the slides, I want, specifically contain the statistical analysis that proves that carbon dioxide from human activity has the… Sorry, that there is a change in the climate, in any factor of climate.
[Dr Mayfield]
So, as you’re aware of Senator, there’s a number of papers, multiple ones–
[Senator Roberts]
No, no, no, no. I’m asking you for this specific slide and the specific data to which you refer. I’m not gonna take any more of this vague nonsense. I want this specific slide, specific data.
[Dr Mayfield]
In the slides, you’ll see, there’s a number of different references. Obviously we work with work from Marcott, more recently there’s the work of, it’s coming from… Kaufmann sorry.
[Senator Roberts]
How do you spell that?
[Dr Mayfield]
So it’s K-A-U-F-M-A-N-N.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay.
[Dr Mayfield]
So it’s a paper that’s been produced in 2020, which also undertakes an analysis of a wide range of methodologies, looking at both the–
[Senator Roberts]
2020?
[Dr Mayfield]
Historical record and the current record of temperature change.
[Senator Roberts]
So I asked you on Thursday, the 24th of October, 2019 a year ago, to provide empirical scientific evidence that shows quote, “Statistically significant variation “that proves there has been a process change.” That is variation that is beyond our outside natural inherent cyclical or seasonal variation over the last 350 years. You stood up and said, “It’s in here, “we’ve given it to you.” That is not correct. I wanna know specifically what the data was and is in those presentations that–
[Dr Mayfield]
Senator, we provided you with a number of references. Those are the references that we believe showed that.
[Senator Roberts]
I don’t know where–
[Dr Mayfield]
You don’t agree with us, but that’s what we believe.
[Senator Roberts]
You have never presented, CSIRO’s, never presented any response to that question, because the first time that question was asked was in the Senate estimates last year. CSIRO’s has never addressed that question. Your statement is false, if that’s what you’re implying.
[Dr Mayfield]
That’s incorrect Senator. The data is in the papers that we refer to.
[Senator Roberts]
No, no, no, I said show me—
[Dr Mayfield]
Part of pulling that science together is about undertaking that sort of statistical analysis, So that it show meaningful trend.
[Chair – Sen. Paterson]
So I’ll just briefly intercede here. Senator Roberts, could I ask that you allow the witness an opportunity to finish the answers your questions before you interject or ask a follow up question.
[Senator Roberts]
Chair, he’s not answering the question.
[Chair – Sen. Paterson]
Well, Senator Roberts you may be unsatisfied with the answer that he’s giving, but that doesn’t give you a right to interrupt him. You have to allow witnesses to conclude their answers and then you can ask a follow up question to challenge that answer if you wish.
[Dr Mayfield]
So as I said Senator, those various papers is part of doing peer review process you go through the statistical analysis. You show what is a meaningful trend versus what is not a meaningful trend, due to the uncertainty of those measurements. And we stand by those papers and those measurements and those peer review processes.
[Senator Roberts]
I want on record that never has CSIRO in any of the presentations to me, made any reference, any statement about statistically significant variation in climate. Not at all. I asked it for the first time, this time last year.
[Woman]
You can ask to read the paper to you.
[Senator Roberts]
Yeah, could you specify the paper?
[Woman]
But let’s not…
[Senator Roberts]
Could you specify the papers?
[Dr Mayfield]
I’ve already specified the papers.
[Senator Roberts]
The exact papers? Because you have never referenced them in any way in any of the presentations. So I wanna know the specific papers.
[Dr Mayfield]
So I’m giving you the papers, Senator.
[Senator Roberts]
Which ones?
[Dr Mayfield]
So it’s Marcott, it’s Lecavalier.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay.
[Dr Mayfield]
And more recently Kauffman.
[Senator Roberts]
So let’s go on to the second part, now that you’ve come on that. Specify the statistical analysis techniques that we used.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator there’s many techniques that are used, there’s thousands of papers.
[Senator Roberts]
No, the ones that you rely upon to make the statement that there is a statistical significant change. I wanna know the specific ones.
[Dr Mayfield]
Well, that’s part of the peer review process that’s undertaken for each of these papers Senator. So, if you choose to track the authors.
[Senator Roberts]
All right, thank you.
[Dr Mayfield]
They will be able to talk you through this specific work.
[Senator Roberts]
We contacted the author of Lecavalier which you recommended, and he will not divulge his information. That’s what you rely upon? People who do not divulge their information. So let’s go to the third one then. The relevant statistical levels of confidence from the analysis of the climate factor that you’ve identified. So what is the level of confidence in the analysis?
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator again, I’ve just refer to my previous answers.
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you. Could you specify the time interval of data for which this statistical analysis was applied?
[Dr Mayfield]
Senator, I can’t answer that question. It’s a question that should be directed towards the author of the paper.
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you. Question five.
[Dr Mayfield]
Very much to detail sir.
[Senator Roberts]
Yes, it certainly is.
[Dr Marshall]
Senator Robert, sir might have been remiss last time I think I promised to send you a copy of this and I don’t know if I did or not from my office to you, but if not I bought a copy.
[Senator Roberts]
No, you didn’t.
[Dr Marshall]
And I’ll leave this here with you. It does have a map of the projections for temperature.
[Senator Roberts]
No, I’m after empirical scientific evidence, that’s what I’ve been through all the way along. Not on projections.
[Dr Marshall]
It’s based on data since 1950 and successfully predicted the last 20 years.
[Senator Roberts]
I wanna know statistically significant change Dr. Marshall.
[Dr Marshall]
Well, I think you’ll get it from here and the references here in Senator, but, I’ll leave this to you if I can.
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you, good.
[Dr Marshall]
Hopefully be helpful.
[Senator Roberts]
Now, Dr. Marshall, I also said in my letter that I hope you agree that the only valid analysis for such policies, climate change and supporting of renewable subsidies, is specific empirical scientific evidence with a logic proving causation and quantifying the effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate factors, such as atmospheric temperatures. I hope you understand the need to justify such policies on solid scientific evidence, quantifying cause and effect. Such quantified evidence is needed to implement such policies and to monitor the effect of such policies. Without the specific quantified relationship between human carbon dioxide output and climate factors, it is not possible to do cost benefit cases nor track progress. So my question to you, number five was, if you disagree with this reasoning, please provide me with what you see as the alternative basis for policy.
[Dr Marshall]
So Senator we base our work on the measured changes in climate since about 1950. We have, for example, directly intervened by breeding different strains of wheat to prevent the wheat yield from going down, because we don’t want the impact of drought or increased temperatures or the shifts in rainfall to reduce the productivity of Australia’s weed industry. So, we have data since 1950 that shows these effects are happening. We know that the nation has become drier in the South, weather in the North. And we know that the temperature has come up, that’s not projections, they have been measured. But, because we’ve known that, ’cause we predicted that some years ago, some decades ago, we were able to successfully intervene to help the industry navigate those changes without a loss in their profitability. And that’s why we do the modelling Senator, to try and understand how to help industry navigate changes in our investment.
[Senator Roberts]
So let me put it bluntly, do you or do you not believe that policy should be based on a quantified specified relationship between cause and effect? In other words, this much carbon dioxide with the amount specified leading to this much temperature change.
[Dr Marshall]
Senator, I think policy should be based on the best science available and it should be data-driven, data-driven. And I’ve just given you the data that drive us to make the interventions,
[Senator Roberts]
No you haven’t given me the data. You’ve talked about having…
[Dr Marshall]
Senator it’s in here.
[Senator Roberts]
And so do you agree on or not that policy should be driven by specified quantified relationship between cause and effect?
[Dr Marshall]
I think policies should be data-driven and it should be monitored and measured and evaluated using data.
[Senator Roberts]
Okay, thank you.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator, if I can add to that. So science, peer reviewed science does provide that foundation which policy can be built. In terms of the papers that we’ve talked to you about.
[Senator Roberts]
Marcott and Lecavalier?
[Dr Mayfield]
We note that there’s been at least 265 other papers which have referenced Marcott as part of the peer review process. And to date, no one has come up with an argument that says that paper is not valid. So the peer review process is at play there and has basically reinforce that that paper is correct.
[Senator Roberts]
We’ll come back to that but Marcott himself, said that the 20th century temperatures on which you are relying are not robust. Marcott himself. So much for–
[Dr Mayfield]
I disagree with your statement.
[Senator Roberts]
So let’s move on to question six. Australia has already done much to destroy its energy grid, yet, as an overseer of taxpayers’ funds, taxpayers’ resources. I need to know whether this has shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. And if so, how has it shown up and to what extent? Please provide empirical scientific evidence on the effect of carbon dioxide levels and temperatures from Australia’s cuts to human carbon dioxide output. In other words all the pain we’re going through economically where is it showing up in the global carbon dioxide levels?
[Dr Marshall]
So Senator, as I think you and I have discussed before, Australia is barely 1%, 1.2, 1.3% of the world’s emissions. Therefore, any direct changes we make in this country are unlikely to have any impact on the global levels of carbon dioxide.
[Senator Roberts]
So are we not gonna have any impact on the temperature then?
[Dr Marshall]
Well, 1.3% impact. Senator, however, our science can have an impact. For example, future feed which has solved what seemingly was an impossible problem and reduce the emission from–
[Senator Roberts]
I wanna know the effects of Australia’s carbon dioxide. Because people are paying an extra $1,300 per household Dr. Marshall. On your salary, that’s trivial, but on someone on the median income of 49,000 that is painful, extremely painful. Dan McDonald, a farmer in Queensland and many farmers have lost the rights to use their property because of policies enacted by this government and previous governments. On $800,000, that’s easy for you to wade through but these people are suffering.
[Dr Marshall]
Senator. I’m not sure I understand your question here. Are you saying that there’s some connection between things that CSIRO has done and these people suffering
[Senator Roberts]
Your advice.
[Dr Marshall]
Is a concern if that’s the case
[Senator Roberts]
Your advice has been cited by many ministers, both labor and liberal national for the painful impositions of policies on our country. And people are paying for that through the hip pocket and through the loss of the rights to use their property that they own and have paid for. Your so-called support, according to ministers is the reason for that. And I’m not getting evidence of quantified impact of our carbon dioxide. And you’ve just said, you can’t see any evidence in the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere because of Australia’s carbon dioxide cuts.
[Dr Marshall]
Senator I’ve just said that Australia has a relatively small direct impact on the carbon dioxide levels because–
[Senator Roberts]
Can you show me the evidence that says we are reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere?
[Dr Marshall]
The evidence that Australia is reducing.
[Senator Roberts]
Australia’s impacts on energy, on agriculture are resulting in a reduced temperature, reduced levels of carbon dioxide.
[Dr Marshall]
So the reduction in emissions has been reported by the department of the environment. So that would be a question for them senator.
[Senator Roberts]
You’ve just answered my question. Thank you very much.
[Dr Mayfield]
If I could add to that as well. So global CO2 levels are measured through the global carbon project which works from data from their resilience.
[Senator Roberts]
In part they’re measured, in part they’re residual. So my last question have global attempts. So we forget about Australia’s little minuscule contribution. Have global attempts to cut human production of carbon dioxide shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. And if so, and to what extent.
[Dr Mayfield]
So again, Senator the global carbon project measures or captures various–
[Senator Roberts]
Didn’t answer my question Dr. Mayfield
[Dr Mayfield]
Various divisions that are made around the globe.
[Chair]
Give him some time.
[Dr Mayfield]
And that is the numbers that are being captured, when they show that emissions are increasing.
[Senator Roberts]
Chair, when someone’s asked a question and they say something but don’t answer the question that is not answering questions
[Chair]
Order Senate Roberts. In that case, Dr. Mayfield would have been five to 10 seconds into his answer. So it’s pretty early to form a strong view about what he was giving you. And Senator Roberts, I don’t seek to dictate how you ask your questions or what questions you ask, but only that you show courtesy to officials so they can answer your questions to the best of their abilities.
[Senator Roberts]
With respect chair, I deserve the respect of being answered properly when I’m asking questions on behalf of my constituents who had gone through a lot of pain.
[Chair]
Senator Roberts if you’re not satisfied with the answers that you receive, please ask another followup question, but don’t interrupt officials in the middle of their answers.
[Senator Roberts]
I’ll ask it again. Have global attempts to cut human production of carbon dioxide shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. And if so, how, and to what extent?
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator in terms of the emissions being made whether there’s attempts to cut them or whether that’s how they are naturally, they are captured through the global carbon project. That’s the accounting process that’s worked to do that. And that shows that emissions overall are still increasing.
[Senator Roberts]
How- emissions are still increasing? We’d just been through–
[Dr Mayfield]
Globally.
[Senator Roberts]
COVID depression and we’d just been through a 2009. We had lower use of carbon dioxide then in 2008 in the recession that was global except for Australia. And in both cases, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have continued to rise, despite human production falling dramatically especially in the last nine months. And yet you’re telling me, you can see it. They’re going up. Dr. Mayfield. So I’ll ask again for the third time, then I’ll leave it. Have global attempts to cut human production of carbon dioxide, particularly in the recession that was in 2009 when global production of carbon dioxide from human activity decreased and have decreased considerably in the last seven months, shown up in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere? And if so, how, and to what extent? Please answer how they show up and to what extent.
[Dr Mayfield]
So Senator the measure is the CO2 signal that’s in the atmosphere. It’s a well-mixed system so it’s represented well across the globe. If you wanna refer to periods like 2009 which is at the end of the global financial crisis, there were slight changes in the rate of climb of these measurements. So you can see inflexions like that. I don’t have the details on the specific numbers on how that changed, but there are inflexion points. But in terms of the longer term trend, it’s still on the up.
[Senator Roberts]
Could you please send me the inflexion points? I wanna see the data please. Because from what I’ve seen at global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, they’ve continued to rise relentlessly despite no inflexion whatsoever. So I would like to see the inflexion points. I’d like to see how much and I’d like to see when. Is that clear? How much and when? Is that clear Dr. Mayfield?
[Dr Mayfield]
So what we’ll provide you with is the Cape Grim record which is a continuous record of CO2 content in the atmosphere.
[Senator Roberts]
That’s CO2 Cape Grim, could you give me the global?
[Dr Mayfield]
So as I said, CO2 is a gas that mixes well across the globe. There is minor variations but overall there’s a very good indication of the time series of the CO2 measurement.
[Senator Roberts]
Could you show me the global levels? I wanna know how much it’s changed and when.
[Dr Mayfield]
As I said before Senator, that work is for the Global Carbon Project. They report annually. We will provide you with some of that work as well as the Cape Grim measurements.
[Marcus] Yes look I mentioned that story about Australia Post just a moment or two ago. I mean those ridiculous costings being discussed in Senate estimates and Malcolm Roberts is also involved in all of this. He joins us on the programme, hello Malcolm.
[Malcolm] Good morning Marcus, how are you mate?
[Marcus] I’m okay, busy time in Canberra at the moment, with these estimates going on.
[Malcolm] Yes it is we’re doing a combination of written submissions, written questions on notice, as well as personal appearances. So there’s a lot on–
[Marcus] Good.
[Malcolm] In Senate estimates. It’s a matter of making the best use of the time.
[Marcus] All right good work, because we need questions to be asked about really important issues, like why the government paid $30 million for the land that was later valued at just under $3 million. The previous owner now leasing back the land at a value of $1 million.
The land was owned by the Liberal Party donors, Tony and Ron Perich’s Leppington Pastoral company. What can you tell me, about this so-called Golden Leppington Triangle? Well there must be There must be gold in them there hills, there has to be. I mean I’d love to have my, any asset that I have. I’d love somebody to pay me 10 times what it’s worth.
[Malcolm] It’s more than 10 times, in overall I guess, yeah 10 times, but yeah, it’s just staggering. The land was valued without even entering the site. It just displays typical poor governance from government and federally. You know, the federal government is far too big.
It needs to get back to handing back most of its responsibilities back to the States, because they stolen from the state. And you’re not going to get accountability in government like this. And you know what’s happening Marcus, is that we’ve seen a disregard of taxpayer’s money and a bypassing of data, making decisions based upon what looks to be like mate’s needs. And we know we need an ICAC, Federal Government ICAC. The attorney general has promised one two years ago, draft bill–
[Marcus] Yup, yup.
[Malcolm] Since December, 2019, but it’s just a weak, toothless proposal. We need real governance, we need real accountability. And we need above all, a restoration of government’s primary responsibility which is to serve the people not steal from the people.
[Marcus] Yeah I mean Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, you support a federal independent commission against corruption, we absolutely 100% need one. I mean how? Look at this for poor governance. I mean, it’s typical, a disregard for taxpayers money and bypassing data.
I know you love using data, but I mean how on earth can this land be valued without anybody even entering the site for goodness sake?
[Malcolm] Well you’re absolutely correct. And you know this is big as it is. It’s tiny compared to what is going on, say in the rorting of our energy, which is destroying jobs, exporting jobs overseas. That’s why we want to chase the CSIRO, yet again in Senate estimates and I’ll be holding them accountable.
I’ve written a letter ahead of time to make the best use my time saying I want certain questions answered. This will be the fifth opportunity for the CSIRO to produce evidence that climate policies are needed. And without that, we need to scrap these policies. Why hasn’t the government done it’s due diligence at the site where the land transaction–
[Marcus] Yup.
[Malcolm] Took place, why hasn’t the government done its due diligence on the CSIRO? We’ve given the CSIRO four opportunities, this will be the fifth, they have not come up with the goods we’re destroying not $30 million worth of wealth. We’re destroying trillions of dollars worth of wealth–
[Marcus] Yup.
[Malcolm] In this state, in this country because of these climate policies that have got no basis in science. So we’re giving the CSIRO yet another attempt, a fifth opportunity to provide the evidence.
[Marcus] All right, well, as I’ve discussed with you before, I mean, in order for our economy to continue for all, in order for investment to take place whether it’s in renewables, whether it’s in nuclear, whether it’s you know in coal or anything. There needs to be something on the table from the government.
There needs to be direction right now it’s a rudderless ship and we need, you know, if you want to attract investment into any energy source, renewable or otherwise, you need to let those who may be willing to invest in our energy needs. You need to let them know a roadmap, what’s happening. There’s nothing going on at the moment.
[Malcolm] Exactly and you know the reason why Marcus? Is because there’s no basis in fact, or science or data for their climate policies, there is none at all. The CSIRO has never proven that four times to us, because they’ve failed four times. And that’s the reason why there’s so many rudderless moves, so many rudderless direction’s going on or lack of direction going on in this state–
[Marcus] Yup.
[Malcolm] In this country, because there is lack of data underpinning the policies. And therefore people just get pulled from one side to the other in parliament. They don’t know where they’re going. They’re lost, they’re in a fog. Canberra is the most destructive city in the country. And I mean that sincerely.
[Marcus] Okay.
[Malcolm] Because they’re paid enormously and they add no value. The fastest growing income in the country is in Canberra. The fastest growing population of a city is in Canberra.
[Marcus] Yes.
[Malcolm] And the lack of accountability is there. And when government, federal government is the source of your growth, then you’re on a really downward slide slope into oblivion as far as this country is concerned. It’s just ridiculous because there’s nothing there that drives this, and this state, as in the state government, the government.
[Marcus] Yup.
[Malcolm] Is out of control.
[Marcus] All right, let’s just move on to youth crime, if we can now, now there’s been some suggestions that if the opposition in Queensland get in, they’ll put a curfew on youth up there in Townsville, and also in Cairns. I mean, what has led an increase in youth crime?
And that’s your neck of the woods up there in Queensland, I mean, what’s going on here? Is it poor parenting, high unemployment, lack of maybe consequences, you know, revolving door through courts, what is it? All of that?
[Malcolm] There’s a really positive story here Marcus, a wonderful story. There are community groups now in Townsville who are so concerned about the crime, that’s gone out of control in Townsville. It’s similar in Ipswich, in Caboolture and in Logan. These areas that have been traditional Labor Party Strongholds, Labor Party’s taken for granted and neglected them.
But the really positive sign is that there’s a group of, they’re actually a couple of groups in Townsville. They’re coming together now, both indigenous people and European descent. One for example is called One Community One Standard. And they’re saying, ‘We’ve had enough.
You people in government are not doing your job in the state government under the Labor Party machine. And we want to make sure that we put in place active community responses to the crime.’ And they’re not just saying let’s punish kids, because a lot of this is crime from juveniles.
They’re saying, let’s look at the root causes of this. Let’s get parents to stand up and say, we’ve got to look after the kids, learn and teach them responsibility which means parents have to take responsibility.
Let’s get energy policies correct, So that we get a return to cheap energy, which means more jobs instead of exporting jobs to China and having our kids on drugs and out of control on the streets, let’s give them work something meaningful.
And there are also some wonderful people up there who are Jeff Adams for example and Ross Butler, who has, coming up with juvenile boot camps that have been proven over many many years. And the government is just sitting on his hands. You know what the first initiative these people want Marcus?
They want a simple, confidential survey of all the people involved with these kids because the state government won’t let them speak. They can’t get the facts out. So government is now not only actively condoning this violence and this crime, they’re encouraging it by suppressing any doubt on it, again government just wanting to abandon people for the sake of political correctness and looking good rather than doing good.
This is a really positive story coming up in Townsville
[Marcus] All right.
[Malcolm] Because, One Community, One Standard.
[Marcus] But look Jacinta Pryce will be speaking more and Mundine. Yes tell me about this CPAC, that’s the U-S election day. Tell me about yeah okay, tell me about CPAC.
[Malcolm] CPAC stands, the philosophy is basically conservatism is the political philosophy which States that sovereignty resides in the person. It’s about restoring freedom in our country.
[Marcus] Yup.
[Malcolm] I spoke there last year.
[Marcus] Okay.
[Malcolm] It’s a wonderful gathering. I spoke there last year, I shared the stage with Jim Molan.
And it’s on this year, just one day this year, for Wednesday, the 4th of November, hopefully to celebrate Trump’s re-election, but they’ll also be handing out the CPAC Keneally Cup, which will be presented by Craig Kelly, because Christina Keneally won it last year for trying to stop this going ahead because Christina Keneally is one of the controls of politics and she wanted to stop free debate, stop free speech.
And she got so much publicity for CPAC, that CPAC was sold out. So I really strongly recommend anyone in Sydney to go there. But I can’t go this year because of the border closures
[Marcus] Sure.
[Malcolm] But it’s a wonderful display, wonderful forum.
[Marcus] So just on this, I, this is going to be cheeky. So the 2020 picks for this so-called Christina Keneally Cup will be what, Kevin Rudd, why? I mean, all he wants is for Murdoch not to control all of the newspapers up there in Queensland. Come on you’ve got to agree with that surely Malcolm
[Malcolm] Look and that’s Kevin Rudd just wanting to intimidate free press–
[Marcus] No he’s not.
[Malcolm] By promoting Royal commission to . We don’t need that, we just better a marketplace. If people don’t need Murdoch papers, they just don’t have to buy it.
[Marcus] Yeah but hang on, that note, Malcolm we’re going to have our first disagreement and you know how much I respect and admire you, but come on if Murdoch owns all of the papers in Queensland, what other choice do they have? There’s no other choice.
[Malcolm] Well, there are plenty of choices because we’ve never, it’s like the ABC up in the Pilbara Marcus.
[Marcus] No don’t try the ABC in Pilbara at me. I’m talking about Queensland, stop distracting. I thought you were better than that Malcolm.
[Malcolm] No what I’m saying is in the eighties, they only had the ABC and the–
[Marcus] Now he’s going back to the eighties, here we go.
[Malcolm] But hang on, hang on, give me a go.
[Marcus] All right.
[Malcolm] What’s What’s happening is that we’ve now got media from all over the world. You can get it on the internet. You don’t have to watch Murdoch. You don’t have to watch the ABC.
[Marcus] Yeah but now I know that. And people yeah that’s true, and hopefully they do, but people, you know, a lot of people aren’t as savvy as you they are stuck in their ways, older people and they buy newspapers. That’s what they’ve done all their lives. And a lot of them aren’t on the internet, funnily enough Malcolm.
And what they’re getting is the one source of news in the sunshine state. And I just, Malcolm I like you, but I can’t agree with you on this.
[Malcolm] We’ll agree to disagree.
[Marcus] All right then.
[Malcolm] I don’t see that we have to buy anything from Murdoch it’s up to people to choose whatever they want. Most of Murdoch’s stuff is on the net now. He publishes hardly any regional papers because they’re just not viable. So, you know, if you can get him on the internet, you can get anyone else on the internet too. So, you know, if you don’t like Murdoch, go elsewhere.
[Marcus] It’s not about not liking Murdoch. It’s about having a variety of sources in which to get your news and information all right mate. But anyway, we’ll talk more about this. We’ll have another disagreement but I do appreciate you coming on the programme mate. Thank you so much.
[Malcolm] You’re welcome, pleasure to be here, Marcus.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/GovernmentWaste.png?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=110801920Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-10-22 14:13:532020-10-22 14:14:01Government wastes $27 million on one piece of land
Around this time every week, we catch up with One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. Malcolm, good morning to you.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Good morning, Marcus, you have got a hectic morning this morning, I hear.
[Marcus Paul]
Always busy, which is just how we like it, but look, I’ve got the next six, seven minutes to chat away with you, which I’m really looking forward to today. I know you’ve been doing a lot of travelling, haven’t you? You been…
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yeah, we’ve gone from Brisbane right through to Cairns. I’m actually sitting in a hotel room in Cairns, and we’ve been listening to people along the way. It’s been fabulous. A bit rushed, but very good.
[Marcus Paul]
Yeah, why are you doing this tour again?
[Malcolm Roberts]
Because we’re getting the word out on my exposing the fact that the CSIRO has never produced any evidence for our climate policies and renewable energy policies.
We’re just getting that word out through the media around Queensland.
[Marcus Paul]
And how has it been received? I mean, I know you’ve been from Brisbane to the Sunny Coast, Maryborough, Rocky, Mackay, Townsville, Cairns, Toowoomba.
I mean, you’re a lucky man, travelling through all these beautiful parts of Australia.
[Malcolm Roberts]
I am, indeed, and we look forward to New South Wales being us pretty soon once the borders are reopened again.
[Marcus Paul]
Yes.
[Malcolm Roberts]
But no it’s been very well received. People know in their guts that there’s never been any evidence, scientific evidence to these policies that are destroying our country, Marcus, and they’re just so pleased to see someone actually exposing this rubbish.
[Marcus Paul]
Now I’m gonna talk very soon with the New South Wales MP down in the Murray region, Helen Dalton. She is–
[Malcolm Roberts]
Oh yeah.
[Marcus Paul]
Helen is a regular on the programme, much like yourself. She’s been screaming out, screaming and really unfortunately not being had a lot of attention paid to her.
She’s copped a lot from politicians. They’ve tried every trick in the political book to silence her. She wants a water register.
In other words, she wants politicians and others like herself to have a register that’s openly publicly available where people can say exactly how much water interests they have and that should also include national companies, foreign multinationals and everybody.
She wants more accountability on water. And look, she’s had a hard time trying to get this thing through the Parliament. She’s gonna try again for a register this week. It’s very tough.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yes and we’ve been calling for exactly the same thing for a couple of years now, Marcus. It’s definitely needed. Pauline has been calling for it as well.
We want full transparency, full openness so that people can see what’s happening to their water. And you know, what we’ve seen is in the last week, just at the end of last week, we saw the Water Minister, Mr. Pitt come out and big headlines were generated.
The biggest change, to the Murray-Darling basin in 10 years. And then we saw Bridget McKenzie, the leader of the Nationals in the Senate saying, “You cannot take any more water from our communities. The 450 gigalitres will not be coming from our farmers.
Enough is enough. You have taken enough.” And that’s very clear, Marcus. Yet the bloody report actually recommends quote, “work with the States to accelerate planning and delivery of the 450 gigalitres SDL water acquisition.”
This is insane. We’ve been along the same path for a couple of years now. But what the Nationals are doing is they’re responding to the pressure that we have put on them and they’ve come out now, initially they rubbished us, then they realised they couldn’t stop us because we have the data.
Then they went quiet and now they’re coming out to pretend they embrace what we’re saying, but they’re not doing it real–
[Marcus Paul]
All they–
[Malcolm Roberts]
they’re doing it in lies.
[Marcus Paul]
Yeah, they need to. I mean, it’s always- excuse me. I’m very sorry. It’s the first time
[Malcolm Roberts]
Bless you.
[Marcus Paul]
I’ve sneezed for ages, anyway. Hay fever, time of the year. Look at the end of the day, the problem’s always been, as you would know very well, Malcolm,
Since water has become scarce and we are a country where we do have droughts, there’s a light bulb moment that’s gone off somewhere and they thought, you know what, we can take advantage of this capitalism at its worst, and we’ll commodify water.
Well, ever since water became a commodity, something to be bought, sold and traded, that’s when the rot set in and you’re right, particularly for the Murray-Darling basin, in particular for my New South Wales listeners, we know it’s our country’s food bowl and the people of Australia deserve damn well better.
Look, I see too the Office of Scientific Integrity, you’ve spoken to Dr. Peter Ridd from James Cook University in Townsville about this issue. Is that right?
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yes we have, and Dr. Ridd has accompanied us on our travels from Brisbane right through to Cairns. Now he’s gonna join us again this morning.
Every one of the media conferences we’ve done with him. What he has been promoting for a while now is that we need a quality assurance system for the science.
That would then complete the scientific process. We’ve been arguing for an Office of Scientific Integrity.
There is so much dodgy science that’s not science, that’s killing agriculture in New South Wales and Queensland, Murray-Darling basin and its water allocations, international agreements that we’re supposed to be complying with, the so called vegetation protection legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that’s used to strangle development climate change policies, electricity policies, energy policies, forestry policies, coastal land resumptions where they’re stealing land rights from people who own own their houses on the Coast.
In New South Wales and Queensland, farmers lost their rights to use their land. These have all been based on dodgy science and then it’s not science.
So what we want is a proper scientific process that has quality assurance around it because these policies are strangling our country, gutting our economy, and we want this to be done properly with real integrity on the science, Marcus.
[Marcus Paul]
All right, I just wanna move to another issue. Dan Andrews and the prime minister, Scott Morrison, you say, are using competitive welfarism to replace our constitution’s bedrock competitive federalism.
What exactly do you mean by that?
[Malcolm Roberts]
Well, competitive federalism is where you have the exchange between States. So for example, Joh Bjelke-Petersen removed death duties in Queensland, in the seventies.
And what happened then was people then moved to the Queensland, Gold Coast in order to have their final years there and eventually die there because they would leave more money to their descendants, their kids.
And so what happened then was the other States were losing their businesses, losing their wealthy, losing their retirees. And so they enacted policies as well to remove death duties.
So we had a better and more competitive taxation system because of competitive federalism, competing between the States. It’s not ruthless cut throat competition, it’s finding out the best ways of running the State.
And that was designed by our forefathers, the founders of our constitution. What we have now is sloppiness, and there are several examples of this, but you’ve picked on one right now with Dan Andrews.
He made a mess of his State, he fell over in doing his job.
[Marcus Paul]
Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts]
He didn’t do his job, and as a result of that incompetence, Victoria is in a real mess. So what happens? The Prime Minister bails him out.
So the people of Queensland, the people of New South Wales, the people of South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory, ACT are paying for Dan Andrews’ lack of accountability and sloppiness and his dishonesty.
[Marcus Paul]
They’re doing that of course–
[Malcolm Roberts]
And that’s competitive welfarism.
[Marcus Paul]
Yeah, and that’s, that welfarism you refer to, the extension of job seeker payments, even though they’re being tiered now, but it just continues, and the longer that border closures remain in play, well, the longer the rest of the country is going to have to foot the bill for it.
What about Annastacia Palaszczuk up there? Has she be missing in action? What’s happening?
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yes, she has been missing in action. What people need to understand about Queensland, the Labor machine runs the state. It’s ruthless and it’s not democratic government, nor is it caring and accountable.
And the corruption is flourishing across our State and local government markets, and we’ll be having much more to say about that in coming weeks, but it’s not Annastacia Palaszczuk who runs this state, it is the Labor machine.
Now what they’ve done is they’re missing in action to some extent, because they’ve handed over to the Chief Health Officer who has one priority, people’s physical health.
Well, Marcus, what about mental health? What about economic health? Because as they’re destroying our economy up here, this Queensland Labor machine that is appealing to the media and try to play to people’s emotions and heartstrings, they’re actually destroying our State and they’re not doing this in a humane way.
We have so many examples. Now your programme has led the way in exposing these things, we’ve got so many issues that are treating people inhumanely.
We’ve got kids with broken legs in hospitals, their parents from New South Wales can’t even visit them in Queensland.
We’ve got cancer patients, we’ve got babies in wombs dying, et cetera, and cancer patients not being treated all because the machine wants to be seen to be protecting Queenslanders when the machine is destroying Queenslanders.
If they really cared about people, they would identify the hotspots and ban people from there.
[Marcus Paul]
I mean, look. The other issue of course is you’ve got a lot of hypocrisy going on. We helped a gentleman yesterday who was, who’d been stuck on the Tweed Coast.
His father is in Royal Brisbane hospital. He’s had a massive head trauma, he’s on life support. They’re about to turn it off. He desperately, desperately needed to get to see his father in his dying days along with his sister.
We had to intervene. We had to go cap in hand to Queensland Health and we also spoke to the New South Wales health department and also to the wonderful people in Pauline’s office at One Nation.
We got this bloke across the border, along with his sister and we shouldn’t have to be doing this, we shouldn’t, but at the end of the day, the reason we shouldn’t be having to intervene like this and to expedite these kinds of situations for people is, well, some are getting the red card treatment.
Look at the red carpet treatment, look at the AFL officials. They can come on in, they can frolic, they can have a pool party for God’s sake on the Gold Coast.
Tom Hanks can just rock up whenever he likes, it appears, without having to go into quarantine. There’ll be 30,000 people gathering for the AFL Grand Final and everyday Queenslanders cannot gather in groups of more than 10. I mean for goodness sake.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yeah, you’ve hit the nail on the head and that’s what I’m talking about. It’s a ruthless Labor Party machine up here that does not care about people.
Annastacia, sorry, Annastacia Palaszczuk, one of her predecessors was Anna Bligh. Two weeks before a State election, the machine promised that they would not sell assets.
Within weeks of the election, just six weeks after their promise, they flogged off billions of dollars worth of core assets in this State. It is a Labor Party machine. It’s not Queensland, it is the Labor Party machine that is uncaring and inhuman–
[Marcus Paul]
Well, problem is–
[Malcolm Roberts]
And what the AFL Grand Final should be up here, but we need to treat Queenslanders with respect.
[Marcus Paul]
All right, well, our problem is, and we’ve got to call into Deb Frecklington’s office, I mean, she’s almost, what she’s back down really now because of populism, I guess, she’s supporting Annastacia Palaszczuk. I’ve run out of time, Malcolm.
[Malcolm Roberts]
See you, mate .
[Marcus Paul]
All right, buddy. Thank you so much. As always good to chat. We’ll talk to you next week, okay?
[Malcolm Roberts]
Thanks, Marcus.
[Marcus Paul]
One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts, as always speaking a good deal of sense on the programme.
Queensland is plagued with poor policies that are undermining our economic prosperity and productive capacity. Whether it be our cattle industry, reef tourism, sugar farming or our coal mines, policy is being determined on the whims of the current political party and Queenslanders are suffering.
Channel 7 have reported on our press conference where cane sugarcane farmer Geoffrey Bradshaw claims that reef regulations are crippling his industry. Dr Peter Ridd has been studying sediment run-off on the GBR for 30 years and is certain that if policy was based on robust scientific evidence, the reef regulations would be scrapped.
Our proposed Office of Scientific Integrity would ensure that all policy is based on the best available science.
Transcript
[Laura]
It’s the big claim from a scientist and a One Nation Senator, that if true, could shatter the base of reef relations.
[Dr Peter Ridd]
I think you’d find that most of the latest regulations would be found to be completely unwarranted. There is no pesticides out on the Great Barrier Reef.
[Senator Roberts]
I’ve had a gut full of why things operate in the Senate or don’t operate. We’ve had politicians that make policies based on emotions, fears, exaggerations, and sometimes outright lies.
[Laura]
One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts has proposed an office of scientific integrity be formed.
[Senator Roberts]
So that we can restore honesty in science again.
[Dr Peter Ridd]
Well we’ve got to make sure that the science is absolutely robust and well tested.
[Laura]
Dr. Peter Ridd says the office would look at the science behind all policies, not just reef regulations. Senator Roberts says he’s confident that if implemented it would debunk some of the science that forms policies across multiple industries.
[Senator Roberts]
It’s affecting cattle, it’s affecting the reef tourism, it’s affecting cane, and it’s affecting coal.
[Laura]
Cane farmers say the regulations have crippled their industry.
[Mr Jeffrey Bradshaw]
We’re awash, we’re awash with regulations.
[Senator Roberts]
The Palaszczuk Government in particular has criminalised farmers.
Re: Repeal of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 2019
Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef is an immense treasure and multi-dimensional asset belonging to the people of Queensland.
Our beautiful reef is a spiritual asset connecting people with nature’s universal awe and wonder, an ecological asset and an enormous economic asset with vast unrealised potential value in tourism, fishing, research, healthcare, recreation and other activities. It is a living part of Queensland, a renewable asset for generations to come.
I hope you agree that it is the duty of elected officials to work for the benefit of all citizens within their jurisdiction and that in our country governments have a duty to listen to, understand, work for, and serve the people.
On Monday 27 and Tuesday 28 July 2020 I took part in the Senate’s Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) inquiry into the identification of leading practices in ensuring evidence-based regulation of farm practices that impact water quality outcomes in the Great Barrier Reef, held here in Brisbane. I was amazed yet not surprised with the answers to fundamental questions that senators asked on behalf of all Queenslanders. Among many facts the academics presented to us about the reef, we learned that what some groups say about the reef is incorrect. Specifically, that:
“Cloudy water” affects only the inner reefs being three per cent of the reef and is natural. Indeed, the portion adjacent to farm runoff is only half that, being 1.5 per cent with the other 1.5 per cent being off Cape York whose coastline is largely agriculturally undeveloped. The cloudy water effect is natural with no effect from modern farming methods.
Targets for pesticides near the reef and on the reef are not being exceeded and results shows there is no need for your Labor government’s most recent reef regulations.
Middle and outer reefs are pristine and show no impact from farming.
There is no direct evidence that dissolved nitrogen is having any effect on inshore coral reefs and certainly no effect on the middle and outer reefs;
There have been no measurements of coral growth rate since 2005. That’s fifteen years with no data and the question this raises is – what is the basis for the Labor government’s regulations?
Over recent decades farmers have made massive changes to farming practice, yet academics say there has been no impact from these changes and that leads logically to the conclusion that farming is having no discernible impact on the reef. Thus, there is no need for the Queensland Labor government’s reef regulations.
The cost of the Queensland Labor government’s regulations to each farmer is or will be tens of thousands of dollars per family farm. There is no benefit to the reef, and it will increase the price of the food we buy.
Secondly, it became clear during the inquiry that the Labor government is not meeting farmers’ needs to be heard and that agriculture seems to be a dirty word to your government. Neither is your government meeting farmers’ and communities’ needs to be treated with respect and consideration. Farmers are understandably frustrated and angry and have lost confidence in your government because they have never been presented with the empirical scientific evidence needed to justify the changes your Labor government is imposing.
Thirdly, farmers today are environmentalists and not criminals. Farmers know that their main asset is their farm soil and they protect it. Farmers today know that the future productivity and value of their farm depends on the quality of the surrounding natural environment. Farmers know that productive farming and the natural environment have a mutually beneficial relationship, not as you portray, as being mutually exclusive. Productive farming depends on a healthy natural environment and in turn the natural environment depends on healthy, economically productive farming communities.
These days farming must be internationally competitive, and farmers cannot afford to waste money applying fertilisers if those fertilisers run-off their farm. Technology today places fertilisers where they are needed and no more.
In giving evidence under questioning, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, AIMS, admitted:
“There is lots we don’t know about the Great Barrier Reef”;
The term “Consensus Statement” may be misleading;
“Climate change is not connected to farming”.
Your Labor government and senior public service bureaucrats seem to operate under the spell of ideologically driven activists including the notorious WWF, who are pushing their agenda to destroy Queenslanders’ rights to use their land and to destroy basic freedoms. These few activists and your government pandering to people who lack understanding of the source of their food are demonising farmers, farming and food production. You and they are doing so in contradiction of the science and in conflict with common sense.
The inquiry was told that the 30 per cent nitrogen reduction target has been modelled to cost $110 million annually for sugar cane farmers and sugar millers. Yet the science shows that this is and will be for no environmental benefit. That means that all this pain is for no gain.
I hope that you will support my recent call for an Office of Scientific Integrity to ensure the validity of science in making policies that are claimed to be based on science.
I enclose a copy of my report titled Restoring Scientific Integrity, together with a copy of Dr Alan Moran’s report titled The Hidden Cost of Climate Policies and Renewables. These show that your government’s destructive energy policies are costly mistakes for which the people of Queensland are paying heavily and for which you have no justifiable scientific basis.
I request that you reconsider your farming, climate and renewable energy policies. Your Labor government’s reef regulations will destroy east coast farming and your energy policies will smash all industries across the state, destroy livelihoods, export jobs and place a frightful burden on all families and on people’s cost of living.
I look forward to your reply and request that your government holds an independent inquiry into the unfounded “science” underpinning its reef regulations, repeals the legislation and apologies to farmers across the state.
The timber industry in Queensland is being decimated by regulations that are not based on robust science. The Queensland Labor party has been captured by the Greens who have an ideological opposition to logging.
Even sustainable logging.In Maryborough, layer upon layer of red tape is choking the sustainable harvesting of timber leading to timber being sourced from overseas. The proposed Office of Scientific Integrity would ensure that policy development would be based on independent, empirically based scientific evidence rather than the loopy Greens.
Transcript
[Rosie]
A senator, a businessman, and a scientist claim this report will unearth lies about Australia’s climate change and renewable energy.
[Senator Roberts]
So over the last four years I’ve investigated the CSIRO, in fact, I’ve cross-examined them. I’ve asked them to present me with the evidence that we’re doing something with climate and we need to stop it.
[Rosie]
Senator Malcolm Roberts says common concepts that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger to the climate and that today’s temperatures are unprecedented, were fabricated for political gain.
[Senator Roberts]
That’s shoddy. So as a result of that, we’ve been recognising that the corruption of science is right across the country.
[Rosie]
According to Tiaro local Curly Tatnell, the impacts of corrupt science is huge for the timber industry.
[Mr Curly Tatnell]
Country that we should normally be able to harvest and things like that being locked up, which means that we’ve got to produce smaller timber.
[Rosie]
He says farmers are harvesting their properties prematurely because of misinformation. It’s led the men to call for the establishment of an office of scientific integrity.
[Dr Peter Ridd]
To check the science that’s being used for making major public policy decisions, whether they’re state or federal.
[Rosie]
The state government is aware of the groups calls. Rosie O’Brien, 7 News.
When policy development is at the mercy of the political whims of which ever party is in government, it cripples industry and Australia’s future economic prosperity.
Instead of reputable evidence, policy makers defer to political beliefs and vested interests, resulting in a policy failure that wastes an eye-watering amount of taxpayers’ money.
Senator Roberts said, “We must have an Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) to scrutinise science, protect scientists from politicisation, and give all industry players the confidence that the policy is warranted and just.”
Politicians often ignore the vast uncertainties in many areas of science used for policy development, and true scientific oversight will enhance public debate and transparency.
“Australia’s climate policies are a stunning example of policy determining the scientific “evidence”, rather than science informing policy,” added Senator Roberts.
The diminishing trust in government’s use of data for policy development is being felt across a range of industries.
In the area of science governing Queensland’s reef regulations and farming, Dr Peter Ridd says, “It’s not until we can get our scientific institutions to be trustworthy that we will finally be able to trust science again.
Evidence-based policy making is not a new concept, though it needs more prominence in Australian political debate. The design of good policy depends on a solid foundation of reputable science.
“I am committed to more transparency in justifying policy, and welcome contributions to the development of an oversight body, such as the Office of Scientific Integrity,” concluded Senator Roberts.
