“Voice running costs? Don’t you worry about that.”

,

Senate Estimates exposed the billion-dollar costs given to indigenous agencies and the unlimited costs required to run the Voice if the Voice is agreed to at the Referendum.

An open cheque book will be required from the taxpayer to fund thousands of jobs and a brand new bureaucracy for the Aboriginal industry to exploit at tax payer expense.

There has been no detail provided as to how the Voice would work if it gets up. The government approach is one of “Don’t you worry about that. We are the government and we are here to help you.”

Click Here for Transcript | Part 1

Chair: I understand Senator Roberts has some questions for the NIAA, so I give the call to you, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing today. What are the total dollar costs to the taxpayer of holding the proposed Voice referendum?

Dr Gordon: Thank you for the question. In the 2023-24 budget, the government provided $364.6 million over the three years from 2022-23. That included $336.6 million over two years for the AEC to deliver the referendum; $10.6 million to produce information pamphlets for the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ cases; $12 million over two years to deliver a civics education program on the referendum, the Constitution and the referendum proposal; $10.5 million in 2023-24 for the Department of Health and Aged Care to increase mental health supports for First Nations people during the period of the referendum; and $5.5 million in 2023-24 to the NIAA to maintain existing resourcing levels to support the referendum. Those measures build on measures from the budget in October last year, and those measures were $50.2 million to the AEC to commence preparations for the referendum, $6.5 million over two years to NIAA to support the referendum and $2.4 million to the Department of Finance and the Attorney-General’s Department.

Senator Roberts: That totals $364 million?

Dr Gordon: It’s $364 million in 2023-24 plus those figures from the October budget last year.

Senator Roberts: What is the $10.5 million to be spent on mental health for?

Ms Guivarra: I think we’ve got colleagues from the department of health in the room next door. We might just get them to come in so they can provide more detail on that.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

Senator McCarthy:I’d just note, too, there was a follow-up question from Senator Stewart around the mental health as well.

Mr Matthews: I missed the question. I think the question was to understand a little bit more about the $10½ million for mental health support for the referendum. Is that the question?

Senator Roberts: That’s correct.

Senator Stewart: We both asked it.

Mr Matthews: You both asked the same question? That’s good. I’m just clarifying that I’ve got the frame of the answer right. The budget does provide $10½ million in support for mental health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the referendum. That’s in recognition that the referendum process may have an impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and cause levels of concern around the debate that plays out publicly in that. So it is to provide additional supports and places that they can go. The measure will basically provide funding through to the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, who will coordinate the use of that funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to reach in. It will provide a range of supports for people. That will be co-designed very heavily with NACCHO and other mental health experts into the design and delivery of that funding. There is also half a million dollars in there for a process to monitor and evaluate that process.

Senator Roberts: So $10 million is for mental health assistance and half a million dollars is for monitoring that assistance?

Mr Matthews: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Are there any expected mental health issues?

Mr Matthews: There’s obviously wide research over time about the impacts of racism on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the impact that that has on their mental health and wellbeing and, indeed, their broader health outcomes. That is a known phenomenon. I think there is also a range of literature and lived experience that, when there are a range of public discussions around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs or things that are sensitive around that, that can bring up issues for people and make things difficult for that. So it’s to ensure that there is support for that.  Part of this also leverages back to the experience of the same-sex marriage debate. I think the learned experience out of that is that that also did raise issues for many people in the affected communities for that that were looking for increased support through that process. So it’s looking at what happened in that experience, and this is really framed to respond to that experience and ensure that, upfront, we’ve got supports in place and are expanding on it. It also builds on the existing mental health effort—that’s probably the other bit that I should add in. It’s not a standalone thing. The government invests probably about $1½ billion per year on mental health funding overall. That’s for mainstream and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There are, obviously, specific things within that funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health generally but also the mainstream population. This would put a specific support over and above that for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but obviously the vast weight of that money is also for—

Senator Roberts: What do you mean by ‘the mainstream population’?

Mr Matthews: The broader Australia population, so anybody can access it.

Senator Roberts: Can you confirm the total sum of $781.5 million was allocated to the NIAA in the October 2022-23 budget, building on $1 billion and $21.9 million previously announced? That’s a lot of money.  The figures are taken from the budget papers. Is that correct?

Ms Guivarra: We have our CFO online. Nick, do you want to confirm those for the senator, please?

Mr Creagh: Sorry. Could you repeat that question, Senator?

Senator Roberts:Can you confirm the total sum of $781.5 million was assigned to the NIAA in the October 2022-23 budget, building on $1 billion and $21.9 million previously announced?

Mr Creagh: Senator, I will have you shortly. I just have to quickly draw on the October portfolio budget statements. It might be best if you go to the next question, and then I will come back to you when I’ve got the answer for you.

Senator Roberts: Okay. Does the role of the NIAA, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, already include raising to government issues that are specific to the needs of the four per cent of the population of Australia who are Indigenous?

Ms Broun: Thank you for that question. The NIAA has a broad role working, leading and influencing right across government and leading a couple of important pieces of work like Closing the Gap, so we do have that role, but we are also a deliverer of programs to First Nations people right across the country. That is a role that we take quite seriously—that leading, influencing and working in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—but we are a government agency.

Senator Roberts: So will the NIAA still be relevant if the Voice proceeds?

Ms Broun: I think that there’s a lot of work to be done before that question can be answered, and we don’t have a position on it at the moment.

Senator McCarthy: The response is yes, Senator.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Should the ‘yes’ vote in the coming referendum be successful, please tell us what the set-up costs of the Voice are estimated to be and what the yearly running costs of the Voice would be.

Ms Guivarra: Of course, the work to date has been in establishing design principles for a Voice. That is the work of the Referendum Working Group. In terms of how the Voice will function, a lot of that obviously will happen through a consultation process that will be conducted post referendum in finalising the design, and of course that design would be considered by parliament. So ultimately some of those features that you’re describing will be things that parliament will need to consider.

Senator Roberts: So we don’t know the cost, really.

Mr Matthews: At this stage, no.

Senator Roberts: There would be many costs involved. There are the direct costs and then the indirect costs in terms of another entity being put in place in the legislative process, for example.

Ms Guivarra: I think it would just be a bit speculative at this stage to try and predict what the costs associated with the administration of a Voice might be. As I said, there are design principles, so we know some of the elements of how the Voice may function, but, indeed, many of the things around the specifics of the design will be things that would be considered through a consultation process with the broader Australian community and be settled with parliament involved as well.

Senator Roberts: Yes. Minister, it leaves me concerned because, the way this parliament works, it doesn’t work on data when it makes policies and legislation. To have an open-ended script or a blank cheque doesn’t seem the right way to go. I have some questions for you, representing the Prime Minister. Why are these costs of running the Voice being held back from Australian voters?

Senator McCarthy: Senator Roberts, there’s nothing being held back. We’ve been as open and transparent as we can be in terms of our steps towards the campaign and in terms of the referendum itself. We’ve certainly been open and transparent about the costs that are associated with running a referendum, the costs associated with running a civics education campaign and the costs, of course, of the actual referendum itself, right across the country. We’ve also been very clear that, should the campaign and the referendum be successful, the debate has to occur within the parliament, and that will take whatever the next 12 months will be post the referendum. We’re also incredibly mindful that this is a challenge. It will be up to the Australian people to determine whether they’ve got enough information as we lead into the campaign proper. We still have to debate the constitution alteration bill that’s before the House at the moment. We still have to debate it in the Senate. We still have some work to do just here in the parliament.

Senator Roberts: So there’s a lot of uncertainty?

Senator McCarthy: There’s always uncertainty about any referendum.

Senator Roberts: Especially when the proposal is not clearly defined.

Senator McCarthy: The debate hasn’t concluded in the Australian parliament yet.

Senator Roberts: While people are tightening their belts during this period of out-of-control costs, with savage inflation biting and huge cost-of-living increases, how can Australians afford this expensive exercise of destroying the Australian parliamentary system of democracy that has worked so well to date?

Senator McCarthy: I totally disagree with your concept that any debate that we are having right now is destroying anything. It’s enabling our country to have the democratic conversation that we should.

Senator Roberts: I agree with you: debates are always wonderful and very useful—if they’re done openly, and that’s my concern.

Senator McCarthy: It’s before the House at the moment. It comes to the Senate. There is nothing that has not been brought before the parliament in terms of the bills. This is where we have the open debates.

Senator Roberts: I’m talking about the definition of what the Voice would, will like, how it will operate, what the systems will be, where it will impact—

Senator McCarthy: Those principles and the design principles are very clear. You may not accept them or like them, but they are very transparent and open for everyone to see.

Senator Roberts: It’s not matter of whether I like them or not. It’s a matter of definition—

Senator McCarthy: It clearly must be, because you keep referring to the fact that there’s nothing out there, when it is out there, in terms of the design principles. We’ve said that on numerous occasions here in this estimates process. It is there on the website. It is there in the information for the public to access.

Senator Roberts: Do you think the Australian voters will support a ‘yes’ vote if they know how much this will cost them in taxes to pay for it? It will cost a lot of money to put in additional bureaucracy.

Senator McCarthy: Any referendum in this country is very difficult to win. Forty-four have been held. Only eight have been won. We acknowledge that this is a challenge and that the Australian people will determine the outcome.

Senator Roberts: This is an open cheque written on behalf of the Australian taxpayers. There are so many things that are undefined. The direct costs of running the Voice, if it gets up, and then the indirect costs and the impact on so many operations in this country are huge.

Senator McCarthy: The process is not concluded. The bill is before the parliament in the House and yet to be debated in the Senate. We have not concluded the process of the parliament and therefore, when we do, there will be many things that the Australian people can make their decisions on.

Senator Roberts: Why isn’t the government talking about the indirect and direct costs of running the Voice if it gets in?

Senator McCarthy: You’ve seen the total already. We’ve been talking about the figures, which—

Senator Roberts: No, that’s the referendum.

Senator McCarthy: In terms of the referendum, but we’ve also looked at the costs of going forward with regional voices. These are things that we are bringing forward in terms of our debate in the parliament. I think I’ve made that very clear.

Senator Roberts: The Labor Party or the government has not talked about the potential negatives openly with the people: the frustration of parliamentary processes and the addition of a ninth chapter. We’ve only heard the benefits, and even those have been very vague. This doesn’t give people confidence.

Senator McCarthy: Only time will see on that front.

Senator Roberts: What will be the other costs to voters from the slowing down of government, bogged down with court proceedings and increased bureaucracy?

Senator McCarthy: As we’ve heard from legal experts across the country, that will not be the case.

Senator Roberts: How many new jobs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will be created by the Voice?

Senator McCarthy: This will be an opportunity for First Nations people in every state and territory jurisdiction to be able to speak to the parliament and the executive, should we be successful at this referendum, which will also mean that local and regional voices will also be established. In terms of particular jobs right now, our focus is on jobs across the CDP sector; and the health sector, in terms of the 500 health positions that we want to roll out. These are connected in terms of where we want to lift the problems that we encounter right across the country.

Chair: Senator Roberts, you’ve had a good 15 minutes now.

Senator Roberts: Last one?

Chair: Great. Then I will give the call to Senator Steele-John, and then we are back over to this side.

Senator Roberts: How many new bureaucratic officers will need to be found and what will be the salaries of the thousands of new positions created to service the Voice?

Senator McCarthy: I’d certainly like to think that our First Nations regions, in terms of the Voice should it be successful, will need the capability of a secretariat of sorts to assist them in terms of defining specifically what that will be. Clearly we have to see what happens with the outcome of the referendum and our debate post that.

Senator Roberts: Sticking to that point about the bureaucracy: having travelled to all of the communities on Cape York—mixed communities and Aboriginal communities—they’re very concerned, frustrated and sometimes angry about the lack of impact of the funds that we give them on the ground. They see that the bureaucracy, whether that be black people or white people, it doesn’t matter; the bureaucrats, the lawyers, the activists, the politicians—people are frustrated. They want real change, not more bureaucracy.

Senator McCarthy: Nowhere is that more clear than for those of us who’ve only just come into government in the last 12 months. We understand that, and that’s why we’re trying to create the changes that we see will give our country hope going forward.

Senator Roberts: But you’re adding more layers of bureaucracy.

Senator McCarthy: We’re giving hope.

Senator Roberts: Thank you, Chair.

Click Here for Transcript | Part 2

Chair: Senator Roberts, you now have the call.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Continuing our discussion, Minister, on ATSIC’s failure. It was a dismal failure, and it showed money without accountability is no substitute for truth. We see Aboriginal women like Senator Liddle and Senator Nampijinpa Price talking about the real issues affecting Aboriginal communities and Aboriginals across Australia, and they’ve won huge admiration across all sectors of Australia’s population.  Wouldn’t an open discussion be far more productive than spending and wasting billions more dollars? We have to get the truth.

Senator McCarthy: Senator, I just want to pick up on the lead-in to your question, about ATSIC. I think that everyone has a distorted view of ATSIC, and I can certainly reflect on the ATSIC that we had in the north, with Garrak-Jarru and regional councils. They were certainly not a problem for our organisations across most of Australia. The incident around the particular chair at the time, and others, was seen in a different view, and there has since been political commentary, even by the Liberal-Nationals, in relation to that previous Indigenous affairs minister and ministers who could have handled that very differently. So I do want to pick up on that; it is wrong to use that as the example for why we should not embark on a referendum.

Senator Roberts: You didn’t answer my question, Minister. I said that an honest debate with truth would be far better than another bureaucratic body without accountability.

Senator McCarthy: I did actually answer your question previously today when I said that we have been transparent in every way. We have brought to the parliament, from the very first night we won government, that we were maintaining the promise we took to the Australian people that was qualified in us winning government.  We have then proceeded with a working group, an engagement group, and we’ve certainly continued with the principles of the design around the referendum, which are on the website for all Australians to see. We’ve had debates in the parliament over the referendum bill, which have been open and transparent. And we currently have the constitutional alteration bill before the House, yet to come to the Senate. All of this is open and transparent, as it should be.

Senator Roberts: I’m talking about a debate on what the Aboriginal people need and what Australians need.

Senator McCarthy: This is the debate of the parliament, and every single member of the parliament is able to bring their reflections and their views in terms of the people they represent.

Senator Roberts: I’m not talking about a debate on the Voice. That is going ahead. I’m talking about a debate on the issues affecting Aboriginal people and why their needs are not being met. I acknowledge that they’re not being met, and I’d say it’s largely because of the Aboriginal industry. That’s not a slight on the Aboriginals; that’s a tarring of black and white consultants—

Senator McCarthy: It is a slight. You’ve used the word ‘industry’—Aboriginal industry. Straightaway, you’ve put First Nations people in the negative.

Senator Roberts: You cut me off.

Senator McCarthy: You need to be mindful of your words. Words can be weaponised.

Senator Roberts: That was very cleverly done. I was about to explain what the Aboriginal industry is. It’s white and black consultants, activists, politicians and bureaucrats who seek power and manipulate power. That is not looking after the Aboriginal people; that is hindering.

Chair: It’s the same industry we have here in parliament, Senator Roberts, and we all belong to it. I don’t think races have particular industries, unless we’re all part of one here.

Senator Roberts: That’s correct.

Chair: Senator Roberts, do you have a question?

Senator Roberts: Yes, I do. Wouldn’t it be better to have a truthful debate about the real issues—not about the Voice but about the real issues affecting and holding back Aboriginal communities?

Senator McCarthy: Can I ask you what contribution you’ve made to the Close the Gap debate when we have that every year in February?

Senator Roberts: I have proudly called out the Close the Gap initiative because I’ve listened to people across Cape York and people in the Torres Strait Islands, and they have told me that Close the Gap only perpetuates the gap because of the Aboriginal industry. We need to get to the issues—

Senator McCarthy: Doesn’t that answer your question, then? That is the time that we debate all of these issues that you’re raising. Don’t you think you’ve just answered your own question?

Senator Roberts: No, I do not.

Senator McCarthy: The reason why we have Close the Gap debates every February—prior to that it was every October because the previous government changed it for a couple of years; we brought it back to February—is that it reflects back to the stolen generations apology from the Prime Minister at the time, Kevin Rudd. As a result of that, we began Close the Gap so that the parliament, every single year, would know about the treatment of First Nations people and the spending of monies to First Nations people, and we would debate it in a respectful way. That happens every year.

Senator Roberts: I’m ashamed of the way the current Prime Minister and previous opposition leader and the current opposition leader have discussed the gap. It’s just a farce. It’s a sugar coating and a veneer. What I’m talking about is an open and honest debate about the real issues, as Senators Nampijinpa Price and Kerrynne Liddle have discussed at length widely around the country, and as Senator Pauline Hanson has discussed widely around the country. That’s what I’m talking about—a real debate.

Senator McCarthy: Are you saying that the Close the Gap debate is not real?

Senator Roberts: Criticism is not racist.

Senator McCarthy: That is the opportunity. This is what I’m pointing out. You’re putting your questions as though we don’t talk about it at all in the parliament—when we do. We have a specific time when we do it. We also have time, as you know, through the Senate processes: through motions and through private senators’ bills.  They are thoroughly discussed and debated in a very open way. I’m not too sure where you’re going with this when we already discuss it. It doesn’t mean that we’re pleased with the outcomes. Certainly, I would agree with you on that.

Chair: We have time for one more question and one answer, and then we’ll break for afternoon tea. Thank you.

Senator Roberts: We are not discussing this openly and honestly. It’s about labels, veneers and pretence.  What we’ve got in this country, through this kind of discussion—a charade around an insincere closing the gap—is an ‘us versus them’ situation, which will be exacerbated by the Voice.

Chair: Senator Roberts, where is your question? These are statements. These are debating points for the parliament.

Senator McCarthy: I disagree with you completely, Senator Roberts. You are in a position of power. You are in such a position of power as a member of this parliament. For you to say that it does not get discussed and debated is really quite appalling.

Senator Roberts: It wasn’t discussed until these two women entered the parliament.

Chair: Senator Roberts, you don’t have the call. Minister, have you finished your answer to Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: I haven’t got my question out yet. Isn’t the Voice based on race?

Chair: You are raising debating points, not clear questions.

Senator Roberts: I haven’t finished my question.

Chair: I did say we were about to break for afternoon tea.

Senator Roberts: The Voice is based on a racist proposal.

Senator McCarthy: You’re wrong. You’re totally wrong.

Chair: It seems you’re trying to invoke a debate about this question. On that basis, we will temporarily suspend for afternoon tea.

/8 Comments/by

Snowy 2.0 continues to throw good money after bad

,

I questioned the Snowy Hydro Authority on the Snowy 2.0 project at Senate Estimates.

Snowy 2.0 is a ‘big battery’ that pumps water from the Talbingo Reservoir up to the Tantangara Reservoir during the day when there is excess wind and solar electricity, then lets the water down during the evening peak to generate electricity when the sun isn’t shining and wind isn’t blowing.

If this sounds like we are planning on generating electricity twice to use it once, that is exactly what pumped hydro does.

The original cost of $2 billion is now out to $5.9 billion and likely to go over $10 billion. In addition, the transmission lines to bring the power into the grid will gouge out national parks and farmland, and cost another $10 billion. And their main boring machine has been bogged for more than a year.

I asked if this project is worth continuing.

The lack of detail around how much the power will cost electricity customers is frightening.

Listen to the answers. It sounds like the Snowy Authority is planning to profiteer by having the only power available when solar and wind are not generating enough power.

All I can say is be worried – this Government is actively planning massive increases in power bills.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing again today. Florence is now acknowledged to be bogged. When will it be unbogged?

Mr Barnes: I expect in weeks, not months. As soon as the slurry plant is operating, we’ll push forward, obviously in close consultation with our colleagues at DPIE and Parks, but we expect it to be relatively soon.

Senator Roberts: I empathise with you, having managed underground projects, some quite large—not as large as this one. There is a lot of uncertainty, and it’s hard telling people who are looking on how to think about this. It’s very difficult to describe.

Mr Barnes: You’ve got to see it to believe it.

Senator Roberts: That’s right. We’ve got journalists—admittedly journalists—now saying it’s time to cut our losses on Snowy 2.0. If the project is completed and all the high-voltage transmission lines are built across farmyards and national parks, there must be a calculation that takes the capital cost of the project as a whole and divides that by the life of the project to get a figure for how much the annual amortisation charge for the capital costs will be. Do you have the latest projection, please?

Mr Barnes: There was quite a lot in your question. Obviously we haven’t got an updated cost here, and we’ll provide that in months. We don’t have the cost of transmission, so I wouldn’t be able to provide that. I fully expect, through our corporate plan process, we’ll assess the returns from Snowy 2.0, and, if anything, the commercial case for it has got stronger since FID.

Senator Roberts: Sorry?

Mr Barnes: The commercial case for it has gotten stronger since the financial investment decision.

Senator Roberts: There were many factors that drove that commercial decision in the first place. Well, it wasn’t commercial, from what we understand, because there was no cost-benefit analysis, and the business case was redacted heavily, under Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership. This annual amortisation charge, which you can’t provide, is combined with annual costs like labour and maintenance to calculate what the real cost per megawatt hour will be once the project starts. You wouldn’t have the projected cost per megawatt hour either then?

Mr Barnes: That’s correct, but to think about Snowy 2.0 in megawatt hours is perhaps not the right way to think about it.

Senator Roberts: It’s a battery.

Mr Barnes: Yes, but it’s the provision of dispatchable demand over very long storage duration that allows lots of variable renewable electricity to be delivered. So we look at the business case in a much more fulsome way across the whole Snowy business. For example, over the past few years, we’ve procured 1,500 megawatts of solar and wind PPAs to enable the transition, which assets like Snowy 2.0 support. I think you’ve got to look at a whole-of-business business case, and the simple amortisation plus labour is, perhaps, too simplistic a way to consider the business case.

Senator Roberts: Now you’ve got me really worried. It’s not your responsibility with the solar and wind, but now I’m terrified of it. Your website lists the levelised cost of storage at between $25 and $35 per megawatt hour. On 340,000 megawatt hours each year, this suggests an annual cost of $11 million, including operating costs, maintenance, capital costs and the cost of buying the electricity to pump the water uphill. Is the $25 to $35 figure still accurate and, if not, what is the new figure?

Mr Barnes: I’ve not got a calculator that capable in my head, but I think there might be a multiplying factor out on those numbers. The levelised cost of storage I think we have on our website is sourced from international studies and our view of levelised cost of storage. I don’t have the updated figure in my head at the moment.

Senator Roberts: Our staff team did some calculations. Now, admittedly, we don’t have all the costs, but it just seems ridiculously low. When we pile on these extra costs of the delay, we’re wondering about what will happen.

Mr Barnes: Just to be clear, the levelised cost of storage is what one would add to variable renewable electricity to provide a firm product. Also, the 340,000 megawatt hours of storage is not deployed over a year. It will be deployed multiple times through the year, depending on the market dynamics.

Senator Roberts: It seems to us that the capital cost is becoming a huge stumbling block. Even if you take just the cost of the project, at $6 billion—and there are serious doubts about that now—and amortise those across 50 years, the annual capital charge will be $120 million, and double that if you add the pole and the wires. That puts the cost of your electricity at over $700 per megawatt per hour, including the poles and wires. The current spot price for last weekend—admittedly the weekend was cold down here—for last weekend was $150 per megawatt hour. Is there something we’re missing?

Mr Barnes: We’ll certainly do a full financial review of the project when the increased costs are known. But I think you’re mischaracterising the nature of the asset in that it isn’t an energy provider. It’s an insurance provider for when the wind isn’t blowing, the sun isn’t shining or there is plant failure elsewhere. So we don’t sell it as a baseload energy price, which is what you’re referencing.

Senator Roberts: Hasn’t it been touted as a peak period source of electricity?

Mr Barnes: The two major sources of revenue will be the difference between the price we pump the water up to Tantangara, which will soak up demand from solar and wind when it’s not required, and the price at which we sell it in peak periods when solar and wind aren’t available or other plants are not available. So it’s an asset about being there when everything else isn’t. It isn’t sold on an energy basis, which are the reference prices you’re quoting.

Senator Roberts: Okay. But the projected cost must be the single most important KPI of this project.

Mr Barnes: Cost and schedule are my most important KPIs. The reason we came out with the schedule is that there are many stakeholders interested in the schedule, and we’ll work through the cost and associated business plans around that.

Senator Roberts: There seems to be a real risk, though. I acknowledge your point that we can’t just charge per kilowatt hour—or we can’t just recognise a per kilowatt hour figure. But there seems to be the real possibility that the price of electricity generated, recovered and stored will be massive, even without government subsidies coming in year after year.

Ms Barnes: I think that’s for others to comment on. My focus is on getting the project at schedule and cost and making a business case for it, which I think is very strong. There are many other factors which will determine the price of electricity.

Senator Roberts: Minister, can you provide on notice the current projected cost per megawatt hour of electricity generated by Snowy 2.0 on the first year of operation, please?

Senator McAllister: Senator, I will take that on notice. I would also direct you to the evidence given to you already by Mr Barnes in relation both to the variability in the electricity market that Snowy will participate in but also—

Senator Roberts: A lot of variability means uncertainty.

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I think that Mr Barnes has given an indication that he thinks it’s a strong business case and they’re presently working through it. I have taken your question on notice.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. This had nothing to do with your government, but right from the start of this project, Malcolm Turnbull’s government refused access to the cost-benefit analysis and heavily redacted the business case. There have been lots of questions about this project right from the start and now there are even more questions—and I don’t blame Mr Barnes for that.

Mr Barnes: My interest is running a commercially viable and efficient company, and that’s what I’ve done all of my career. The reason I joined Snowy was to get the opportunity to deliver Snowy 2, because I think it’s an incredibly important asset to the energy transition. I fully expect it to be very commercial. We’re trying to deal with the hardest part of the transition, which is providing deep storage to enable more renewables. So I expect it to be a very commercial business.

Senator Roberts: Can I confirm media reports that Snowy Hydro was found in a third independent audit last year to be noncompliant on environmental plans in 15 instances and that you have at last 10 management plans overdue?

Mr Barnes: I think, Senator, that you’re maybe referring to a National Parks Association report that was released last Thursday, without consultation with Snowy Hydro. We are currently operating under all of our construction approvals. So there are no breaches there. The plans and requirements as a result of the construction and operation of Snowy 2 obviously changed in nature over time. There are some that are relevant to construction, and we’re fully compliant with those. There are some that are relevant to operation and some that are relevant to rehabilitation. We work closely with all of the agencies to make sure that they’re reviewed and consulted on in every thorough way. I think there’s been a misunderstanding of some of the dates on various websites. So I have reached out to the National Parks Association to help them understand how it operates.

Senator Roberts: So it’s a misunderstanding that 10 of the 16 management plans for multibillion-dollar pumped hydro projects are overdue by 31 months, as reported in the media, citing the National Parks Association? So you think they’ve got it wrong somewhere?

Mr Barnes: The plans that are being referred to are prepared by Snowy and they are reviewed by various agencies. In consultation with the agencies, some of the dates that were originally envisaged are not being met and, therefore, are phases of the project which are way into the future. One of the things that may be useful for us to do is to work with the various agencies to make that understanding of how this process works. I would have happily taken the National Parks Association through that process.

Senator Roberts: Okay; so they jumped the gun?

Mr Barnes: They didn’t consult with Snowy Hydro before releasing it to the media.

Senator Roberts: Can I go to your opening statement? You recently announced a one- to two-year delay.  That’s a heck of a range, 100 per cent—from minimum to major.

Mr Barnes: It’s a project that’s being constructed over more than one to two years. It’s been in construction a few years. I think it was appropriate to give a range until we do more work.

Senator Roberts: I appreciate your honesty. I am not questioning your honesty—and I appreciate that you have given us that figure. But, for the project, that’s a pretty big number. What was the original planned project duration?

Mr Barnes: It was before my time. Perhaps we’ll come back to you. We gave a notice to proceed in mid-2020 and power was expected in 2025-26.

Mr Whitby: First power was for 1 July 2025, from a notice to proceed from August 2020. So five years was the original—

Senator Roberts: So the delay is 20 per cent to 40 per cent?

Mr Barnes: That would be the simple maths.

Chair: Senator Roberts, I’ll get you to wind it up and share the call, if that’s okay?

Senator Roberts: Okay. You mentioned in your statement the combination of four factors. What are the four factors? I’ve been through your statement and I couldn’t see them.

Mr Barnes: In our advice to ministers and in our media release we identified the effects of COVID and bushfires on the mobilisation of the project, the effect of many global factors on the availability of skilled labour and also the costs of materials. There’s a lot of steel and concrete in the project. We’ve found that some elements of the design—as we’ve gone through the process of design—are, in some cases, more costly to complete. And finally, the site conditions, of which the Florence ground conditions are the most impactful, also includes things like additional eroding. They’re the four factors.

Senator Roberts: Good luck getting that machine out.

Mr Barnes: Thanks.

/5 Comments/by

Libraries peddling sexually explicit material to kids

,
I asked the Classification Board about giving the graphic novel “Gender Queer’ a rating of M. This rating is only a recommendation, allowing the book to be made available in Libraries and sold in bookstores to children of any age. This publication is a common choice for drag queen story time and similar events.

I do understand the position the Classification Board is in. The rating system for publications is limited and the next step up from M is R, which requires the publication to be sold in a plastic wrapper. If this was a video then an additional classification of MA15+ physically restricts the publication to people 15+.

Now that graphic novels are a thing again, it is time to review the ratings system to give the Classification Board more options, especially for graphic novels like this.

In the case of Gender Queer, the publication does foster debate in a way that will help some kids, however the author chose to add a layer of explicit sex and sexual talk that weakens the use as a serious discussion starter.

The threat of a restrictive rating may encourage publications that are reasoned and responsible rather than cynical and exploitative.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here today. I think these questions will probably go to Mr Sharp. I will leave that to you, Ms Jolly. My questions reference the book entitled Gender Queer: A Memoir. Are you familiar with it?

Ms Jolly: Yes, indeed.

Senator Roberts: Amazon lists this book as suitable for people only 18 years of age and over. The Classification Board has reviewed the book and given it a rating of M, which is a recommendation only. It is not legally binding. According to your website, ‘M’ is, and I quote: Unrestricted classification, meaning any child of any age can access the book with a recommendation that it not be made available to under-15s.  Is that correct?

Ms Jolly: That’s correct.

Senator Roberts: The material in Gender Queer: A Memoir is what we would have called a cartoon book; it has a fancy name these days.

Ms Jolly: Graphic novel.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. This is very graphic. It has full oral sex depiction between two people. Is my accurate representation of the classification of Gender Queer: A Memoir correct?

Ms Jolly: It’s what the classification board gave, yes. It is an unrestricted publication with a rating of M and consumer advice that it is not suitable for readers under 15 years of age. Yes, that’s correct.

Senator Roberts: Queensland commonly has a child’s library card for under-12s. It is probable a child under 12 years could view this in a public library but not borrow it. New South Wales has no such children’s card, so a child of any age could borrow this book. If a child even under 10 years, for the sake of argument, were to borrow this book and check it out using the automated checkout, with no adult supervision required, would the library have broken an actual law?

Ms Jolly: I’m not in a position to answer that.

Senator Roberts: This book is commonly read to children as part of a Drag Queen Story Hour event. If a drag queen chose to read this book to an audience of children, would that person have broken any law?

Ms Jolly: I can’t answer that question.

Senator Roberts: Minister, this is a matter of policy. The next step up from ‘M’ in your classification system for written works is ‘R’, which is restricted to sale in a sealed wrapper. I note that you have more options for video material but only limited options for classifications in written work. Is there nothing in between that for kids having exposure to this book and books only able to be sold in a sealed wrapper? Are you coming up with another classification, or will you, to protect children?

Senator Carol Brown: The classifications are as you outlined, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: It allows graphic material through that is not suitable for young children. Will you protect those children?

Senator Carol Brown: The book that you referenced, Gender Queer: A Memoir has consumer advice for children. It is not recommended for children under 15 years.

Senator Roberts: But children under 15 years old can still access it.

Senator Carol Brown: I’m not sure what you are saying to me about access in Queensland.

Senator Roberts: I will make it clear, Senator Brown. My intention is not to get this book banned. Adults can have a look at it. Will you introduce a new classification for graphic novels, as for videos, of 15-plus?

Senator Carol Brown: Well, I can say to you that I think the classification system that we have is robust. The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review board. I don’t see any need to introduce another step or another level.

Senator Roberts: How can you say that when I have said that this is a graphic book? It is a well and truly graphic novel. It is available to children under 15. They can get hold of it in libraries just like the previous book.

Senator Carol Brown: The advice is that it’s not recommended for readers under 15 years old.

Senator Roberts: That is probably an enticement for a 10-year-old or a 12-year-old. Can’t something be done about this?

Senator Carol Brown: I have responded, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms Jolly: I will go back to your question, Senator, about breaking any laws. The ‘M’ unrestricted classification, as I think you are trying to allude to, is not a legally enforceable classification.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for that follow-up. I appreciate that, Ms Jolly.

/8 Comments/by

ABC cops a grilling at Senate Estimates – data shows conservative attack

,

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation receives over $1 billion a year from taxpayers. I don’t believe we’re getting value for money. It is just being used as a platform for the left to tear down conservatives.

Let me know what you thought of the fact that they covered negative conservative news over 130 times compared to just 20 when it was about the left.

Click Here for Transcript | Part 1

Senator Roberts: I’d like to [inaudible] for a third set of questions that I have, so I’ll do that now rather than wait for it. Thank you for appearing here today. You’re dealing with accusations and a perception of bias from substantial parts of the community. I know you strongly deny any bias and say that the ABC is impartial.  One of the claims of bias is that ABC gives leniency to what is commonly termed left-leaning politicians—which, to me, is the control side of politics—and is more critical of conservative politicians. You’d obviously be aware that even Media Watch slammed the ABC’s coverage of an incident involving Senator Thorpe outside of a strip club, calling the ABC’s lack of coverage ‘pathetic’. Are you aware of Media Watch’s own criticism?

Mr Anderson: Yes.

Senator Roberts: I’d like to compare that to some of your other coverage. When there was a story critical of the New South Wales One Nation leader, Mark Latham, over a tweet, ABC mentioned the story 131 times, yet you only mentioned the Senator Thorpe incident 21 times. Just for comparison, the Nine Network covered the same incidents, mentioning Mark Latham’s incident 80 and Senator Thorpe’s incident 90 times. That’s fairly balanced. Here we have a conservative politician and a politician on the left who were, I would argue, involved in incidents of similar significance, yet you’ve mentioned the negative story about the conservative 131 times and the story of the left-leaning politician only 21 times. How can you maintain that there is no bias in the ABC in the face of those statistics?

Mr Anderson: Firstly, I’d say that, in the complaints we receive and in the way they’re investigated, I don’t see evidence of systemic bias, which is what is levelled at us on a regular basis. I’ll defer to Mr Stevens when it comes to the coverage particularly about Lidia Thorpe and that incident.

Mr Stevens: Thanks for the question. I respectfully disagree; we are not biased. We take an impartial approach to any and all stories. But the bar is also high around the outsourcing of journalism and the accuracy of it. On that particular story which you’ve identified, regarding Senator Thorpe—and I note that Senator Thorpe is no longer in the committee room—the ABC did cover it, for starters. Secondly, the vision you refer to was not the ABC’s. Channel 7 had in possession the raw footage of Senator Thorpe, not the ABC. I back the editorial judgement of my editorial leaders to be very careful about not using video that we haven’t sourced ourselves, and we don’t know what comes before and after it, and not rush to report it.  The emphasis on rushing to reporting it is because we did report on it during the course of the week. Afternoon Briefing covered it on the Monday after, and on the Wednesday, when the Prime Minister made additional comments. When it went from being something that happened in the private sphere, outside of parliament, outside of the Senator’s time in Canberra, when the Prime Minister elevated it to the discussion being relevant to Canberra, we did cover it. 

If there is some implication from the question, and I might be mistaken, that we are not covering Senator Thorpe as forensically as we would others, I’d respectfully point out to Senator Roberts that it was the ABC which broke the story about Senator Thorpe, in October last year, regarding the questions around whether she had a conflict of interest by sitting on a particular committee. It was that story, broken by the ABC, which was referred to the privileges committee. I understand the privileges committee reported back in March, and the committee found that Senator Thorpe did not disclose any sensitive information to Dean Martin, for the record, and we reported that at the time. But it was the ABC that broke that story, in October, which should demonstrate that we do not shy away from investigative journalism regarding any politician of any political affiliation.

Senator Henderson: Chair, I’m sorry to interrupt. In light of these discussions, Senator Thorpe was previously here and I wonder whether someone should alert her to these discussions. She may or may not know, but, out of fairness, could someone let her know this discussion is taking place?

Senator Roberts: This is not about Senator Thorpe, it’s about the way the ABC treats her compared to others. Are we going to invite Mark Latham?

Senator Henderson: There are certain discussions being—I think, to be fair, we need to give her that opportunity, to let her know that this discussion is taking place.

Chair: Thank you, Senator Henderson. Senator Roberts, would you like to continue?

Senator Roberts: This is what Paul Barry from Media Watch said: ‘But it was a proper news story and the ABC should have covered it from the start.’ You said when the Prime Minister got involved it increased the importance of it. So you wouldn’t have covered it if the Prime Minister hadn’t got involved?

Mr Stevens: We covered it before the Prime Minister said anything.

Senator Roberts: In a very subdued way compared to what you did with Mark Latham.

Mr Stevens: I don’t have to hand our coverage of Mark Latham, and the fact that he’s in New South Wales politics these days I’m not sure what the New South Wales newsroom did with that. I’m happy to follow up and look at that.

Senator Roberts: If you live in a bubble, you won’t see what people in Australia are seeing. With topics like climate change the ABC is considered heavily biased. It doesn’t present the data. It doesn’t present the evidence. It just presents opinion. So let’s move on.

Mr Stevens: Sorry, just on that, I would respectfully disagree when it comes to that. We follow the weight of evidence when it comes to our coverage on climate and the weight of scientific evidence that sits with it.

Senator Roberts: Perhaps you could take on notice—

Mr Stevens: I can take it on notice and respond to you.

Senator Roberts: Take it on notice to provide me with the sources of your climate change evidence that—

Mr Stevens: Can you provide some examples, please, as to where we have not done fact-based reporting on climate change?

Senator Roberts: Sure.

Mr Stevens: Right now?

Senator Roberts: I can’t do it right now because I don’t have the data.

Chair: Thank you, Mr Stevens; that can be provided to you later.

Senator Roberts: Let’s go back to last Senate estimates. I asked the ABC about the presence of Bruce Pascoe and Dark Emu related material on the ABC education site and why it was there. We had a conversation about the fact that many of his claims about Indigenous history are highly contested, and some of them have been completely debunked. You answered me then that whatever was on the ABC website would be reflecting the national curriculum.  After you told me that, I asked the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority in a subsequent Senate estimates session: ‘What’s in the curriculum about this topic?’ I have to say that ACARA were pretty shocked, to put it mildly, that you had claimed that material was in the curriculum. Specifically, which part of the national curriculum are you claiming that material of Bruce Pascoe’s reflects? Keep in mind that I’m going to be asking ACARA about this too in a few days.

Mr Anderson: I will have to get back to you on notice with regard to that. Did we give you a response to that on notice after my appearance at estimates last time?

Senator Roberts: No.

Mr Anderson: We didn’t? We will as to why, and I apologise if that was the case. My knowledge of what we do for ABC education, the resources sit there. There are state and territory curriculums as well as what we have nationally and we do put assets there that do align to it. That said, I’ll respond to what you’ve just put to me on notice.

Senator Roberts: Can you please take it on notice, as you just agreed, to provide the specific part of the ACARA curriculum you claim to be reflecting.

Mr Anderson: Yes.

Click Here for Transcript | Part 2

Senator Roberts: Before I start my questions, I have an apology. I made an error, Mr Anderson. You did in fact reply to my question on notice last time about the curriculum, but you didn’t state specifically from where you got it in the curriculum. You’ve undertaken to come back with that this time.

Mr Anderson: I have, and I still will.

Senator Roberts: I tabled a screenshot of a tweet from the ABC Media Watch Twitter account. It was in response to a tweet I made about—

Chair: Sorry, just to clarify: that wasn’t tabled; it was circulated—just to be clear.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. It was made about a protest in front of Parliament House, the Let Women Speak movement. Do you know what happened to that tweet and why it was removed?

Mr Anderson: No, I do not.

Senator Roberts: It was deleted about a second after that screenshot was taken. Do you have any information on why it was deleted?

Mr Anderson: No, I don’t.

Senator Roberts: Could we have that information?

Mr Anderson: I will investigate and respond.

Senator Roberts: Do you keep logs of tweets and deleted tweets?

Mr Anderson: We don’t monitor people’s personal use of social media, because we don’t take legal or editorial responsibility for it. That was a change we made some time ago, which I’ve canvassed heavily here. No, we don’t keep a log of it. There are certainly records when things are raised to our attention, we investigate and disciplinary action is taken—yes, that is recorded.

Senator Roberts: This is not a personal account. It looks like it’s the media watch account, @ABCmediawatch.

Mr Anderson: Which, as an official ABC account, I will investigate.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. I’m concerned that the ABC is sending tweets which could be considered antagonistic to a sitting Senator and then deleting them like nothing happened. That doesn’t bode well for accountability. If that screenshot weren’t taken and I couldn’t table it, people would rightly question me for trying to talk about this with you now. Social media seems to be a real, ongoing problem for the ABC, not just from your journalists but even from your official accounts. What are you going to do to get this under control?

Mr Anderson: Again, the vast majority of staff do the right thing. We have been getting it under control. People have been disciplined for this. For those people who have gone against the code and been found to be in breach, they have had disciplinary action against them. We’re now up to individuals that have been terminated from the ABC as a result of their personal use of social media. That is personal use of social media.  This appears to be an official ABC social media account, subject to our ABC social media policy with regard to that. If it is, we do take editorial responsibility for it—for which we have very few problems, I will say. I will investigate it and come back to you.

Senator Roberts: It’s just that it’s been raised quite a bit on social media. Moving onto another issue: there have been reports that the ABC has never received more complaints about a show than you did for the King’s coronation coverage. Can you confirm that?

Mr Anderson: That is incorrect. We have received more complaints than that in the past. I wouldn’t hasten to give examples because they’re sometimes not great moments in ABC history as they go back some way. In recent times, it is one of the larger amount of complaints, yes.

Senator Roberts: What is the total number of complaints that you received on that?

Mr Anderson: I believe it’s around 1,800 at the moment, of which, I gave evidence earlier to say approximately 60 are editorial complaints being investigated by the ombudsman, some complaints are categorised in a different way and some of it is outright racism.

Senator Roberts: While I didn’t watch the coronation, I’m wondering why Australians who are interested in the coronation, interested in the pomp and ceremony—if that’s what they want—interested in who’s arriving and all of the proceedings et cetera—what a show it is—and who turned on the ABC to watch the coronation found, inserted into that live coverage, commentaries about Indigenous rights and the proposal for a Voice to parliament for Indigenous people. What was the aim and the thought process in structuring your coverage like that?

Mr Anderson: I’ll defer to Mr Stevens for his response.

Mr Stevens: I note you said that you didn’t see the coverage, so I’m happy to give you a bit more information about what it did cover. It was eight hours of coverage over the course of the evening, from 4 pm onwards. The official ceremony itself started at 8 pm Sydney time. We had four hours of coverage leading into the ceremony proper starting. We used the BBC commentary for the actual formal proceedings of the event itself from 8 pm onwards. That was a concerted decision because we knew that the BBC would have access to information that we weren’t privy to around the order of proceedings and the extra, additional historical details behind the order of proceedings. We obviously had a broad picture of what would happen, however not the level of detail that they had. Obviously, they’ve got knowledge of individuals in the abbey that we didn’t have. For the course of the four hours leading into it commencing, we, from time to time, showed vision of what was unfolding in the lead up.  Three to four hours out, can you believe, people were being led into the abbey, in terms of guests. We were showing that visually, and there was music as well. The presenters did a really good job of trying to navigate saying what was unfolding with that vision. That’s a key tenet of good TV—to say what is happening, but then to return to the discussions that we wanted to have three to four hours out of the ceremony starting.

Senator Roberts: I understand what you’re saying, and I thank you for the explanation. It makes perfect sense, and what you’re saying about making good TV makes perfect sense. But still some of the chatter around the presentation was dealing with things like Indigenous rights and the Voice proposal to parliament et cetera. Is that appropriate?

Mr Stevens: For a portion of the coverage, for about 40 minutes, we had a really important discussion about our history. We aired First Nations perspectives of that and colonisation; and their view and experience of the Crown in their lives. That was 40 minutes of eight hours of coverage. Actually, a really important part and remit of the ABC, as you know, is to have discussions which are in the national interest, that reflect on history, that are factually based on history. It’s very important in our coverage of the news and major events that, over the course of that coverage, we have a diversity of perspectives. That was a 40-minute discussion for which there has been a lot of attention; however, we had a multitude of guests over the eight hours and people speaking to the events itself.

Senator Roberts: Do you still think your coverage was impartial, that way?

Mr Stevens: Absolutely.

Senator Roberts: Okay. Before we finish, what was my commitment to you? To get you an understanding of why you’re biased on climate change, for example—is that what I undertook to do?

Mr Stevens: You did. You undertook to provide evidence of non fact-based reporting of climate change.

Senator Roberts: Sure. Thank you very much.

/10 Comments/by

Same place, same time, different temperatures. What’s the BOM hiding?

,

The Bureau of Meteorology has been in the process of replacing mercury temperature probes with digital probes at weather stations across the country.

After a long Freedom of Information process, we now have field logs from the Brisbane Airport station showing that the two different devices can record different temperatures at the same place at the same time.

The Bureau have said both of these sets of data has always been available but I don’t believe them and I think they’ve been caught out. We need a transparent inquiry into all of BOM’s temperature measuring.

Click Here for Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts, over to you for 10 minutes.

Senator Roberts: Thank you again for being here, Dr Johnson and Dr Stone. I would like to table these two articles, Chair.

Chair: Certainly. What are they?

Senator Roberts: They are newspaper articles.

Chair: Given they are public documents, we probably don’t need to table them; we can just circulate them around the committee.

Senator Roberts: The first document is about two articles in the Australian newspaper about parallel temperatures at Brisbane Airport—following on from Senator Rennick. The other one is about forecasts from the Bureau of Meteorology that have been inaccurate. Going to the first one, I’ve tabled some important news about parallel temperatures at Brisbane Airport, showing that your temperature probes do record different temperatures to mercury thermometers in the same location at the same time. If I could please go to Freedom of Information 30/6155, regarding the daily maximum and minimum temperature parallel observations for Brisbane Airport, which the stories relate to, what date did you first receive the FOI request? I think you said 2019.

Dr Johnson: It was received on 12 December 2019.

Senator Roberts: What date did you release the documents to the applicant?

Dr Johnson: Well, the documents were released, as agreed with the respondent, on 6 April 2023, but, as I said in my earlier response to Senator Rennick’s question, the documents released were the ones that we were quite happy to provide in 2019 to the respondent, but the respondent didn’t wish to avail themselves of that material back in 2019.

Senator Roberts: Why did you fight to keep this information a secret?

Dr Johnson: We didn’t fight. Again, I reiterate my response to Senator Rennick: we didn’t fight anything. We were unable to fulfill the request that we received in 2019 because the information that was requested did not exist in the form that the respondent requested it. So we offered the respondent the material we had. They declined and sought to appeal it through the various appeals processes. Our decisions were reaffirmed by both the Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the information that we offered to provide the respondent back in 2019 was provided in April this year. So this notion that the bureau’s withholding information is a fallacy.

Senator Roberts: So we’d have to look further into that, but not here.

Dr Johnson: That’s the record and the truth.

Senator Roberts: You’re paid by the taxpayer, Dr Johnson, just like I am. You’re meant to serve the

taxpayer, as I am. You have a remuneration package of over half a million dollars a year from taxpayers. The information you have, the work you do, belongs to the taxpayer, correct?

Dr Johnson: As I said in my response by Senator Rennick, all of the bureau’s data records are available to the public, either in digital or analogue form. They’re held in the analogue form in the National Archives, and the digital records are available on the bureau’s website.

Senator Roberts: I’ve heard that before, but I’ve also seen people who can’t access the information.

Dr Johnson: I can only tell you the truth, and the truth is that those records are available on our website or in the National Archives by request.

Senator Roberts: Why did it take an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for you to back down?

Dr Johnson: I reject that comment. The information that was requested by the respondent or the proponent—I’m not sure how you want to characterise it—was not available. We can’t create something that’s not available.  We offered the respondent a set of alternatives, which they declined initially and then subsequently agreed to take. So, again, this notion that the bureau is withholding information from the public or from this particular respondent is just not true; it’s inaccurate. I can’t be any clearer on that.

Senator Roberts: No; you’re clear. Do you disagree that your temperature probes are recording different temperatures to mercury thermometers in the same place at the same time?

Dr Johnson: I’ll let Dr Stone address that.

Dr Stone: No, you actually expect pairs of measuring instruments to have different measurements.

Senator Roberts: So if we had two probes, they would be slightly different. I understand the natural

variation.

Dr Stone: Within tolerance, yes.

Senator Roberts: Would the difference between the two probes be less or greater than the difference between a probe and a mercury thermometer?

Dr Stone: I’ll reiterate that liquid-in-glass thermometers have a tolerance, an acceptable error, of 0.5 of a degree. Our electronic probes that we’ve been using for 30-odd years have a tolerance of 0.4 of a degree. The electronic probes that we’re about to roll out have a tolerance of 0.2 of a degree. You can expect a difference between the two probes that is the sum of the tolerances of the two probes.

Senator Roberts: I understand that. So there is a difference between the mercury in glass and the probes?

Dr Stone: In which sense? In tolerance?

Senator Roberts: No, in the actual measurement. There’ll be difference in the two measurements?

Dr Stone: Sometimes, because they operate within that tolerance.

Senator Roberts: I understand about tolerances.

Dr Stone: For the ones operating at Brisbane Airport, for example, I have the figures on the distribution of readings and the mercury-in-glass. I don’t have the exact figures, I’m sorry, but approximately 40 per cent of the time one of the probes measured a higher amount than another.

Senator Roberts: The figures are 41 per cent—

Dr Stone: About 30 per cent of the time, they measured below, and the balance of the time they measured very similar.

Senator Roberts: So there is a difference. There has to be.

Dr Stone: Correct, and we expect the difference—

Senator Roberts: So 41 per cent of the time it recorded a warmer temperature, and cooler temperatures were recorded 26 per cent of the time.

Dr Stone: Something like that, yes.

Senator Roberts: So are you saying that the analysis of Marohasy and Abbot is incorrect? Or are you

saying that it may be correct but it’s within allowable tolerances, so you don’t care?

Dr Stone: Which part of their analysis? They did quite—

Senator Roberts: The 41 per cent warmer and the 26 per cent cooler.

Dr Stone: If they are the figures. Sorry; I’ve got them here. Yes.

Senator Roberts: 41 per cent and 26 per cent?

Dr Stone: That is correct.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Do you think it’s significant that your new temperature probes are, on

average, recording warmer temperatures than the mercury thermometers in the same locations at the same times?

Dr Stone: They are not, on average. There is a difference of two-hundredths of a degree, which is not a significant difference.

Senator Roberts: I said on average they’re recording a warmer temperature.

Dr Stone: No, sorry. On average, there was a difference of two-hundredths of a degree between the liquid-in glass-thermometers—

Senator Roberts: So, on average, the probes are recording a warmer temperature.

Dr Stone: 0.02 degrees is not a significant difference.

Senator Roberts: On average, they are recording warmer temperatures than the mercury.

Dr Stone: No. 0.02 degrees is not a significant difference.

Senator Roberts: Graham Lloyd is a credible journalist; I’ve seen his work many times. The story also

says that you, Dr Stone, claimed in response to these issues—presumably he asked you—

Dr Stone: No, he didn’t.

Senator Roberts: that all temperature data is publicly available on your website, including the parallel data. Is that true?

Dr Stone: All of our digitised data is available on the website, and, as Dr Johnson mentioned to you earlier, data that hasn’t been digitised is available from the national archive.

Senator Roberts: The temperature data that was released in the freedom of information request was not available on your website, was it?

Dr Stone: There were two pieces of information provided. One was scans of field books which hadn’t

previously been digitised. Those were digitised upon request and provided. Then the electronic data is available on the bureau website.

Senator Roberts: Well, why were you in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal trying to keep it secret?

Dr Stone: Sorry?

Dr Johnson: Senator, with respect, I think we’ve addressed this. This notion that we are withholding

information from the public is just false. The administrative appeals process was instigated by the proponent, who disagreed with the decision that both the bureau and the Information Commissioner had made in respect of the freedom of information request. Again, I reiterate that the bureau’s actions were affirmed by both the Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. So this notion that the bureau withholds data is false, and it’s very important that it’s on the record, because, as you say, taxpayers have a legitimate expectation that the data that is generated with their money—

Senator Roberts: Can you take me—

Chair: Last question, Senator Roberts.

Dr Johnson: is available. I just don’t know how much clearer we can be on this.

Senator Roberts: Can you provide the URL where the parallel temperature data was available on your website prior to the FOI?

Dr Stone: This is a key point. The applicants asked for ‘the report’ in which parallel data was recorded. I’ve just explained the data existed in two places. The respondent refused the offer of data on the basis that we couldn’t provide it in one form. It doesn’t exist in one form: there are field books that have the manual temperature readings written down, and there’s electronic data. Bring those two together, and you can construct the parallel dataset, but they specified that they would only accept reports of parallel data, which don’t exist.

Senator Roberts: I know—

Chair: Senator Roberts, we need to move on. Your time is up.

Click Here for Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts, you have one or two questions?

Senator Roberts: Yes, that’s it. I just have three very short questions.

Chair: Go ahead.

Senator Roberts: The information you scanned from the field book for the freedom of information request—where was that available before the FOI request?

Dr Johnson: That would have been available as a paper record in the National Archives.

Senator Roberts: The scanned information from the field book and the FOI information—where is that available on the bureau’s website today?

Dr Johnson: The scanned information from the bureau’s field books is not on our website. That was a specific request undertaken for a particular proponent.

Senator Roberts: So it’s at the National Archives.

Dr Johnson: But, to my comment earlier: if anyone from the public wants to access our field books they can put a request in through the National Archives. There’s no issue in doing that.

Senator Roberts: Science thrives on debate—open debate based on objective data. A truly scientific body would be encouraging people like Marohasy, Abbott, Bill Johnson and others to actually challenge the Bureau of Meteorology. So why do you run from those challenges? You’ve had many, many scandals—

Dr Johnson: Senator, I just can’t agree with the premise of your question. We don’t run. We welcome engagement with all sectors of society in the work that we do. I think this has been an ongoing subject of public discourse for a long time. Our records are available to anyone who’d like to access them. We welcome all members of the public if they have an interest in our records. There’s no impediment to them accessing them.

Senator Roberts: There’s a list of scandals, if you like, or accused scandals, involving the BOM and global weather agencies. The question—

Dr Johnson: Sorry—Senator, I don’t know what you’re referring to.

Senator Roberts: I’m questioning your data.

Dr Johnson: What are you referring to by ‘scandals’?

Senator Roberts: Questions about temperature fabrications lead to a call for a full inquiry. That inquiry was not held.

Dr Johnson: There have been assertions about these which have been tested in independent inquiries on at least two occasions since I’ve been Director of Meteorology.

Senator Roberts: One of them was just tea and bickies! It looked at the process, not the data.

Dr Johnson: Senator, these are independent—

Chair: Let’s not speak over each other, please.

Dr Johnson: These are independent reviews commissioned by the Australian government into our practices.

Senator Roberts: One of them I know was a cursory look over the processes and did not go into the data.

Dr Johnson: I’m not sure what you’re referring to—

Senator Roberts: The one under Tony Abbott as Prime Minister.

Dr Johnson: but all I can say is: in response to community interest in our practices, certainly since I’ve been Director of Meteorology, or aware of it, or within the vicinity, 2017 was the last one. It was commissioned by then minister Frydenberg. An esteemed panel of national and international leaders—

Senator Roberts: It looked at the process.

Dr Johnson: confirmed that our methods were fit for purpose and sound. These are world experts.

Chair: Senator Roberts, maybe, if you would like, you could catalogue the issues that you’re detailing here and place that on notice for Dr Johnson to respond to.

Senator Roberts: I am happy to.

Chair: It could be that we have a difference of opinion here. Just so that we have the facts on the record, that would be really handy.

Senator Roberts: Thank you, I’ll do that.

Chair: Thank you very much.

/7 Comments/by

The QLD Government made it illegal to build a port they don’t own

,
The Queensland Government owns most of the major ports up and down the Queensland coast. Just when a private company was planning on building cheap ports throughout Queensland, the Queensland Government effectively made it illegal to develop ports outside the ones they already own.

In the last budget the Albanese Government cancelled the funding for the North Queensland Water Infrastructure Authority and for the two projects they were running – the Hells Gates Dam and the Hughenden Irrigation Project (including the Saego Dam). Clearly there will be no dams built under a government Anthony Albanese leads. This is a massive blow to North Queensland. These projects represented billions of dollars of economic growth, provided bread-winner jobs across agriculture, mining, and tertiary processing.

This leaves the Urannah Dam as the last dam proposal in Queensland, and I am sure there is no intention on the part of either the Palaszczuk or Albanese Governments to build those either.

Labor are hollowing out the bush. One Nation will get these projects moving again.

Wherever you look, the Government just gets in the way of Australia’s success.

Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts, do you have questions of Infrastructure Australia before we get to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility?

Senator Roberts: Yes, I do. Thank you for appearing today. Does Infrastructure Australia have any views on what roadblocks there are to port development in Queensland? I know you wouldn’t be prepared. Off the top of your head.

Mr Copp: We’re not aware of any particular barriers.

Senator Roberts: Have you done any work or any reviews on the effect of the Sustainable Ports Development Act 2015? It is Queensland legislation.

Mr Copp: No.

Senator Roberts: It appears to me that legislation is a significant roadblock to ports in our state. I don’t know if you can even build a boat ramp under that law. It completely restricts—I have formed that view after listening to an expert on this; I will explain more in a minute—port development all the way up the Queensland coast except for Gladstone, Townsville, Hay Point and Abbott Point. Do you know who owns those ports?

Mr Copp: No.

Senator Roberts: The Queensland government.

Senator McDonald: It’s part of a broader strategy. It is a Queensland government strategy from a long time ago.

Senator Roberts: They own the ports. I had a meeting with a business in my state recently based on the Gold Coast. The name of the business is SEATRANSPORT. It works internationally. It is a magnificent little firm on the Gold Coast. It is a truly incredible business, humbly creating some of the most incredible boats I’ve ever seen. They showed me a plan they had to create mini ports all the way up the Queensland coast, dozens of them. It is private investment. They have already been operating one successfully in the Gulf for 30 years. I think there are others around the country. From what I could see, it would literally unlock Far North Queensland, especially in agriculture. The Queensland government passed the Sustainable Ports Development Act that said no more ports in Queensland except those that I just listed that the state government owns. This is blatant evidence that productive infrastructure investment is being squashed so a state government can maintain a monopoly and control. Surely don’t we have to consider that an impediment to infrastructure in Australia?

Mr Copp: We haven’t done any sort of analysis of that legislation. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for that. My staff asked this committee yesterday. They said I could ask these questions either in infrastructure or in regional infrastructure. When I got to regional infrastructure, I couldn’t get the answers. They said to go to Infrastructure Australia and the North Queensland Water Infrastructure Authority, which is now tomorrow, I understand, in the environment committee.

Chair: I’ve never been in that committee, so I can’t help you.

Senator Roberts: Do you have a list of every infrastructure project that is started or underway in Queensland outside the south-east region—in other words, regional Queensland?

Mr Copp: Mr Brogan might be able to discuss that. We have a piece of work called market capacity, which may answer that question.

Mr Brogan: We collect data from the Queensland government and other governments across Australia.

Senator Roberts: Including federal?

Mr Brogan: Including federal. It indicates information as simple as when a project would start and total investment cost, but no more detail than that, for the purposes of understanding market capacity constraints—supply and demand constraints in the market.

Senator Roberts: The labour for construction work?

Mr Brogan: Correct. One hundred per cent. That’s correct.

Senator Roberts: Could we get a list of that, please, for Queensland projects outside the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and Brisbane?

Mr Brogan: That data is collected with the governments through an agreement that is in place to formalise the confidentiality of the data supplied. I understand your question. I think we have to take on notice what we can provide to respect that confidential information.

Senator Roberts: I don’t want the details. I just want a list of the projects worth over $100 million or more outside the south-east metropolitan area.

Mr Copp: We’ll take that on notice.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

Chair: We are scheduled to finish at 11 o’clock.

Senator Roberts: I have one more question, maybe two. There are two specific projects. One is the Cairns Western Arterial Road. The website for the department says that Infrastructure Australia has not yet assessed the business case. Has it?

Mr Copp: No.

Senator Roberts: It has not?

Mr Copp: No. It has not.

Senator Roberts: What about the Isaac and Whitsunday regions productive water supply, incorporating the Urannah Dam proposal? Do you know where we are on that?

Mr Tucker: We have a proposal on our priority list. Again, it is stage 1. It recognises that is there is an opportunity to provide high productive water in that region. We’ve had some engagement with the proponents of the Urannah Dam over the last couple of years, but a business case hasn’t been brought forward to us for detailed assessment.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. This is my last question. I haven’t seen the Queensland Great Dividing Range scheme on any list of infrastructure. Am I able to give this to Infrastructure Australia?

Chair: You would like to table it?

Senator Roberts: Yes. It’s a wonderful project. It goes over old ground, but it is entirely new. The concept is old but the project is new. With a proven business case, it provides four million megawatt hours of hydropower, which is 11 times Snowy Hydro 2.0. It is powering $2.5 billion in primary production every year at a cost of just $22 billion, which is less than Snowy Hydro. I think it is important that Infrastructure Australia is aware of this kind of proposal. It is being led by some people with track records on infrastructure.

Mr Copp: Thank you, Senator.

/2 Comments/by

CASA doesn’t think there’s a problem because a plane hasn’t crashed … yet.

,

Many of you have watched my previous sessions with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority as I question them on how much risk mandates introduced into the cockpit.

I was shocked to find out in a question on notice (they actually do come back with an answer eventually) that CASA’s medical systems don’t even have the ability to track adverse events or injuries. Whenever they’ve told me there’s no data to indicate a problem, it’s because they don’t have any data. They’re literally flying blind.

It seems because a pilot hasn’t had a stroke and crashed a plane yet, CASA thinks there’s ‘nothing to see here’. This level of negligence should be criminal.

MyocarditisDownload
A0149_RRAT_CASADownload

“QANTAS Incidents to be verified” (click to view)

List of QANTAS incidents

QANTAS B737

17/5/23

QF703 B737 Cairns-Brisbane

Engine damage, air return on one engine, PAN emergency declared. (Media reported)

5/5/23

QF 102 B737 Nandi – Sydney – engine surge and stall. PAN emergency declared into Sydney .. (Media reported)

23/4/23

Qantas B737 Melbourne – Perth forced to return due to fumes of uninown origin in the cockpit. PAN emergency declared, pilots on oxygen. (Media reported).

15/3/23

Qantas 737 experiences ‘engine overheat’ on start up at Ayers Rock. Engine fire bottle fired. Fire crews called, shutdown and precautionary disembarkation carried out. Thermal Imaging revealed hot spot in engine. (No Media Reports)

20/1/23

A Qantas B737 arrives at the gate in Brisbane. Engineer notices smoke emanating from the engine and finds zero oil quantity. Oil had been expelled on approach and engine minutes from critical damage. No emergency declared. (No media reports).

20/1/23

Qantas B737 QF430 Melbourne-Sydney turns back with insufficient thrust (unable to reach target) on one engine. (Media Reports)

19/1/23

QF144 B737 Auckland – Sydney. Engine failure. Flight continued to Sydney on one engine. PAN emergency declared. (Media Reported)

19/1/23

QF 101 Qantas B737 Sydney-Fiji forced to turn back with erroneous airspeed indicators. (Media Reported)

10/2/19

Qantas 737 Port Moresby – Brisbane diverts to Cairns with air conditioning issues. On attempted departure following rectification, engine overheat indication results in passenger tarmac evacuation (Media Reports)

A330

October 2022

Perth-Sydney

Engine severe damage. Operated at reduced thrust. White hot molten metal fragments collecting under engine cowl on shutdown.

15/12/19

Qantas A330 returns to Sydney after experiencing hydraulic fault. This caused fumes and smoke in the cabin with discomfort and distress to the passengers. Emergency evacuation on arrival. (ATSB report).

1/6/18

Qantas A330 Sydney – Bangkok. High Engine vibration. Air return to Sydney on one engine . PAN emergency declared. (ATSB report)

14/4/18

QF123 Brisbane-Auckland -Qantas A330 engine surge and high vibration. (ATSB report).

QANTAS A380

23/12/23

QF 1 Singapore London A380 forced to divert to Azerbaijan due to erroneous cargo fire indication.

QANTASLINK B717

20/1/23

QLink B717 flight QF1516 air returns to melbourne with flap retraction problem on departure (Media reports).

3/6/22

Qantaslink B717 Melbourne-Newcastle suffers engine failure and air return. PAN emergency declared. (Media Reports)

10/3/18

QantasLink B717 flight QF1799 Alice Springs-Brisbane suffers engine failure on takeoff. PAN emergency declared, air return. Media reports first officer suing Qantas group for damages due to poor maintenance.

QANTASLINK DASH-8

29/1/23

Qantaslink dash – 8 Sydney-Coffs harbor forced to air return with landing gear problem (media reports)

FOKKER 100 – Qantas ‘Network’ WA.

24/1/23Fokker 100 Perth – Kalgoorlie returns to Perth with engine trouble. PAN emergency declared.

22/1/23

737 engine overtemps with no response to thrust lever, then fails on the ramp on taxi out.

8/3/23

737 inflight shutdown due to oil filter bypass

25/4/23

Also an A330 in April this year, engine failure at 200 feet on final approach. Was signed back into service and failed again two days later on descent passing 20,000 feet. Same engine failed twice in three days,

11/5/23

Yet another QF 737 inflight shutdown has just been revealed, on descent due to fuel leak.

Also 16/5/23

A330 dumps all its hydraulic fluid on taxi out in Perth.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing again tonight. Ms Spence, are you or any of your executive management or your board members the beneficiaries of any benefits given from any airlines here in Australia?

Ms Spence: No. If we received any hospitality or gifts or anything like that, we would declare it. I am certainly not a beneficiary. Can you repeat that phrase again?

Senator Roberts: Beneficiary of any benefits gifted from any airlines here in Australia?

Ms Spence: Only what we would report in our gifts register.

Senator Roberts: What are they?

Ms Spence: I can’t think of anything that has been. I can say that I haven’t. Certainly if any of my executive team had, it would be reported. As far as I am aware, nothing has been reported.

Senator Roberts: Can you please take it on notice to provide a list detailing anything CASA representatives have received?

Ms Spence: Yes. Mr Marcelja: It’s on our website.

Ms Spence: It will be on our website. Yes, of course we can.

Senator Roberts: So are you going to do that, Ms Spence?

Ms Spence: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. What is the definition of ‘subclinical ‘?

Mr Marcelja: I’m not a medical expert of that type.

Senator Roberts: Kate Manderson is not here again?

Ms Spence: The request only came to us yesterday asking us to come to Senate estimates. She was travelling overseas on official duties and so is unable to be here this evening.

Senator Roberts: Chair, I want to put on the record that we asked about two weeks before the previous Senate estimates. We asked several weeks before this Senate estimates. That is twice we have asked for Kate Manderson because of her role as a senior medical officer.

Chair: Senator Roberts, just get your office to send copies of that to the committee.

Ms Spence: Senator, while I’ve got you, one thing I probably should have mentioned, of course, is a number of the executive team would get lounge membership by the airlines. I will provide on notice who has those memberships. For example, I have a chairman’s lounge membership.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Who is responsible, Mr Marcelja, for passenger safety with regard to pilot and medical health evaluation and monitoring in Australia?

Mr Marcelja: We conduct medical certification, as we have spoken about before.

Senator Roberts: Is there any other department, agency or organisation, either domestically or

internationally, that has legal authority, responsibility, jurisdiction, oversight or liability over Australian pilot and passenger safety?

Mr Marcelja: Senator, I would imagine that employers have obligations to pilots. When it comes to the certification of pilots and whether they are fit to fly, that is our accountability.

Senator Roberts: Apart from private company employers, no government agency, department or

organisation?

Mr Marcelja: When it comes to determining whether a pilot is fit to fly, that is our remit. Our remit is

aviation safety and the medical certification that would support aviation safety.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. It’s fair to say the buck stops with CASA?

Mr Marcelja: Within the scope that I described, yes.

Senator Roberts: Your website says that CASA uses multi-crew endorsements as a means of risk

mitigation. Their use enables pilots to continue flying despite the presence of medically significant conditions which would otherwise pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of air navigation. How many pilots with a medically significant condition are currently flying passengers under the CASA restriction which could result in a pilot being incapacitated?

Mr Marcelja: There is a requirement for most airline aircraft, as you would know, to have two pilots. That extends to safety that goes well beyond medicine. I am not sure exactly what your question is.

Senator Roberts: I want to know how many pilots cannot fly alone.

Mr Marcelja: I can take that on notice. It would be a very small number.

Senator Roberts: Can you please provide on notice how many multi-crew endorsements CASA has issued by year over the last five years?

Ms Spence: We can take on notice just to see if that data is available.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. How did you evaluate the aeromedical implications of the pilots taking the new MRNA technology injections, COVID injections, at low atmospheric conditions?

Mr Marcelja: We would not have made any evaluation of that.

Senator Roberts: No evaluation. In an aeromedical context, do you consider that you have any additional responsibility to evaluate or at least surveil a new medical technology that only has provisional approval?

Mr Marcelja: No, Senator, we don’t.

Senator Roberts: But you told me you have responsibility for aero health monitoring?

Mr Marcelja: When we evaluate a medicine, we look at the potential significance of that medicine on a pilot. We don’t test it. We rely on medical authorities to test whether medicines are suitable for use. We look at the implications for medicines in an aeromedical context. As we have spoken many times before, when it comes to vaccinations, we treat vaccinations all the same. With a vaccination that is approved for use in the population, we simply ask that pilots stand down from flying duties for 24 hours to make sure that there is no adverse reaction to it. If there are reactions beyond that, we would expect them to report it and stand down.

Senator Roberts: Are you aware that there is a COVID-19 vaccine injury compensation scheme in operation in Australia now?

Mr Marcelja: I will take your word for it.

Senator Roberts: So you weren’t aware of it?

Mr Marcelja: No.

Senator Roberts: I wonder what it is for.

Mr Marcelja: You tell me.

Senator Roberts: People have been injured or killed by these injections. You mentioned that they have to stand down for 24 hours.

Mr Marcelja: We do not have a role, as I think we have spoken about on many occasions, regarding the health implications of vaccinations on the Australian population. That is a matter for the Department of Health.

Senator Roberts: You are solely responsible for the fact that—

Mr Marcelja: We are solely responsible for determining whether there is an aviation safety risk. I can categorically tell you that it is our view there is no aviation safety risk from the vaccinations.

Ms Spence: As we have said repeatedly, we have not had a single incident involving an adverse reaction to a COVID vaccination by a pilot.

Senator Roberts: Are you aware that last year, 2022, there were more than 30,000 deaths after the vaccines were introduced for the whole of the year?

Ms Spence: That has nothing to do with us.

Senator Roberts: Let’s continue. It’s not of interest to you?

Ms Spence: To be honest— Senator Roberts: They are temporally correlated with the injections.

Ms Spence: I genuinely feel that we have nothing to add to the line of questioning.

Senator Roberts: Let’s continue, then. In February 2022, in a Zoom meeting with Virgin pilots, CASA principal medical officer Kate Manderson stated that the provisionally approved mRNA vaccines can cause myocarditis and pericarditis but that she would rather pilots got those conditions from the vaccine rather than COVID itself, which she claimed to be of a higher risk. What evidence did Kate Manderson have to substantiate these comments?

Mr Marcelja: We categorically can tell you that there is no aviation safety risk that we consider is associated with COVID vaccination.

Senator Roberts: Yet Kate Manderson, your senior medical officer, says that the vaccines can cause myocarditis and pericarditis.

Ms Spence: I expect that what she was saying is that you may. The bigger issue is that there is a greater chance of those sorts of impacts if someone actually got COVID. Again, I would definitely want to see that quote in a broader context. I think reading something like that out could be potentially quite misleading.

Senator Roberts: You are saying that without hearing it?

Ms Spence: I am saying that without seeing the whole context in which the statement was made.

Senator Roberts: We’ll get it to you.

Ms Spence: That would be great. Thanks, Senator.

Senator Roberts: I want to know what medical evidence Kate Manderson had that can substantiate her comments.

Ms Spence: Okay.

Senator Roberts: Take it on notice?

Ms Spence: Yes.

Senator Roberts: I asked you on notice at SQ23-003393 to provide me with the rates of significant diseases over the previous five years for the following conditions—pericarditis and myocarditis, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, capillary leak syndrome, Guillain-Barre syndrome, any cardiac related conditions or injuries and any immune related conditions or injuries. These are recognised adverse reactions to COVID-19 injections. The injection manufacturers and the medical authorities have acknowledged this. You completely failed to answer one of them for any year. Your response to me was that your medical record system does not even capture information on these diseases in a way that can be accurately reported.

Ms Spence: That’s correct.

Senator Roberts: I am struggling to understand how you have not been misleading in your previous evidence. Over many sessions, you have maintained to me that there have been no safety signals or concerns about COVID vaccination, yet I am only now finding out that your medical record system does not even have the capacity to report on some of the most significant adverse events to COVID vaccination. How can you maintain there’s nothing in the data to indicate a concern when you don’t have the data and you’re literally flying blind?

Ms Spence: We haven’t had any incidents associated with COVID vaccination. There is no data because there are no incidents. I am sorry, Senator. I don’t know how much clearer I can be.

Senator Roberts: But you can’t measure this?

Ms Spence: We haven’t had an incident to measure it with, though, Senator.

CHAIR: I am loathe to do this. Senator Roberts, I could go to the standing orders. I can’t remember the number, but it’s known as tedious repetition. I know you have been asking these questions in and out. I do not know how anyone in CASA can explain to you any more that they don’t have any more evidence. You have the call, Senator Roberts. Senator McDonald is waiting patiently as well. We have all waited patiently all day, so keep going.

Senator Roberts: Does CASA still maintain that it is unaware of any pilot grounded with a COVID vaccine injury?

Ms Spence: Yes.

Senator Roberts: I find that hard to believe given the rates of adverse events that are huge and startling. No pilots have it but every other category of citizen does. What supervision of Qantas engine trend monitoring is undertaken by CASA given that there have been a significant number of incidents over the near past?

Ms Spence: Is this about issues regarding turnarounds with Qantas aircraft?

Senator Roberts: It is air incidents. Can I table this, Chair?

Chair: Yes, of course.

Ms Spence: If what I understand is correct, you are talking about some of the media coverage on the number of turnarounds because of potential concerns with aircraft safety. We have done an analysis over a 10-year time frame saying that there has been no material increase in the number or severity of air turn-back type occurrences in 2023 to date.

Senator Roberts: Perhaps you could tell me on notice whether or not the list I have just given you from a whistleblower is normal or abnormal.

Ms Spence: Certainly I would be happy to do that. As I said, based on the analysis that we have done, there hasn’t actually been any material increase in the number or severity of air turn-backs. That is on the analysis we have done. I will take that on notice, based on the list you have just provided us.

Senator Roberts: This is a list of incidents that I have tabled that has been provided to me. Can you please verify if those have been reported or lodged with CASA? Do it on notice.

Ms Spence: Based on my quick scan, these are all ones that we are aware of. I don’t think that would change what I have just told you about no material increase in the number or severity of air turn-back type occurrences. But I will—

Senator Roberts: Perhaps you could have a look at it in detail first before making a comment.

Ms Spence: Yes.

Senator Roberts: I would like to know whether this is surprising or normal.

Ms Spence: I think that’s what I was just telling you based on—

Senator Roberts: I understand. I would like to know once you’ve had a look at it, not before you’ve had a look at it. I would be surprised if it’s normal. Thank you, Chair.

/3 Comments/by

Listen to this if you’ve been affected by a wind, solar or power line project

,

The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner has a sole focus on receiving complaints about wind, solar, pumped hydro, battery and power line projects among others.

If you have been affected by a project underway or even one that is proposed you need to submit a complaint by following the steps at https://www.aeic.gov.au/making-a-complaint

Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here this morning. I understand one of my staff called you yesterday?

Mr Dyer: Yes.

Senator Roberts: He had a very pleasant talk. Thank you very much for opening the door. Is it accurate to say that you are the national commissioner for complaints about wind and solar projects?

Mr Dyer: I’d like to characterise it as the ombudsman of first and last resort. If you have a concern about a powerline, a wind farm or whatever that might be in our jurisdiction and you don’t know how to get it solved, you can come to us and we’ll figure out the right process to get the concern addressed.

Senator Roberts: When you say ‘you’, that was used in a colloquial sense. This is open to any citizen in Australia?

Mr Dyer: Yes. We’re a national service and we get complaints from around the country.

Senator Roberts: That’s wonderful to hear. So anyone who has a complaint about wind projects, solar projects, batteries or transmission can make a complaint to you?

Mr Dyer: Yes. If you go to our website, which is aeic.gov.au, the second or third tab along says ‘making a complaint’. There’s the process, the form and the policy. You can call us, you can mail us, you can email us or you can arrange to meet with us.

Senator Roberts: How many are in your office? I understand you have a small office.

Mr Dyer: We’re a very efficient team.

Senator Roberts: I wasn’t being critical.

Mr Dyer: We have, I think, five people.

Senator Roberts: And you’re meant to take care of people’s complaints about solar and wind. And you work with the state government, with the federal government, with private entities?

Mr Dyer: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

Mr Dyer: The respondent is usually the developer to a concern. But sometimes it’s a planning process or an EPBC issue. It’s not always the developer, but usually that’s the case.

Senator Roberts: So it could get pretty complex?

Mr Dyer: Yes. We’ve had some of them going for a long time, but we get through them.

Senator Roberts: Can you perhaps talk a bit more about what you can do for someone who has a complaint that you can look at, because people are not aware. Talk to everyday Australians.

Mr Dyer: I don’t have the budget for a front page ad in the Sydney Morning Herald. But people do find us. If you’ve got constituents who have concerns, we should talk about how they can come to us. The best thing to do is promote our website, and that has all of the details. Typically our process is that, if we get a complaint, we’ll do some research on the project and the proponent, and what is going on. If we don’t already know the proponent, and in many cases we do, we will go and get a briefing or open the door, and sometimes the complainant is known to the proponent. Often they’re not known, and so we’re able to build and bridge a relationship between the complainant and the proponent to work through whatever the concerns are. Many concerns are solved by just provision of factual information. It’s often a misunderstanding or misperception that has caused them to come to us.

Senator Roberts: I certainly agree with that. I would like to ask whether you’ve received any complaints in relation to the proposed Eungella or Burdekin Pioneer pumped hydro project in the hinterland near Mackay and the proposed Borumba Dam pumped hydro and the transmission lines around Widgee, which is near Gympie in Queensland.

Mr Dyer: No.

Senator Roberts: Not any?

Mr Dyer: No.

Senator Roberts: There’s a massive community movement in both cases.

Mr Dyer: Then feel free to connect them to us and we’ll work through it.

Senator Roberts: Okay. It’s shocking to me that, in both of those projects, it appears there has been an appalling level of community consultation. This is entirely from the Queensland government. In Eungella, for example, people who were going to have their houses compulsorily resumed and flooded for the new pumped hydro dam found out via media release. Then they found out that they couldn’t get loans for their business, renovations or sell their house, because their land is now jeopardised. Transmission lines for the Borumba project near Gympie are currently proposed over prime agricultural land, which would be again compulsorily resumed despite the community pointing out that there are state-owned land corridors available nearby. Does this lack of consultation sound like it meets the needs for best practice that your office would recommend?

Mr Dyer: We find that most proponents need help in some way, shape or form. I did have a look last night at the Queensland hydro website, and it didn’t jump out to me how you might make a complaint, for example. So, it’s possible that we may need to help them get their complaint process in place. We’ve had to do that with all the TNSPs, and help them get that in place, and the policies put in place, make it transparent on the project website, and away they go.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. What does the best practice consultation look like?

Mr Dyer: It’s a long topic, but it’s about knowing who your stakeholders are and being fairly well advanced in your thinking about what you’re trying to do. If I reflect on a call I had last night, it’s don’t go about it in secret. We often get developers that want to have one-on-one discussions with the landholder to sign them up for hosting the wind farm or the solar farm and say, ‘This is very confidential. We can’t let you talk to your neighbours.’  Before the developers leave the front gate, the whole street knows what the deal is.

Senator Roberts: And they know that these guys are wanting to cover it up?

Mr Dyer: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Which doesn’t build trust.

Mr Dyer: Yes.

Senator Roberts: To build trust, developers need to listen first and then talk once they understand people’s needs?

Mr Dyer: Yes. It’s, for want of a better word, not a crude word, it’s a professional sales role that they’re in. But it’s got to be done with ethics and transparency and thinking like a landholder will think—how you go about matters.

Senator Roberts: I’ve been up to both projects, but already there are many constituents who are saying that this will never be built. It’s just going to do enormous damage. It’s just the Queensland government diverting attention in the media and in the community from serious problems like the Mackay Base Hospital. That straightaway has destroyed any trust in that community.

Mr Dyer: It sounds like they might need some help, so I’ll approach the chair and we’ll start the process.

Senator Roberts: We’ll get your website and your name and we’ll send it to—

Mr Dyer: I’ve got a card here for you. You can take that after the session.

Senator Roberts: I’m intrigued about bonds on solar and wind generators. In the coal industry, for every acre that a surface mine uncovers the coal company has to provide a bond to the government, and then it doesn’t get that bond back until the land is fully reclaimed. Sometimes the reclaimed land is far more productive and far cleaner than the original scrub. What is the bond on solar and wind generators?

Mr Dyer: It’s up to the commercial arrangement between the landholder and the proponent. It’s no different from you owning the milk bar as a commercial landlord down the main street of town. If the tenant defaults and leaves the building, you’re stuck with the bain-marie.

Senator Roberts: So, without a bond, at the end of life, solar and wind generators can just walk away from it? Where are the funds to ensure remediation?

Mr Dyer: Some landholders are quite savvy, and I have seen everything from bank guarantees to bonds being in place, but it’s not across the board. That’s not to say it’s not happening and not being done, but it needs to be a standard practice.

Senator Roberts: There is a standard in the coalmining industry, but there’s no standard in the solar and wind industry?

Mr Dyer: It’s something I’ve advocated for a long time. It’s in section 8 of my report in appendix A, that is, the need to have licensed developers accredited to have the skills to carry out the process, as we are doing in offshore wind, and also that the area being prospected has been sanctioned ahead of time.

Senator Roberts: I want to put on the record that I appreciate Mr Dyer’s frank and complete comments and his openness. It’s much appreciated. Thank you.

Chair: I think we would all agree.

Mr Dyer: Thank you.

/by

ARENA hands out $2.15 billion in subsidies to supposedly “cheap” renewables

, ,

We constantly hear that “renewables” are the cheapest and the best way to go. If that’s the case, why does the Australian Renewable Energy Agency need to commit $2.15 billion in subsidies, grants and loans to prop up “renewable” projects?

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing today. The latest figures I have about funds committed, as at June 2022, is $1.86 billion committed across Australia. That is from the 2021-22 annual report. Do you have the most recent figure on what you have committed?

Mr Miller: The most recent figure is $2.15 billion.

Senator Roberts: It’s constantly jammed down Australian throats that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy. Why do you have to commit billions in subsidies to wind and solar if this is the case? If they are so much cheaper, shouldn’t they be able to survive without your subsidies and just simply beat coal and gas in the market?

Mr Miller: ARENA hasn’t given much, if any, support to wind projects, in our history. When ARENA was formed 11 years ago, wind was relatively mature and didn’t need much support. Solar was an industry where Australia had a research advantage and a burgeoning research community, and ARENA stepped into that space and continued providing research funding to solar.

I think it’s entirely appropriate that we aim for lower cost, higher efficiency and more sustainable solar materials. That is what the work that we do supports. In terms of our support for solar, our key program in that respect was in 2016-17 where the intervention that ARENA and the CEFC provided the industry, with $92 million funding to two large-scale solar projects, drove the cost of that technology down from $2.50 a watt to $1.25 a watt following that program to the point where large-scale solar is economic in Australia—and the International Energy Agency says is the cheapest form of electricity generation in history. 

ARENA’s continued support for solar R&D is to create a sustainable, comparative and competitive advantage for Australia in this important technology, to unlock the potential for solar to be that form of ultra low-cost generation to support a giant iron and renewable steel manufacturing capability in Australia and to provide low – cost energy into our industrial system and to our domestic users. We take that responsibility seriously, and we are very excited by the opportunity to continue to support solar PV research, manufacturing and production in Australia to that effect.

Senator Roberts: Could you take on notice to explain in depth the cost structures around solar that you are contributing to at the moment, please? In simple terms, the generating of solar is cheap but, by the time we add the doubling or the tripling of the area needed because of the variability in nature and then you add the battery storage, it’s very, very expensive.

Mr Miller: Senator, I’m not clear what you want me to do.

Senator Roberts: I would like the levelised cost of solar produced electricity equivalent to coal in terms of quantities and reliability?

Mr Miller: I would point you to the good work that the CSIRO has done in collaboration with AEMO in their GenCost analysis, which is thorough analysis by the team at the CSIRO, which shows you the levelised cost of solar on its own and wind on its tone and then adds storage to that, which is a proxy for firming. I would suggest that we would not be able to provide you with any more information than that high-quality work that has been done by the CSIRO.

Senator Roberts: That’s fine; thank you, Mr Miller—because the CSIRO’s assumptions are just woeful. If that’s the best and you term it excellent, we’re in trouble. That’s my view. So thank you for saying that.

/10 Comments/by

Will the Australian Energy Regulator sacrifice price or reliability to reduce emissions?

,
Currently, the government agencies that run our electricity grid are meant to balance 5 objectives: price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. The Government wants to add emissions reduction to those objectives.

I don’t think the objectives of price, reliability, security of supply and emissions reduction can all be achieved at the same time so my question to the Australian Regulator was, which objective will you sacrifice for emissions reduction to satisfy the net-zero pipe dream?

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you all for being here today. The national electricity objectives include price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. The government is now intending to add emissions reduction to those objectives. You, the Australian Energy Regulator, have made a submission to the government’s consultation process on the draft National Energy Laws Amendment (Emissions Reduction Objectives) Bill 2022. In that submission you said, ‘The AER supports including an emissions reduction objective.’ This is support for a proposed government policy. Surely the very first value of the Australian Public Service is meant to be impartiality. Why are you commenting one way or another on support for a government policy?

Ms Savage: I guess my objective from that would be that we are there to try and meet Australia’s emission reduction targets in the least-cost way. That’s part of our job, and our decision-making needs to ensure that happens. Our purpose as the Australian Energy Regulator is to ensure Australian consumers are better off now and in the future, so when we assess what tools we need, as the Australian Energy Regulator, to actually do our job effectively and to make sure that we can deliver upon that purpose, our considered view is that change to the legislation, to the objective for which we have to use our decision-making, is required and is important to us being able to deliver upon our purpose. So it speaks fundamentally to our role rather than to the government’s policy.

Senator Roberts: Do you consider that the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct apply to you?

Ms Savage: I absolutely do, Senator.

Senator Roberts: Do you consider that the Australian Public Service value of impartiality applies to you?

Ms Savage: Yes, I do.

Senator Roberts: Why are you stating support for a proposed government policy, rather than impartially commenting on your ability to carry it out?

Ms Savage: I’m not commenting on the policy; I’m commenting on the importance of the change to the work of the Australian Energy Regulator. In that regard, my obligation is to make sure that we have the tools we need to discharge our function such that we can ensure Australian consumers are better off now and in the future.

Senator Roberts: I put it to you that you are breaching the Australian Public Service value of impartiality by advocating support for a government policy. I would like you to take on notice to fully explain how advocating support for government policy in a submission is impartial.

Ms Savage: Senator, as I’ve said, we didn’t advocate support for the policy. We’re advocating support for the changes to the laws that are required to enable us to do our function.

Senator Roberts: ‘The Australian Energy Regulator’—your words—’supports including an emissions reduction objective.’

Ms Savage: That is the change to the legislation required to do our function.

Senator Roberts: You’ve taken a side in this debate even before it’s started. You’re required to be impartial. Why were you not impartial?

Ms Savage: I have—

Senator Roberts: I don’t accept your answer.

Ms Savage: I hear that you don’t accept my answer, but my answer remains that we have asked for changes, and we constantly and repeatedly ask for changes to legislation—and it’s in our strategic plan to do this—when it’s required for us to fulfil our strategic purpose, and that is to ensure that energy consumers are better off now and in the future. Limb 4 of our strategic plan actually says we will inform debate about Australia’s transition, and that’s to ensure that we can do our job to make sure Australian consumers are better off now and in the future.

Senator Roberts: I suggest you read the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct.

Ms Savage: I have, Senator.

Senator Roberts: The current objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security are sound objectives. What level of compromise on price or reliability are you willing to accept to achieve the objective of emissions reduction?

Ms Savage: When it comes time for us to consider the new objectives, with all of the limbs in them, including the emissions reduction objective, we’ll need to think about the value of carbon emissions reductions in the context of the target to achieve net zero by 2050, to ensure that the investments that happen in things like transmission or gas networks are consistent with achieving that goal at least cost to consumers, which is where that element of making sure consumers are better off now and in the future arises.

Senator Roberts: So my question—I’ll say it again—is: what level of compromise on price or reliability are you willing to accept to achieve the objective of emissions reduction? You’ve now got a new objective.

Ms Savage: I don’t see it as compromise; I see it as optimising.

Senator Roberts: Can I take note of that?

Ms Savage: Absolutely.

Senator Roberts: It will be interesting in the future. What are you going to do if the objective of emissions reduction conflicts with those existing objectives?

Ms Savage: We will need to optimise against the current list of objectives, and the inclusion of emissions reduction which become another limb. Already, today, we have to make judgements and choices between the existing elements of those objectives. We constantly have to be thinking about trade-offs on behalf of customers in terms of price, quality, safety and reliability, and we will also be considering emissions reduction in that context.

Senator Roberts: I put it to you that there is no way that the objectives of price, reliability and emissions reduction can be achieved at the same time, so which one will you prioritise?

Chair: Senator Roberts, I wonder if your questions are getting a bit accusatory. You have asked questions, and Ms Savage is responding to your questions with her perspective.

Senator Roberts: I have constituents that are deeply concerned about electricity prices that have trebled in a couple of decades.

Chair: You are open to ask your questions, but I would ask you to mind your manner.

Senator Roberts: Thank you, Chair. I say it again: I put it to you that there is no way the objective of price reliability and emissions reduction can be achieved at the same time—the facts show that—so which one will you prioritise? You’ve actually supported the government and its policy, so which one will you prioritise?

Ms Savage: An example might help. Currently, we have to think about price, safety, security, reliability.  When we make a judgement, we have to think about price and reliability, and those two things aren’t always the same thing. More reliability can mean higher prices, and higher prices can mean lower reliability. On safety and security, we just gave, in response to Senator Van’s question, an example of abolishing gas connections; there is a safety issue there. We’re always and constantly in our work needing to optimise across those different objectives within the national electricity and gas objectives, and, with the inclusion of emissions, it will be the same type of task. We have to look at it in its whole, and we have to optimise across all of those objectives. We do it today and will be able to it tomorrow.

Senator Roberts: My view is that the people who tell us wind and solar are the cheapest form of electricity are lying. If they are the cheapest form of electricity, why do we need to change the electricity objectives to include emissions reductions, so they are favoured?

Ms Savage: You are thinking about generation technologies. We do a lot of work with the Australian Energy Regulator in electricity and gas networks, and that’s nothing to do with renewable energy necessarily. If I take a gas network, for example, and if you came to me as a gas company and said, ‘I need to invest in an electric compressor instead of a gas compressor because I’m trying to meet my emissions reduction objective,’ then that is something that we could not consider necessarily under the existing obligations. Under a future set of arrangements that’s something we could consider, so it’s not necessarily about wind and solar; it’s about lots of little choices that go along in the system to make sure it all adds up to the least-cost way of meeting our climate goals.

Senator Roberts: If the ministers past and present are not lying and solar and wind are cheap and reliable, it would fit into existing objectives of price and reliability. Why do we need to change the objectives if the climate ministers are not lying?

Ms Savage: As I just said—and I’ll repeat my answer—it’s not always about wind and solar.  Sometimes it will be about networks, and, in fact, most of the changes to the objective for the work of the Australian Energy Regulator will be about transmission, distribution, electricity and gas networks.

Senator Roberts: So it won’t be about price versus emissions, yet everywhere in the world every country that has a substantial proportion of solar and wind has had a dramatic increase in prices—that’s fact.

Ms Savage: Are you asking me a question?

Senator Roberts: Yes, I’m asking you a question. How can you justify the statement that there won’t be a trade-off between emissions and price?

Ms Savage: I have covered that in answering the question before, which is that we’ll be optimising across the new emissions reduction objective with the other elements of the national electricity and gas objectives.

Senator Roberts: What is the Australian Energy Regulator’s position on nuclear energy?

Ms Savage: We don’t have a position on nuclear energy.

Senator Roberts: So now you’re impartial?

Ms Savage: We’re always impartial.

Chair: Last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: You say as part of your retail energy market regulation, your other roles include, secondly, reporting on performance of the market and energy businesses, including affordability and disconnection of customers for non-payment of energy bills. What is the latest disconnection rate in each state? Could you take that on notice?

Ms Savage: I can tell you at the macro level and take the state based data on notice. For ’21-22, which is the last full financial year of data we have, the number of disconnections was about 30,000, which is significantly less than what we saw before COVID. At the time before COVID it was 70,000 customers per year.

Senator Roberts: Could you take on notice to give us the five years—actually the three years?

Ms Savage: I have the five years here at the macro level if you’d like it.

Senator Roberts: I would like to know the states as well because I want to see how the different states are behaving.

Ms Savage: Actually, I have got the states here. Would you like me to read them out?

Senator Roberts: If you could put it in writing, that would be good.

Senator McAllister: As you can imagine, it ends up being like 20 numbers.

Chair: I wonder if we could just copy it in the break and circulate it—just for ease. Is that okay with you, Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: That’s fine.

Ms Savage: At a cumulative total, in 2017-18 it was 72,000 and in 2018-19 it was 70,000. The Australian Energy Regulator then asked retailers to stop disconnecting customers during COVID and we saw a big drop down: 43,000 in 2019-20; 17,000 and 2020-21; and then it’s back at 29,000 in 2021-22.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

/3 Comments/by