Senate Estimates Archives - Page 4 of 23

Backlog of Burn-Offs Runs the Risk of Severe Bush Fires

At Senate Estimates, I asked the National Energy Management Institute about reports that have come out regarding the massive backlog of controlled burns still to be carried out. Only 20% of annual burn offs have been completed across Australia. This puts the country at greater risk of more severe bush fires. It’s hoped that the states and territories will put additional efforts into the work that still needs to be done.

I spoke about my visit to the Far North of Queensland in the wake of Cyclone Jasper and how the local residents did amazing work, pitching in to help each other with cleaning up and getting roads open again. The community efforts are an inspiration despite the delays in help arriving and lack of leadership.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Who monitors the progress of controlled burning in relation to bushfires?

Mr Buffone : The states and territories specifically monitor the fuel reduction programs in each state. It’s different across each state. In some areas it’s rural fire services or country fire services. In other areas it’s a land management agency. But it very clearly sits with the states and territories in terms of managing, monitoring and delivering on their targets.

Senator ROBERTS: What have the various states and territories said in terms of goals for controlled burning?

Mr Buffone : Last year they had challenges meeting their targets. That was because the window to undertake burning programs was reduced quite significantly—first of all because of the wet periods, then also because of some of the extreme heat. So the window was significantly smaller. What they did do though, as things eased in relation to La Nina, was to start to bring on additional personnel to start to focus on the higher risk areas. They also looked at other options in relation to mechanical clearing and that sort of activity, and also worked with communities so that communities could undertake their own fuel reduction and fuel management across the country. But, without a doubt, the period in which to achieve that burning has reduced.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re aware that they haven’t achieved much. In fact, reporting in December by Jonathan Lea of Sky News indicated New South Wales had only achieved 20 per cent of its hazard reduction burns halfway through the year. Have you had any up-to-date figures on that?

Mr Buffone : I don’t have up-to-date figures with me. As I said, we met with the commissioners and chief officers from around the country. It was basically a collaborative discussion around this particular issue, and they advised that they were putting significant effort into trying to increase the work done to reduce the risk. The other key thing is that they are having more of a focus on higher risk areas and different techniques, around townships in particular. That’s pretty much around the country.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems to be. Sky News Australia said it:

… can exclusively reveal the RFS has “hazard reduced” around 60,000 hectares—roughly 20 percent—of its 300,000-hectare target at almost the half-way point of the … year.

The same article went on to discuss how far behind various states were. Can you please take on notice to provide anything further that you have in terms of detail around controlled burn goals being set and how much is being fulfilled across the country.

Mr Buffone : We can take that on notice. As I said, we don’t specifically monitor it, so we will ask the states and territories to provide that information.

Senator ROBERTS: If we aren’t doing controlled burns then governments are basically setting the country up to burn in worse bushfires. Why aren’t controlled burns a huge priority for you as a national emergency management agency?

Mr Buffone : It’s not that they’re not a huge priority for us. It’s actually that we don’t have any jurisdiction at all over controlled burning, nor do we have the legislation or even the human resources. It is a state and territory responsibility with all of the legislation and management arrangements that sit within those jurisdictions.

Senator ROBERTS: That answers my questions. Minister, I just thought I’d make a comment. I went up to the Bloomfield area earlier this year, mid-January. Some of the residents were saying that they had very high praise for the quality of the individual workers in various agencies—state and federal. There was a lack of leadership and coordination overall through the project. I know that’s not the liaison officer’s function so I’m not having a go at you. In Bloomfield there was a three- to four-week delay of people just getting in there and doing anything at all—even to start. And I agree with you; the locals did a marvellous job in reopening roads and sharing each other’s workloads. It was amazing.

Senator Watt: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I’m certainly aware of that. After every disaster, unfortunately, we see—you know, people go through a lot in those experiences. Sometimes people don’t get exactly the level of support that they would like to see, whether it be from local, state or federal governments. What I can say is that I know that in the relatively early stages there were Queensland government SES personnel in the communities in and around Bloomfield. I’d have to check whether, specifically, they were in Bloomfield and on what date. We also deployed people from Disaster Relief Australia to work in some of those communities as well. That’s a veteran led volunteer organisation that we are funding so it can expand its reach. There did end up being ADF personnel in some of those communities as well. Again, I’d have to work out exactly who was in Bloomfield, as opposed to [inaudible] Degarra and some of the other communities. I know that SES personnel were in Degarra, for example—

CHAIR: In the first week of January.

Senator Watt: So relatively soon. Equally, I recognise that community members did an enormous amount themselves. We do see that after disasters as well. But governments do work together as much as we can to try to get other resources in as quickly as we can. In those areas there was an additional complication around access—to simply get people in. One of the things that we ended up getting the ADF to do was to actually provide, effectively, barge services to get personnel and equipment in to help with the recovery. But we couldn’t get people in until access was available. So sometimes these things do take a little longer than what people would like to see, but I can assure you there was a lot of effort that went in across all levels of government to get people support.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.

February 23, 2024/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

ASIC Offers Some Hope for Banking Fairness

National, Senate Estimates

Recently, supervision of the Banking Code of Practice moved from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), who have initiated a thorough review of the code. This first draft of the new code has many shortcomings, and I asked about these. From their answers, it is clear that ASIC are across the shortcomings in the code and I felt they are serious about making the new code a better document that provides stronger protections for customers. A lot of protests have quite rightly occurred around the closure of bank branches.

The truth is that banks are allowed to do that because the banking code contains no provision requiring the banks to provide face to face banking. Also missing from the new code is a guarantee of access to cash and a guarantee of banking services. Currently banks are de-banking competitors like bullion dealers and crypto exchanges. They are also closing bank branches and ATMs to reduce access to cash which they can’t easily monitor or control.

I was encouraged by the answers from Deputy Chair, Sarah Court of ASIC and I look forward to the next draft of the 2024 Banking Code of Practice. Bank customers deserve better protections than APRA have provided in recent years.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Can I start by confirming our meeting will occur on 19 March on the subject of the security of companies offering bullion storage and sales services in Australia.

Ms Court : That’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to that. Total compensation for the ‘fee for no service’ scandal was $4.7 billion. Since those compensation payments, do you believe financial institutions have fixed their systems and this practice is no longer happening?

Mr Longo : I’ll ask Deputy Chair Court to comment on that. I think it’s a truism that systems and processes of the banks are always in need of improvement and enhancement, so one can never be certain that those systems will be fixed forever. We certainly think a lot of progress has been made coming out of the royal commission. I know Deputy Chair Court has done some work in this area as well.

Ms Court : I don’t think I’d ever presume to say that the issues of fees for no service or the compliance and legacy systems of large financial institutions have been completely fixed. I think there’s been progress made. As you say, there have been billions of dollars of remediation. There have also been multimillion-dollar penalties applied by courts in relation to that conduct. We continue to have cases where fees for no service are being alleged, and we are continuing to investigate them and take court action where it’s appropriate.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s pleasing. Do you think the amount of compensation, $4.7 billion, met or exceeded the revenue that was illegally obtained by financial institutions for the ‘fee for no service’ scam?

Ms Court : I think you’d have to ask that question of those institutions. The remediation figure is eye watering.

Senator ROBERTS: I will turn now to the new mandatory Banking Code of Practice that ASIC will consider recommending to the minister. The Australian Banking Association, led by former Labor premier Anna Bligh, has extended coverage to include buy-now pay-later providers by including them in the phrase, ‘Each bank will exercise the care and skill of a diligent and prudent banker.’ Does that phrase provide a quantifiable legal protection to customers, or is it utterly meaningless?

Ms O’Rourke : I’m happy to assist in relation to the banking code. I might just clarify. In your introduction, you referred to it as a mandatory code, and you also referred to it being taken to the minister. Industry codes aren’t mandatory. You’re right that the banking industry has developed one. The approval process is also one that, if chosen by the industry association, comes to ASIC. It’s an ASIC approval process, not a ministerial one.

If I come to your particular question about the terms of the code, the code that exists now commenced in 2018. I think, as you’re alluding to, the Australian Banking Association, who wrote the code, and its members, who signed up to it, have been going through a process of updating the code and have proposed to bring it to ASIC for additional approval—for approval under the statutory scheme. One of the issues that are live in that process is the question of the inclusion of the phrase ‘prudent and diligent banker’, which you’ve called out. In the existing code, the one that exists now that was approved in 2018—and there have been some revisions approved since—that phrase is included. In the proposed code, the draft code that’s been prepared, there’s a question about whether it can come out on the basis that it’s duplicative of the responsible lending obligations that already apply to bankers. So that’s the issue.

As to its progress, I’ll give you some further information. The ABA had done a consultation process to develop the draft code. We now, at ASIC, are doing a consultation process associated with our consideration of approving it because of the importance of these codes to all banking consumers—all Australians. These codes really matter, and making sure that they are suitable in their content and meet the statutory requirements is something we take very seriously. We are undertaking a consultation process. That particular question is one of the ones we’re seeking submissions on and very carefully considering.

Senator ROBERTS: I think I’ll be coming back to that, Ms O’Rourke. I’ll move quickly because the chair’s needing to hurry.

CHAIR: I’m staring at you, Senator Roberts, but thank you for proceeding quickly.

Senator ROBERTS: I raised the fee for no service earlier for a reason. The clause in the proposed Australian Banking Association code, chapter 12, No. 31, used to read that the bank ‘will make sure we have your agreement’ on charging a fee for a new service. That clause has been removed from the new code, meaning the bank does not need to get a customer’s permission before charging them a fee for a new service. If a bank doesn’t get my permission, under the new code can they simply start charging me for services that I did not agree to or may not know I’m being charged for? Are they unwinding your good work on the fee for no service?

Ms O’Rourke : I’m not particularly aware of that proposed deletion. I think I might take on notice any background relevant to that. The general answer is that there are provisions widely in the code that would be relevant to whether fees for no service can be charged, and indeed I think my colleagues have spoken to the important work ASIC has taken to ensure that that sort of activity does not occur.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you show me in the draft code where it provides a guarantee of face-to-face banking services that means access to a bank branch?

Ms O’Rourke : I think that in both the existing code and proposed code the question around branch closures, which is what I think you’re alluding to, is covered by reference to a protocol that exists about the provisions that a bank will consider on decisions as to whether or not it provides banking services in particular communities. It’s not framed, as far as I’m aware, in the way that you’ve framed it: as a right. I can’t point to that, if that’s what you’re seeking.

Senator ROBERTS: Debanking is proving to be a real problem across businesses that are alternatives to the bank system. Banks are debanking bullion dealers, crypto brokers and third-party cash transit companies. Is there anything in this code of practice that guarantees banking services for customers who use cash, bullion or cryptocurrency?

Ms O’Rourke : I’m going to have to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there anything in this draft that guarantees access to the King’s currency—cash?

Ms O’Rourke : Not that I’m aware of, but I’m happy to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you show me where it says something like, ‘We undertake to not terminate your banking services for your political views unless a criminal conviction has resulted,’ or similar? As written, the code gives no protection for a customer who exhibits wrongthink on social media, for instance. This is a problem.

Ms O’Rourke : I think that’s a statement.

CHAIR: Last question, thank you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the sentence, ‘We will engage with you in a fair, reasonable and ethical manner,’ being replaced with ‘efficient, honest and fair’? Is there no room for ethics in modern banking, and is the term ‘efficiency’ used so that the bank can say it’s not efficient for them?

Ms O’Rourke : I think you’re right to point out that that’s one of the important distinctions between the existing code and the proposed one, and therefore it’s one of the areas that we are consulting on to understand stakeholders’ views on that proposed change. I’m agreeing with you that it’s an important issue for us to explore to understand the basis for the proposed change and what the consequences would be.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that the Consumer Action Law Centre describes the new code as offering no overall improvements in consumer protection? Do you, ASIC, agree with this characterisation, and will ASIC add extra protections yourself before forwarding the code?

Ms O’Rourke : As I referred to, we’re right in the middle of a consultation process which includes listening to stakeholders about their perspectives on the new code. We’re taking careful consideration of all the issues that are raised before we move to the decision point that I described earlier.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I must say that I appreciate the direct and immediate answers.

February 23, 2024/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

The WHO Is Taking Two Shots At Increasing Its Powers

National, Senate Estimates

There are currently two separate proposals being promoted by the WHO to increase their power. Firstly, the new Pandemic Agreement and secondly, changes to the WHO’s ‘operating manual’, the International Health Regulations. As the latest version of these documents is not online, I asked the Health Department to provide them.

Given that New Zealand has already published the changes they will be supporting in the IHR Amendments, I asked why is the Australian government’s position so secretive. Does this government take the position that these potentially sweeping changes to our health system are none of the public’s business?

Of these two proposals being put to the WHO’s member states, it’s the IHR amendments that still contain clauses giving the WHO powers of compulsion — medical tyranny. Officials and the Minister failed to actually provide the position of the Government on these changes – where is the transparency and accountability promised by the Albanese government?

Here is the Minister’s response – “The World Health Authority is exactly that. The World Health Organisation can give advice, but it has no legal mechanism to be able to enforce it upon us. As I’ve said, Australia has its own sovereignty in regards to making policy decisions around health for Australians and our border. I don’t think I can be any clearer.”

This ignores that the WHO does have a power to compel by using the UN’s powers over the SWIFT international payment system, and has used those powers against Russia and Belarus recently. The answer is specious.

Let’s hope the promise not to sign away Australian sovereignty is one promise this government keeps.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on to the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations and the so-called pandemic treaty or accord or protocol or whatever it’s called these days. The World Health Organization is currently reviewing two separate proposals to increase its powers—firstly, the pandemic agreement. A recent version of that document is on the World Health Organization website, dated 30 October 2023. Is this the latest version? If not, can I have the latest version?

Mr Exell:I do think there may have been an additional draft, but I’ll check and come back to you. I’m happy to provide the latest publicly released documents that are being considered.

Senator ROBERTS: The second proposal is for amendments to the World Health Organization’s operating manual, the International Health Regulations. These were proposed by the United States in 2022. They have apparently been modified in a negotiation process over time—several times! Do you have the latest version of this document, please?

Mr Exell:Again, the latest version of the document will be on the WHO website, but I’m happy to provide that to you, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: The New Zealand government has published sections of the International Health Regulations changes it will be supporting. Clearly, their openness is more than yours on exactly the same matter. Minister, why is the government’s position to be considered none the public’s business on this very significant international health regulations draft?

Senator McCarthy:Senator Roberts, I’d totally disagree with your question in terms of the government not wanting to advise Australians on issues. I’d totally reject outright the premise of your question.

Senator ROBERTS: While the latest public version of the pandemic agreement does not sign away Australian sovereignty, the latest public version of the International Health Regulations amendments do sign away Australian’s sovereignty. Minister, will the Albanese government support the International Health Regulations amendments if they continue, as written, to include compulsion on Australia to follow World Health Organization directives?

Senator McCarthy:Our government always looks to the international sector in terms of what’s going on, whether it’s in health or any other areas, so we will always continue to do that. But of course our priority is Australians and the sovereignty of our decisions with regard to health for Australians.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re guaranteeing sovereignty?

Mr Comley:I’d don’t think we would agree with your characterisation that it cedes sovereignty. Mr Exell might want to comment on how that will operate in practice.

Mr Exell: I am happy to add that I think both draft documents that are available refer to protecting the sovereignty of nations. The process is actually a member state process. In that sense there is no WHO. The working groups are led by member states. The participation is by member states. Then, when there is consideration of the Australian government, there is a formal process through the JSCOT mechanism that individually considers each and every resolution or change or consideration that comes before it. There is no notion of Australia giving up sovereignty. There’s an active process of consideration at both levels—the World Health Organization by Australia and other counties, and then, when it reaches the domestic ledge, it is also considered very carefully.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that in earlier versions of the International Health Regulations that were strongly worded compulsions on the African nations. Several members of parliaments and congresses around the world have kicked up such a stink that the International Health Regulations have been watered back down again. But I’m very concerned about sovereignty.

Mr Exell:There are always a range of proposals and resolutions and adapted text. That is happening right now; there are consultations that are underway. The due date for a draft to go to the World Health Assembly is by May this year. They’re trying to do that, but there are lots of changes and discussions going on, so I wouldn’t want to comment on one particular draft or one particular set of ideas put forward by various countries.

Senator McCarthy:I have to reiterate that in terms of public health policies, Australia will always retain its own sovereignty in making decisions around our borders. I need that to be really clear with you, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: I need to be very clear: I’m concerned about how much the international influence, particularly through the World Health Organization, drove our response to COVID. Minister, will you give a clear statement now that the directions of the World Health Organization are not binding on Australia and that the decision to follow WHO guidance, if it’s made, is entirely a matter for the Australian government, who can then be held to account for these decisions?

Senator McCarthy: The world health authority is exactly that: the World Health Organization can give advice, but it has no legal mechanism to be able to enforce it upon us. As I’ve said, Australia has its own sovereignty with regard to making policy decisions around health for Australians and our borders. I don’t think I can be any clearer.

CHAIR:I do need to rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS: I hope the term ‘world health authority’ is not a Freudian slip.

February 22, 2024/15 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Inconvenient EVs in Canberra Subsidised by Taxpayers!

National, Senate Estimates

In Senate Estimates I asked who funded and supplied the electric vehicle charging stations (58 in total) at Parliament House in the Capital. Taxpayers are funding the Canberra bubble’s fling with EVs to the tune of $2.5m in installation costs, with the vague promise that this will be recouped in the future. The reason given for the charging stations is to make it convenient for EVs to visit Parliament House. Despite most Australians owning a petrol or diesel car, there are no immediate plans to install petrol or diesel pumps at Parliament House for their convenience.

As the city with the highest average income in the country (over $100,000/year), the Canberra bureaucrats are truly out of touch with the rest of Australia.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for appearing today. The Department of Parliamentary Services has installed 10 electric vehicle charging stations in the public car park. Are they user-pays, or does the ‘Department of the Australian Taxpayer’ fork out for the cost of that electricity?

Mr Stefanic: The user pays.

Senator ROBERTS: Which company owns the chargers, then?

Mr Stefanic: I’ll have to take that question on notice. I’ll correct myself if I have misspoken, but I believe DPS owns the asset that has been installed. We contracted ActewAGL to provide the services with the installation.

Senator ROBERTS: AGL?

Mr Stefanic: ActewAGL, which is a Canberra based joint venture with AGL.

Senator ROBERTS: But DPS owns the chargers?

Mr Stefanic: I believe so.

Senator ROBERTS: How much did you pay for the installation?

Mr Stefanic: The contract for installation is about $2.5 million. We are tracking under budget. When all 58 electric vehicle charging stations are installed we anticipate the cost will be in the order—

Senator ROBERTS: Fifty-eight?

Mr Stefanic: There will be 58 in total. There are 10 in the public car park, 10 in each of the private car parks and eight in the ministerial wing.

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, what was that again?

Mr Stefanic: Ten in each of the private car parks and eight in the ministerial wing car park.

Senator ROBERTS: How many private car parks?

Mr Stefanic: Four.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve got 40 chargers?

Mr Stefanic: Forty in those. Then the 10 in the public and the eight in the ministerial wing make 58.

Senator ROBERTS: So we’re paying for this, but a provider of electricity is making money out of it?

Mr Stefanic: The charges that we are levying for it have two elements: one covers both our administration cost and a recovery of the capital investment, and the other portion of it is the payment for the cost of the energy that goes to the provider.

Senator ROBERTS: So the provider is making a profit out of our—the taxpayers—investment?

Mr Stefanic: The energy provider, as it would for any electric vehicle charging station.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t realise that it was within your remit to cover the operating costs of people driving electric vehicles around the Canberra bubble?

Mr Stefanic: It’s not, because it is user-pays, as I mentioned.

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re providing a lot of taxpayer money to enable it.

Mr Stefanic: With the take-up of electric vehicles—and Canberra has, I think, the highest per capita take-up in the country—the range of those vehicles, I guess, necessitates us to lean into the issue and make sure we have availability for charging locally. To the point that Senator Hume raised around people being able to leave the building, sometimes it’s difficult, and having the convenience of a charging facility available at Parliament House is useful. In the public car park in particular, we have around 800,000 visitors a year to Parliament House. With the increase in the take-up of electric vehicles, it enhances our destination from a tourism point of view if people can see that they have access to electric vehicle charging when they arrive here.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re acknowledging that electric vehicles have some inconvenience attached to them, so you’re making provision to supplement that?

Mr Stefanic: No. I’m simply saying it’s a reality. There are electric vehicle charging stations popping up everywhere. We’re simply another building that’s installing them.

Senator ROBERTS: Subsidised by the taxpayer.

Mr Stefanic: They are not subsidised by the taxpayer because we are recovering that capital cost.

Senator ROBERTS: The installation is subsidised but then you recover, which is a pretty good deal for the providers.

Mr Stefanic: We use our capital funds to install the infrastructure, but then we recover the cost from the user.

Senator ROBERTS: How are your plans to install a diesel or petrol bowser progressing?

Mr Stefanic: There are no plans for fuel bowsers.

Senator ROBERTS: Why not?

Mr Stefanic: You need a storage mechanism for those things. So it would be difficult to begin with, given the building, to dig massive holes in the ground to put in storage facilities.

CHAIR: No hydrogen plant then either?

Mr Stefanic: No.

Senator Shoebridge: Next we’ll all get nuclear reactors.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it because diesel and petrol are easier to refuel? You’re saying it’s an inconvenience to use an electric car, so we need to provide services for electric cars so we can make sure we have plenty of visitors to Parliament House?

The President: If I could just correct the record—the department secretary didn’t say it was inconvenient to use an electric vehicle.

Senator ROBERTS: He didn’t use those words; he used other words. Are you aware that electric vehicle sales in the United States and the European Union are plummeting?

Mr Stefanic: No. I’m simply looking at statistics in Australia and in the ACT in particular, which indicate that the take up continues to grow.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s interesting because electric vehicles are inherently much more expensive than diesel and petrol and less efficient overall in use of resources. Canberra has the highest income per capita, as I understand it, of any city in Australia.

Mr Stefanic: I’m unsure of that.

February 22, 2024/7 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Fuel Stockpiles in a Frightening State!

National, Senate Estimates

Australia is producing less and importing more fuel than before. Australia is obligated to keep a 90 day stockpile of oil by agreements and pure common sense, yet this country hasn’t met this threshold in over 12 years.

Minister McAllister, in a breath of clarity, faces reality and admits that hydrocarbon fuels such as petrol, diesel and jet fuel are essential in our modern economy today, despite the net-zero push. In reserves we have around 38 days or 5 weeks of petrol, 31 days or 4 weeks of diesel and 24 days 3 weeks of jet fuel. Yet Australia’s 90 days of strategic crude oil reserves, which were kept in the United States, are said to have been ‘sold’. Almost all of Australia’s liquid fuel is imported and we are extremely vulnerable to a blockade. Imagine if imports ceased.

We are no longer self-sufficient in fuels, which we should be given what’s under our soil. Imagine if there were no more imports and we had only 4 weeks of fuel left. We should be exploring for and producing more oil instead of relying on China to burn our coal and use up rare minerals like cobalt and copper, to manufacture expensive, unreliable and short-lived “renewables”.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you again for being here today. I refer to a media release from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. It is entitled ‘Australia’s fuel reserves boosted to strengthen resilience and supply’. Can you please tell me how many days in fuel stocks—

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I am so sorry. Would you mind giving us the date? That will help officials track down the document that you are referring to.

Senator ROBERTS: It is 14 November 2022.

Senator McAllister: Thank you.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you please tell me how many days in fuel stocks Australia currently has of petrol, diesel and jet fuel?

Ms Svarcas: Under the minimum stockholding obligation, our industries are required to have 24 days of petrol and jet fuel and 20 days of diesel. As at 16 January—I will convert that to megalitres for you—we had 1,699 megalitres, so more than the required 24 days of petrol. We had 2,780 megalitres of diesel, which is more than the required levels under the MSO. For jet fuel, we had 547 megalitres, which again is above the MSO.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are those dates of fuel reserves in Australia? Are the reserves in Australia?

Ms Svarcas: They are either in Australia or in Australian waters. Yes, they are in Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: So that count is water stocks or reserves held overseas?

Ms Svarcas: Not reserves held overseas, Senator. They are reserves held in Australia or in Australian waters.

Senator ROBERTS: So it is in Australia and in—

Ms Svarcas: And in—

Senator ROBERTS: How many in Australia?

Ms Svarcas: I’m not sure if my colleague has a breakdown of what is in the country.

Senator ROBERTS: Physically on Australian shores right now.

Mr Cano: The stockholding obligation enables the entities to count stocks that are being held within Australia’s exclusive economic zone, and that’s taken as part of the total number. So they are in Australian waters on their way to shore.

Senator ROBERTS: So the waterborne reserves are inside our economic zone?

Ms Svarcas: Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re obligated to keep 30 days—that’s three months of fuel reserves—by international agreements—correct? And plain common sense says we should be doing that. How many days does the 1,699 megalitres of petrol represent?

Mr Duggan: Are you referring there to the International Energy Agency’s oil stockholding requirement, which I think may be different to the international—

Senator ROBERTS: Could you explain the difference?

Mr Duggan: Yes. With respect to oil, there is a 30-day minimum stockholding requirement through the International Energy Agency, but I’d just distinguish. In fact, three months, or 90 days, of net imports is the requirement. I’d just distinguish that, though, from what Ms Svarcas and Mr Cano just gave evidence of, which is the minimum stockholding obligation domestically imposed by the government to ensure fuel security.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the difference between the international agreement for 90 days or three months and our own, hopefully, commonsense based requirements?

Mr Duggan: Crude oil is 90 days—international energy oil—

Senator ROBERTS: And some of that is stored overseas?

Mr Duggan: Yes, it’s held in the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Senator ROBERTS: How is that a reserve for us onshore here? If China or anyone else puts a blockade on us, that’s gone.

Mr Duggan: Senator, I’m just trying to make sure you don’t conflate what are two different frameworks here. The one that Ms Svarcas and Mr Cano were referring to is a domestic fuel minimum stockholding obligation. That applies to petrol, diesel, jet fuel—

Senator ROBERTS: That was in the release from your department on 14 November 2023?

Mr Duggan: That’s correct. And then the International Energy Agency’s 90-days-of-net-imports requirement is around crude oil, and that’s obviously a separate—

Senator ROBERTS: How many days of crude oil are in Australia or within our economic zone on a boat right now?

Mr Duggan: The last reporting was in November, and we reported 50 days of holdings.

Senator ROBERTS: In Australia?

Mr Duggan: No, because as part of that we are able to count the Australian holdings and the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Senator ROBERTS: For someone sitting at home watching this who’s concerned about our oil security in a blockade by a foreign country, what sort of security have we got? Fifty days?

Ms Svarcas: I might just clarify the evidence, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Whose evidence? Yours or Mr Duggan’s?

Ms Svarcas: Mr Duggan’s evidence. We don’t currently have any stocks in the US stock reserve. That’s been sold. The IEA days that Mr Duggan has referred to—so the international obligation days—

Senator ROBERTS: The 90 days?

Ms Svarcas: The 90 days. We currently have 55 days of stock in there. I might just explain why it’s 55 days and why we haven’t met the 90 days. The way that’s calculated is on total eligible stocks divided by the net imports. Because Australia has been importing more fuel, it brings down the calculation of IEA days—the 90 days—which is why we’re tracking for 2023.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you explain that again?

Ms Svarcas: IEA days, the 90-day international obligation, are the total eligible stocks divided by daily net imports in the previous calendar year.

Senator ROBERTS: Daily net imports, not daily usage?

Ms Svarcas: Correct. This is why they’re two different calculations. The IEA days are about imports. Because Australia is producing less fuel and importing more, it means, just by basic mathematics, that the IEA day count will start coming off. But that does not mean in any way that we are fuel insecure, because the government has made a number of interventions—measures to ensure our fuel security—including through, as I described, the minimum stockholding obligation that means that our importers and producers must hold a certain amount of stock in Australia. So in fact we are more fuel secure now, despite the IEA days not being the 90 days.

Senator ROBERTS: So we’ve basically got three weeks or four weeks of processed fuels: diesel, petrol and jet fuel? Either on our ground or on ships near our coast?

Ms Svarcas: In our waters.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s all?

Mr Duggan: It’s 38 days of petrol, 24 days of jet fuel and 31 days of diesel.

Mr Fredericks: Senator, can we take something on notice which might help you? I’m pretty confident those numbers are reasonably higher than they have been in the past. I don’t have it here; it’s just a recollection I have. So to give you the full picture—

Senator ROBERTS: You’re saying these numbers are higher than what we’ve had in the past?

Mr Fredericks: Yes. But I’d like to test that, and I’d like to come back to you on notice with that.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, has the government done any work to determine what a reasonable and safe level of jet fuel stocks, diesel stocks and petrol stocks is? The country runs on hydrocarbon fuel. Like it or not, that’s a fact—transport, food, agriculture production.

Senator McAllister: You’re right that it’s extremely important. It has been an area of work for the government, and the secretary can talk you through the details.

Mr Fredericks: Yes, I was going to say, Senator, just to be clear, that back in, I think, the middle of last year, 2023, the government set what it regarded as the appropriate minimum stockholding obligations.

Senator ROBERTS: The current government in 2022?

Mr Fredericks: Correct, and my team can correct me if I’m getting this wrong. To answer the question you have posed, it made a judgement about what the appropriate minimum stockholding obligations for those three fuels were. To give you an example, the minimum stockholding obligation for petrol is 24 days. I understand it increases at some stage to 27, but at the moment the country holds 38. So petrol is one where the judgement—and the answer to your question, ‘What’s the minimum required?’—is 24, and current holdings are 38. So that’s a pretty good picture—

Senator ROBERTS: All the figures I’ve just been given are above the requirements?

Mr Fredericks: Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: But there’s still only a maximum of around three weeks, four weeks and five weeks, respectively?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to rotate the call. I believe they’ve taken on notice—

Senator ROBERTS: Could I put something on notice?

CHAIR: I was going to say we can come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: Can I get the derivation of those figures on notice, please?

Mr Fredericks: Yes. We’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: The number of days?

Mr Fredericks: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

February 22, 2024/8 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Goes to Davos!

National, Senate Estimates

At this year’s Davos, less government officials were present than usual, yet Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, was not only present, but she was also an agenda contributor, pushing for greater online safety.

I asked in what capacity Ms Julie Inman Grant was present at Davos for the World Economic Forum 2024 annual meeting, what was the cost to Australian taxpayers and whether staff travelled with her on this trip at public expense. As an independent statutory authority, Commissioner Inman Grant is planning to embrace global opportunities to help achieve the outcomes she perceives necessary for online safety. The Commissioner is seeking broader powers to achieve her agenda, for our own good of course, and once again this begs the question exactly who is deciding what is ‘good’?

Listening to her speak about online safety regulations, the one word conspicuous by its absence is censorship. The other missing words were freedom of expression.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here today. Did you attend the World Economic Forum planning session in Davos last month? If so, was that in your personal capacity or as the eSafety Commissioner?

Ms Inman Grant: I attended the world economic global summit as the eSafety Commissioner. I achieved more in four days than I could in four years because I was meeting with senior technology executives. I was talking directly to the people who are building AI and immersive technologies and asked directly the decision makers what they are doing to make their platforms safer. I was sharing really our leadership and our model in terms of how we’re tackling online safety.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I think we’re the ones who should be assessing whether or not you’re justified. How many staff accompanied you? What was the cost to taxpayers?

Ms Inman Grant: I will take that on notice. I had one staff member accompany me. I supplemented that with trips to Brussels, where I met with European Commission officials, and to Dublin to meet with my fellow regulators in Ireland and the UK. So it was a very productive trip.

Senator ROBERTS: Now can I have the justification, please? What did taxpayers get for their money? How did attending help in the discharge of your duties?

Ms Inman Grant: Well, I had access to the presidents of most of the major technology companies, including the CEO of OpenAI. I was able to ask him what they were planning to do to build safety into this. Any time that we can influence the decision-makers at this level to make technology safer is better.

Senator ROBERTS: You run an online agency, right?

Ms Inman Grant: I run—

Senator ROBERTS: Couldn’t you have done this online?

Ms Inman Grant: I run a real agency that has real people and capital equipment. I couldn’t engage in this forum online and not have those kinds of meetings to make a real difference for Australians in terms of getting real change happening.

Senator ROBERTS: You are referencing your panel session at Davos. Your office has just sent Twitter a notice regarding them allowing hate on the Twitter platform, including allowing previously suspended users back on the platform.

Ms Inman Grant: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me examples of Australian accounts that X has allowed back on that your office objects to?

Ms Inman Grant: Well, the online hate notice looked at the range of trust and safety governance steps that they had taken, including firing 80 per cent of their safety engineers, more than half of their content moderators and 80 per cent of their public policy personnel—so the people who actually look after the safety. We did ask them. It was reported that there were 62,000 previously banned users. To be permanently banned on Twitter, you have to have violated the policies pretty egregiously a number of times. We asked them the question. They responded. We asked about the 62,000. They responded with 6,100. We assumed that meant they reinstated 6,100 previously banned Australian accounts, which wasn’t in the manner and form of the notice and the question that we asked them. They didn’t name what those specific ones were, but they did tell us that there are no additional safety provisions even though they have been permanently banned for online hate in some cases.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems to me, Ms Grant, that you’re assuming the previous bans were in order. Had you explored those previous bans before coming to that judgement?

Ms Inman Grant: Twitter, as the company, had a whole range of policies, including a hateful conduct policy. They remove or—

Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t? What you’ve done is you’ve gone off their interpretation of their policy, even though we know they were biased.

Ms Inman Grant: That’s the only thing we can do, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you come back to my question—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, please allow Ms Inman Grant to answer.

Senator ROBERTS: and give me examples of Australian accounts?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I appreciate that you are somewhat agitated. Could you please respect the witnesses and allow them to answer the questions.

Senator ROBERTS: I would like the witness to give me examples of Australian accounts that X has allowed back that her office objects to. That’s my question and you haven’t answered it.

Ms Inman Grant: I didn’t ask them specific questions about which accounts they were. I asked for the quant the numbers.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you setting yourself up as an arbiter of what should and should not be seen online?

Ms Inman Grant: No. I am not. I have been designated by the government to serve as the eSafety Commissioner and to remediate harms of online individuals who have experienced online abuse and, in most cases, have reported that abuse to the platform. The platform hasn’t enforced their terms of policy, so we are there as a safety net or a backstop to help remediate that harm.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your remarks included this comment, and I quote: There are lots of different tools in the toolbox we’ll be using. What are those tools? Under what explicit power do you possess them? Who supervises how you use them?

Ms Inman Grant: All our powers are designated under the Online Safety Act. We have a range of complaints schemes that deal with youth based cyber bullying, image-based abuse, adult cyber abuse and the online content scheme. We have systems and process powers under the basic online safety expectations. We have now six codes registered and two standards that we’re working on. They are the primary tools.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Who supervises how you use them? Who assesses whether or not you’re being effective or overextending?

Ms Inman Grant: Well, we are held to account. We have lots of reporting and transparency and accountability measures ourselves. If there’s ever a question about any decision that is made, it can be challenged through internal review, the ombudsman, the AAT or the Federal Court. So we are accountable to the people and the government.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. At the World Economic Forum planning session in Davos, you said, and I quote: We have started something called the Global Online Safety Regulator. Who is ‘we’? Did you receive ministerial permission to involve Australia in another globalist power sink hole? You may laugh, but we are facing a big threat.

Ms Inman Grant: I am an independent statutory authority. The Internet is global. Most of our regulatory targets are based overseas. For more than seven years, we were the only online safety regulator in the world. Now, we use the tools we have and we can be effective, but we know we’re going to go much further when we work together with other like-minded independent statutory authorities around the globe. So with the UK, with Ireland and with Fiji in November 2022, we launched the global online safety regulators network. That has now grown to seven independent regulators, including France, South Korea and South Africa. A number of countries are serving as observers. That is so we can achieve a degree of regulatory coherence for the technology industry and make sure that we’re working together to achieve better safety outcomes for all of our citizens.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you get ministerial approval for that?

Ms Inman Grant: I don’t think it was required. Certainly the minister was aware.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is a further remark you made—this is how it was reported:

We have reached a tipping point where technology is neither good nor bad. We need to be pushing towards the forces of good. That comment seems steeped in hubris. Who decides what the forces of good are? You?

Ms Inman Grant: Well, the Online Safety Act does define thresholds for harm. Certainly our research looks at the benefits and the drawbacks in terms of how people experience technology and whether it helps them to create, to connect, to work and to communicate versus the harms that they experience, whether it’s—

Senator ROBERTS: How do you listen to people?

Ms Inman Grant: How do I listen to people?

Senator ROBERTS: You just said it’s the people who decide.

Ms Inman Grant: I listen to people in many different ways. We have citizen facing complaints schemes. We’re out in forums all the time. We correspond. We also have about two million people who visit our website every year so they can access resources or report forms of online abuse.

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question, Chair. Thank you for that. You state: Deepfakes are covered under our world leading image-based abuse scheme, which has close to a 90 per cent success rate. How do you measure 90 per cent objectively? This is your statement.

Ms Inman Grant: We look at the number of complaints that we receive. The 90 per cent success rate is because in the vast majority of cases people just want the intimate imagery and videos taken down, mostly through informal means. We measure the 90 per cent based on how many complaints we receive and how many we get down.

Senator ROBERTS: So the images reported and the images removed? Ninety per cent of them would be removed?

Mr Dagg: When we investigate a complaint about image-based abuse, for example, or any of the other harms set out in our complaint schemes, we measure the response to our requests for removal or our formal interventions. We find, as the commissioner said, requests to be far more efficient and produce a faster turnaround, so they constitute the bulk of our interventions. Ninety per cent of those in the case of image-based abuse succeed. That measure of success is whether or not the images are taken down.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

February 22, 2024/6 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Snowy 2.0 Will Never Dig Itself Out of a Hole

National, Senate Estimates

In Senate Estimates, Snowy Hydro Chief, Dennis Barnes, revealed that the tunnel boring machine, Florence, has finally started boring again after being bogged for most of the last year. Florence became bogged because the planning for Snowy 2.0 was rushed and designed to meet a political timetable under Prime Minister Turnbull. A critical review of the Turnbull thought bubble would have never authorised work to start. The scheme has now run into problem after problem that should have been foreseen.

The bogging of Florence is just one of many problems that has seen the costs rise from $2 billion when announced, to a staggering $12 billion today. This does not include $5 – $10 billion in poles and wires to get the power out. Those lines will carve a scar through the Kosciuszko National Park, which for some reason is okay with “greenies”.

Hydro needs water. If the scheme has to rely only on water being pumped up to the top dam, the scheme will never generate enough power to pay for itself and will become a white elephant. The Snowy Hydro Authority are relying on a 2002 water agreement that gives them access to water, however there are many agreements, notably the Murray Darling Basin Plan, that now lay claim to that same water. It is criminal that the Authority has not sorted out its water supply at this late stage.

In the second video I asked about local information received that the tunnel drilling machine will encounter natural seams of asbestos, which will result in more cost and delays. I was surprised to have this confirmed, as asbestos has not been mentioned so far. I can only wonder what else they are hiding. This project is 100% funded by the taxpayers who I think are about to lose a very large sum of money. It will be cheaper to stop the project now than throw good money after bad.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here today. I said in 2018 that this is a dog: no cost-benefit analysis, no transparent business case and no basis. From your January 2024 project update, it seems that Florence has started moving again, drilling the headrace tunnel at Tantangara. How much distance has been made since the machine became bogged?

Mr Barnes: As of this morning, 241 metres.

Senator ROBERTS: How many weeks is that?

Mr Barnes: That’s about eight weeks.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to the water. Once completed, how much water will the project require to operate, and what will the losses be to evaporation and seepage?

Mr Barnes: The Tantangara Dam reservoir will contain 350,000 gigawatt hours of water equivalent, which is around 700 gigalitres.

Senator ROBERTS: How many gigalitres?

Mr Barnes: Sorry, 240 gigalitres, two-thirds of that. The losses on moving the water uphill and bringing it downhill is in the order of 20 per cent.

Senator ROBERTS: And evaporation and seepage?

Mr Barnes: There’s no additional evaporation caused by the operation of Snowy 2.0.

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate you can access Talbingo water, but I’m looking at issues around Tantangara, the top dam. Tantangara Dam has a poor catchment design, as I understand it, holds a nominal 250 gigalitres—you said 240—and is currently at 19 per cent capacity, so roughly 47 gigalitres. You must be watching the water closely, since water is essential to your project. Can you tell me the latest capacity and how much of that is that is dead storage?

Mr Barnes: Tantangara reservoir allows us to store 240 gigalitres. Obviously, before we were to operate Snowy 2.0, we would ensure that it was more full than 19 per cent, but there’s no lost storage in effect.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the effective storage that you’re counting on?

Mr Barnes: It’s 240 gigalitres, which turns into 350 gigawatt hours.

Senator ROBERTS: The long-term weather forecasts say it’ll be fairly wet until it starts becoming dry around 2032, when Snowy 2.0 starts. Tantangara, as I understand it, is used to store and release all of the environmental water going into the Murrumbidgee River. What happens if the 40 gigalitres available after dead water—unless there’s another figure in there; dead water being the amount of water that’s basically inaccessible because it’s below the outlet—are required for environmental flow? Who owns the water that you pump from Talbingo to Tantangara? Can you show me the water use agreement between your project, the federal government and the NSW government, please?

Mr Barnes: We don’t own the water; we operate under the terms of our water licence, which is a public document. Perhaps Mr Whitby can—

Mr Whitby: Senator, I think you’re not taking into account the natural inflows that occur into the upper Murrumbidgee, which, from memory and off the top of my head, is about a similar amount to that 240 gigalitres of storage.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a fairly small catchment, though, as I understand it.

Mr Whitby: There’s still quite a bit of water that comes in there.

Senator ROBERTS: Quite a bit—how much?

Mr Whitby: I just said, off the top of my head, that it’s around 240 gigalitres of natural inflows.

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s in addition—

Mr Whitby: And, additionally, when Snowy 2.0 is operating, depending on the balance between pumping and generation, you can take water out of Talbingo, the lower storage, which is the whole point of the arrangement.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder owns and controls every drop in that dam.

Mr Whitby: No.

Senator ROBERTS: The Snowy Water Inquiry Outcomes Implementation Deed, SWIOID—which was some years ago—is currently under review based on the upper Murrumbidgee River running dry recently. Will any outcome from that review lead to your water entitlement being reduced or affected in any way?

Mr Barnes: I think it’s too early to say that; it has some time to go.

Senator ROBERTS: That would be a significant risk to the whole project. Surely you’ve done some assessments of it.

Mr Barnes: I think the review will take into account and balance the needs of our stakeholders, including the national electricity market. There are times, of course, where—if we go back to the 2019 drought and bushfires—the flows through the upper Murrumbidgee were higher than naturally would have occurred, as a result of our operations. So it can have a positive effect.

Senator ROBERTS: According to an ABC article, Snowy Hydro has previously stated that the regulation governing water allocations for the scheme is independent of it and that the government owns the water; is that correct?

Mr Whitby: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s no agreement at risk here—or anything subject to an agreement?

Mr Barnes: We operate under our water licence. The implementation deed you referred to from 2002 is the instrument that’s under review.

Senator ROBERTS: From 2002—that’s SWIOID.

Mr Barnes: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Three weeks ago, the New South Wales government announced temporary water restrictions on Murrumbidgee water licences, specifically water sources I and II, high-flow river licences. Are you confident you’ll always get your water? Everyone seems to be claiming the water—the farms, the towns, the environment—but who actually gets it in the water brawl?

Mr Barnes: I might leave that one to Mr Whitby, but we don’t consume any water.

Mr Whitby: I’m not sure I really understand the question, Senator. Are you asking if we’re confident that we will get future inflows?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Whitby: That’s a matter for the gods; I’ll leave it there.

Senator ROBERTS: So we’re leaving it to the gods.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Of the now $12 billion projected cost, how much of that is private money?

Mr Barnes: I’m not sure I understand the question, but—

Senator ROBERTS: Is it all taxpayer money?

Mr Barnes: Snowy will finance its debt position, because of course we have debt for the purposes of our operating cash flows, from the bank market or the bond market, and I think we’ve been public that the $6 million increase will require some equity support from the Commonwealth. That level hasn’t been determined yet.

Senator ROBERTS: So its component is privately funded; the debt will be privately funded and then paid back through the revenue?

Mr Barnes: Well, we pay a dividend, obviously, to the Commonwealth and over the last 10 years we’ve paid $2 billion in dividends and $1 billion in taxes, so it is an investment that the Commonwealth get a return on.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that in answer to Senator Cadel earlier on, you said the net present value is now $3 billion.

Mr Barnes: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that with a $5 billion cost or $12 billion cost?

Mr Barnes: A $12 billion.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide on notice the price of the power you sell that you envisage? Your selling price? We’d like to get a feel for the cost.

Mr Barnes: The Snowy 2.0 concept is that its revenue comes from two sources: the provision of insurance to all the participants in the market—so that doesn’t have a power price; it has a fee—and then the difference in the cost of pumping the water up, which will likely occur when there is excess renewables, and the revenue from generating electricity as the water comes down. So there isn’t what you would call a translatable energy price that results.

Senator ROBERTS: On what basis is the project calculated to give a net present value of $3 billion? If we could have the basis for that.

Mr Barnes: We’ve done market modelling on those two revenue streams. Bear in mind that that is an activity we undertake today for our current 5,500 megawatts. We have seen increasingly, with the increase in variable and renewable electricity, that the market value of those two services has gone up.

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get access to your costs, please, so that we can understand how the $3 billion net present value is calculated?

Mr Barnes: We haven’t released the detailed business case on the present value of the project.

Senator ROBERTS: So we can’t get it?

Mr Barnes: I think we have taken on notice in the past that we would consider what business case could be provided. But the business case essence is no different to when it originally went to FID.

Senator ROBERTS: A lot of the key assumptions back then were redacted.

Mr Barnes: A business case was released a number of years ago, and all of the same dynamics apply, except that the market for the services we provide has increased.

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get a feel for the revenue from the guarantee—the insurance if you like—as well as the profit on the price difference?

Mr Barnes: I think I’ve said publicly before that—and one can calculate this—the revenue from Snowy 2.0 is in the order of a billion dollars a year. One-third is from capacity sales, and one-third is from a shift in electricity from low-price times to higher price times.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, it seems to me the taxpayer is taking a big risk here so far with what we’ve seen of the performance of Snowy 2.0. Why can’t the taxpayers see what they’re paying for and the risk they’re being exposed to?

Senator McAllister: I think the history of this project is well understood. We’ve asked Snowy management to take a more active role in assessing and responding to project risk, and we’ve talked already about the reset. I think, as part of the reset, Snowy management—Mr Barnes and his team—released quite an amount of information and the results of their analysis of their position, and they’ve made clear their assessment about the value that sits within the project. If there’s any further information we can provide, we’re happy to consider it.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice, please. What are your annual maintenance costs in your net present value calculations?

Mr Barnes: I don’t have the number off the top of my head, but it’s relatively small.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice.

Mr Barnes: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: This is my final question. We’ve heard reports from someone who’s local, so we’re not saying it’s definite—I haven’t got a publication; it’s just reports from a local. Have you encountered natural asbestos as part of land clearing, drilling or construction of Snowy 2.0?

Mr Barnes: I’m not sure we have to date, but we do expect to—

Mr Whitby: I would phrase it as there is a risk that we may encounter naturally occurring asbestos.

Senator ROBERTS: What sort of risk is that? Is it from geology projecting forward? What’s the basis of it?

Mr Whitby: From projection, geological models based on the geological surveying that we’ve done.

Senator ROBERTS: And drilling as a part of that?

Mr Whitby: Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Where is it, what are the costs, and what delays will this cause?

Mr Barnes: We don’t know exactly where it may occur, but the design of Florence is such that, were it to be encountered, Florence would convert into its closed or slurry mode and be able to handle the excavation. It’s a risk that’s already been planned for.

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s incorporated in the cost?

Mr Barnes: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you.

February 22, 2024/2 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Foreign-Owned Homes Vacant as Growing Numbers of Australians Are Made Homeless!

National, Senate Estimates

Jim Chalmers has said the government has no idea how many homes bought by overseas investors are sitting vacant in Australia.

I asked in senate estimates how the government plans to fine foreign owners of empty houses if they can’t even find that out. It’s just a thought bubble so Labor can try to look good without actually doing anything.

Just ban foreign ownership altogether!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My questions are on Treasury’s plans to find foreign investors who leave properties that they own vacant. How you going to enforce that? Even Treasurer Jim Chalmers said we have no idea how many are being left vacant. Are you going to send people around doorknocking to see if there are any empty homes? It sounds like headline grabbing to me.

Ms R Kelley: As we’ve mentioned before, the Australian Taxation Office does have a compliance function that specifically deals with the vacancy issue. I have a colleague here from the ATO who can assist in answering the question, but they have a very well-established compliance program. They do look at the vacancy rate and they do enforce that when houses are left vacant for more than 183 days per year; they do actually follow up. I’m sure we can get some numbers, if you like, in terms of recent action by the ATO, but part of the government’s announcements around the increase in fees was also that increased resources were being given to the ATO to assist in strengthening that compliance approach.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Kelley.

Mr Thompson : That’s correct. I thought I might briefly explain how we enforce the existing vacancy fee rules. Obviously, these are amendments to the rates, but they don’t change our enforcement approach. People who are in scope—in the population in 2022-23 that was about 12,500—that we track are required to lodge a vacancy fee return every year. Some of those foreign investors declare to us that the property is vacant, in which case we levy them the vacancy fee. We also conduct compliance activities on the remainder of the population. For those foreign investors who don’t lodge a return, we deem a vacancy fee on them and they need to contact us if they think that we have deemed that fee incorrectly.

Senator ROBERTS: How accurate is your register of foreign owners? Have you done any testing on it to make sure all the foreign owners are in fact registering?

Mr Thompson : Yes. As we explained in some questions on notice following the last estimates, we get the full data set for the real property transaction registry. For example, in 2022-23 the number was around 2.4 million individual entries. We work through a range of data-matching techniques to get that down to a potential compliance pool in the thousands and then we publish our compliance numbers, and they’re generally in the hundreds. In that sense, we’re very confident about the in-scope population under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act rule.

I would make the point that there is sometime debate about the exact numbers, and I think that goes to the different definitions that different regimes use. For example, we’re aware that the rule of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act is slightly different from state and territory land tax acts. There’s also a NAB survey that is run every so often, and that asks the question about overseas buyers, as opposed to foreigners. When people talk about the numbers—I’d say we’re very confident of the numbers under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act definition, but that’s not to say that, if people are using different definitions, you might not come up with different numbers.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a question I’ll ask later, in another session. When it made its release, the government said it expects to collect $500 million a year in these extra changes—$170,000 per person. If the charge is $170,000, that’s less than 3,000 homes, and many of those 3,000 will probably still stay vacant because foreign buyers are rich and can probably afford to just pay the charge. Has Treasury conducted any modelling on how many of those 3,000 they expect to become occupied because of this thought bubble? You just mentioned 12,500 vacancies.

Ms R Kelley: I think we need to clarify that the predicted revenue is based on the total application fees as well as the vacancy fees.

Senator ROBERTS: How many houses do you expect to be trapped in this scheme?

Ms R Kelley : It depends. Every year there are different numbers. In the last financial year, 3,542 houses were purchased by foreign investors, so they would definitely be captured. The people who are purchasing are captured. The application fees have been tripled. They range with the value of the property, and the application fee increases with the increase in the property value. Then you have the numbers that Mr Thompson was talking about in terms of the number of houses that are already purchased and registered and that the vacancy fees apply to. The calculation around the revenue are based on those sorts of numbers as well. It’s both factors.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, it makes it really simple, doesn’t it? Why not ban all foreign ownership of housing? That would solve the housing crisis.

Senator Gallagher: I am not sure it would when we look at the numbers involved in the evidence that’s just been given, and that is not the government’s position.

Senator ROBERTS: Why isn’t it the government position? There are Australians in caravans, tents and cars.

Senator Gallagher: Again, there are a number of reasons why there is pressure in the housing market at the moment, whether you be renting, homeless or seeking to buy your first home. Not all of that can be attributed, as I think you would like to argue, to foreign ownership.

Senator ROBERTS: I am not saying ‘all,’ but I am saying massive immigration is driving up housing prices.

Senator Gallagher: That, again, is a different issue to the subject of foreign ownership. You’ve been given the numbers today.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re concerned about Australians residents and citizens in tents, caravans, cars, under bridges—

Senator Gallagher: That is why we have all the effort on the housing side to generate supply.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.

February 22, 2024/8 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Damn the Economy – Net Zero at All Cost!

National, Senate Estimates

I questioned the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment & Water (DCCEEW) about a recent report from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). The report was critical of the department.

The report from ANAO on Governance of Climate Change Commitments states that the DCCEEW CANNOT demonstrate the extent to which specific policies and programs have contributed, or are expected to contribute towards emissions reduction.

We are turning our entire economy upside down to chase this net-zero lunacy and no one can even say if it’s going to do anything.

Even though it was reported that the department agreed with all five ANAO recommendations, the Minister and staff, in response to my estimates’ questioning, said that they do not agree with ANAO’s findings and read out a long list of projections and guestimates.

I asked again for evidence of human-induced climate change and was told the government is committed to the United Nations 2050 Net Zero. I will continue asking about a cost-benefit analysis on Net-Zero, which appears not to exist. And finally, I will request how much this new Labor Department for Climate Change is going to cost the Australian taxpayer.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. The Australian National Audit Office said in January—this is from its own report:

DCCEEW reports annually on progress towards targets, however is unable to demonstrate the extent to which specific Australian Government policies and programs have contributed or are expected to contribute towards overall emissions reduction.

I find that incredible. We see that solar and wind have taken Australia from lowest cost electricity providers to amongst the highest. There are dramatic impacts on cost of living and adverse effects on inflation and grocery prices. Everything is impacted by energy and electricity, including security and international competitiveness. I’ve just come back from North Queensland, where I’ve seen massive destruction of the environment up there. Some of the large solar and wind projects in Western Victoria and in North Queensland are not even connected to the grid, but we’re paying for them. At your behest, the government is completely upending our entire economy. You are destroying the cheap power grid we had. You’re going to make it nearly impossible to buy a new Toyota Hilux. You’re trying to force everyone into electric vehicles. You’re spending $20 billion on Snowy 2 and you can’t tell anyone whether anything the government has done has actually made a difference. I think that is because it hasn’t made a difference. What quantifiable difference have these solar and wind and other so-called policies made?

Mr Fredericks: Senator, if it’s okay with you, I might take up the ANAO issue. There was quite a detailed response from the department to that. If it is okay with you, I might ask Ms Evans to give you a response.

Senator ROBERTS: A response to the ANAO findings. I would also like to know the quantifiable difference these policies have made to our country.

Ms Evans: I will answer both. In the first part, the department disagrees with the finding that you read out from the ANAO report. We do, in fact, have quite a comprehensive way of reporting on policies and programs and what they contribute to our emissions reductions, which Ms Rowley will be able to take you through in a moment. With regard to the overall outcomes, you can see that—in fact, it is part of the same answer—in our annual national greenhouse gas inventory and all of the results that come from that there is a definite decline in Australia’s emissions over the period that we’ve been looking at. Again, Ms Rowley can give you the specific details on that. I think we are up to about 24 or 25 per cent below 2005 levels at this stage. All of those policies that you were referring to have contributed to those reductions in emissions, which are contributing to a global response to climate change. Ms Rowley will take you through the very substantial way in which we track our policies and programs.

Ms Rowley: Thanks you, Ms Evans. The ANAO was essentially seeking measure by measure modelling and tracking the impact of every policy over time, which we consider is neither practical nor efficient given that different policies and measures interact, particularly as the policy mix changes over time. They are also impacted by structural changes in the economy. However, we evaluate the impact of policies and programs on emissions during their development. That is part of the public consultation on the design of the policies ex ante, so ahead of time. In general, we prioritise policies that are going to have a material impact on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. That analysis then becomes part of the cost-benefit analysis to inform government decisions.

In terms of reporting on progress, this occurs through a number of channels. The department and government report progress against the 2030 target transparently and independently through channels such as the Climate Change Authority’s annual progress report, the minister’s annual climate change statement to parliament and Australia’s annual emissions projection report. As Ms Evans said, we also report on Australia’s actual emissions over time each year through our national inventory report and every quarter through the quarterly update. Both the inventory—

Senator ROBERTS: Just a minute. So what you’re saying, as I understand it, is that various other entities report on this?

Ms Rowley: Other entities, including the independent Climate Change Authority and the department through its work on the national inventory and the annual projections.

Senator ROBERTS: But they actually report on aspects of it—bits of it, not the whole lot?

Ms Rowley: No. Particularly documents like the emissions projections, which are one of our signature reports—

Senator ROBERTS: Emissions projections?

Ms Rowley: Emissions projections. It’s an annual report. It tracks and projects Australia’s progress towards its 2030 target. I could use that as an example to illustrate how we look at the impact of specific policies. The 2023 projections, which were published in December last year, include detailed analysis of the abatement arising from some of the government’s key mitigation policies. For example, the safeguard mechanism reforms are estimated to deliver just over 50 million tonnes of abatement in 2030. The projections report provides detail, including the projected mix of onsite abatement and the use of credits over time as well as how that policy impact is distributed across the different sectors, which are covered by the safeguard mechanism. It also includes details of the Australian carbon credit unit scheme, estimating that it will grow from delivering 17 million tonnes of abatement last year, 2023, to 30 million tonnes in 2033. Again, the projections provide reports on the types of projects, price forecasts and the sectoral split of activity.

With the additional measures scenario, which is also part of that 2023 projections report, there are reports on the potential impacts of some of the policies that are still under detailed design and development. For example, the government’s 82 per cent renewable electricity target is supported by measures such as the capacity investment scheme and the Rewiring the Nation program, which is estimated to deliver 21 million tonnes of abatement in 2030. The projections report provides detail across the different electricity grids covered by that target. It also provides quantitative estimates for the fuel efficiency standard for new vehicles, which the government is currently consulting on. Whilst that was a relatively stylised analysis given that the policy is still being designed, we estimated that would deliver a net six million tonnes of abatement in 2030.

Senator ROBERTS: That is a lot of alphabet soup. Thank you. The point is, though, you have no evidence. The ANAO is not convinced you have any evidence. You can’t demonstrate how a specific policy has made any difference to the production of carbon dioxide from human activity. That is not me saying it; that is the ANAO.

Ms Rowley: Senator Roberts, you will recall that Ms Evans noted that the department disagrees with that finding. As I outlined, there is a range of analytic work and public reports that the department and other entities across government conduct to ensure that there is a careful analysis of the emissions implications of key policy reforms that have a material impact on Australia’s emissions. I have given you some examples of that.

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know whether you are aware of it or not, Ms Rowley, Ms Evans or Minister McAllister, but no-one anywhere has been able to provide me with a quantified specific effect of cutting carbon dioxide from human activity on climate. What basis is there for tracking policy when there’s no fundamental foundation for it anyway? So is anyone able to tell me the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of the climate specifically in a quantified way? How are you able to track that when there’s no basis for it?

Senator McAllister: There are two things. One is that this is a well-worn path between you and me.

Senator ROBERTS: Yet, Minister, I still haven’t seen that.

Senator McAllister: Perhaps I can answer. It is a source of fundamental disagreement. You do not accept the science that human activities—

Senator ROBERTS: Correction. I do accept the actual empirical scientific evidence.

CHAIR: Okay. Let’s not cut across each other.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to make sure the minister doesn’t—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, there is a difference of opinion here, a difference of interpretation of which science is whose. Can we stick to asking the questions and listening to the answers? You can probe it as much as you like. Let’s keep it civilised here.

Senator McAllister: To assist Senator Roberts, I will put my answer in different terms. This government does accept the science that human activities are inducing global warming. That presents a threat to human systems and the biodiversity that our human activities depend upon. I understand from comments you’ve made previously, Senator Roberts, that is not your position. But that is the government’s position. As a consequence, we are committed to reducing Australia’s contribution to anthropogenic emissions to 2050. That is a position that, as I understand it, is bipartisan. I believe that remains the position of the coalition as well. It is the basis on which we are also committed to that by way of our participation in the processes of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister.

Senator McAllister: The second point I wish to make is that this is not a feature of the ANAO’s assessment of the department. The question the ANAO sought to answer was whether the department is using its resources well to meet those emissions reduction targets. The evidence that has been provided to you by now Ms Evans and Ms Rowley goes to the way that the ANAO engaged with that question.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. Can you tell me or anyone in the department, because you are driving this, the cost per unit of carbon dioxide decrease to our economy? What is the cost to individual Australians? I have never seen a cost-benefit analysis or a business case for this ever. No-one has ever said that they’ve done that.

Ms Evans: We might take on notice to put down a response that adequately reflects the costs and benefits of climate action in Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Evans. Specifically I would like to know the cost per unit of carbon dioxide decreasing.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS: I would also like to know your total annual budget, please.

Mr Fredericks: Of the department?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Fredericks: Okay. We’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

February 14, 2024/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Labor is Asleep at the Wheel When it Comes to Illegal Immigration

National, Senate Estimates

I questioned Home Affairs about the detainees released into the community. As many as 149 detainees have been released and none have been returned to immigration detention. Home Affairs is unaware if any have been arrested for crimes in the states and territories. 113 are being electronically monitored.

A list of 26 visa conditions have been imposed on these people to maximise the safety of the community, such as curfews and notification of changes to addresses. None have a history of terrorism. There are a number of prosecutions already underway regarding the release of these detainees, brought about as a result of the high court decision.

The government has made zero effort to lock any of the detainees back up, despite rushing through emergency legislation last year. 24 detainees have committed offences in the Australian community as a result.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: This is in regard to the High Court decision releasing detainees. How many detainees have now been released from custody due to the High Court decision?

Ms Foster : It is 149.

Senator ROBERTS: How many of those released detainees have been returned to custody?

Ms Foster : None have been returned to immigration detention. The question of custody is a different matter where there are offences that might put them into the state and territory system.

Mr Outram : That being the case, I don’t have that information, because the states and territories, of course, are responsible for arrest, charge and prosecution of state-based offences. I would need to check and take on notice whether we were aware of any cases where, for example, somebody may have been charged and bail refused. Off the top of my head I don’t have that information with me, but I’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: How many of the released detainees are being closely monitored, and in what circumstances are they being monitored?

Ms Holben : Of the current cohort, 113 are being electronically monitored.

Senator ROBERTS: Remotely monitored?

Ms Holben : Electronically monitored.

Senator Watt: Am I right that there are other forms of monitoring that are occurring as well?

Ms Holben : That’s correct. Within the visa itself there are 26 conditions. One of those conditions is that a person could be monitored by an electronic device. There are other conditions that are placed on the person which entail reporting, in terms of daily reporting to the department, also notifying a change of address and circumstance. There are 26 conditions that are imposed on this particular cohort.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it possible to get that list and the conditions under which each are applied?

Ms Holben : Yes, we can do that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: We have seen the minister acknowledging the gravity of the situation, but how safe is the Australian community from immigrants with a known history of terrorism or criminal activity?

Ms Foster : This cohort does not relate to anyone with a terrorist history. You have just heard the ABF describe the regime, which is designed to maximise protection of the community, of those people that the High Court decision required us to release.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. But my understanding is also that the states have prosecuted at least three. Is that the case? Or arrested at least three?

Mr Outram : There are a number of cases—

Senator ROBERTS: You’ll take it on notice, I assume.

Mr Outram : I will take it on notice. Again, the states and territories are running prosecutions. They may decide to drop the case. There will be different stages. We will take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I was referring to. You’ve already taken it on notice. I’m not expecting you to know the details, but how safe is the Australian community from immigrants with a known criminal history? Are you monitoring them?

Ms Foster : If we are speaking about the cohort that had to be released as a result of the High Court decision, the process that the commissioner and the deputy commissioner have been describing is all about putting in place conditions to maximise the safety of the community. And that goes to the sort of things that they were talking about, restrictions on their visa, monitoring—

Senator ROBERTS: How confident are you that people are safe?

Ms Foster : We are putting all of the elements in place that are within our power legislatively to provide for community safety. I’m very confident that we are doing all we can.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you need any additional legislative powers?

Ms Foster : Not at this time.

Senator Watt: Can I just add—I don’t know if you were here when we talked about this—many of the actions that are being taken to protect the community, for example installing electronic bracelet or a curfew or something else like that, those decisions are being made on the recommendation of the Community Protection Board, which includes former police commissioners and corrections commissioners. We have attempted to ensure that the community is well protected by seeking the advice of people with a vast amount of experience in this space.

Ms Foster : And draws very heavily on state and territory law enforcement agencies, for whom this is their bread and butter.

Senator ROBERTS: So you meet with them, listen to them and involve them in the process?

Mr Outram : The day after the High Court decision was handed down, the law enforcement coordination group was stood up, which is each state and territory police force or service with the Australian Federal Police and ourselves, walking through these cases weekly, pushing information to each other about these cases so if circumstances change, because of course some people may be subject to state and territory regimes—reporting regimes, parole requirements, bail requirements, domestic violence orders, those sorts of things. So there’s a combination of controls, not just the controls that we apply at the Commonwealth level. We also, of course, refer offences under the Migration Act to the AFP for investigation. But that coordination between states and territories and the Commonwealth is really important. It adds another layer of protection for the community.

Senator ROBERTS: So immigration—federal—is responsible for it, and law enforcement and states are responsible. I get that.

Mr Outram : We’re sharing the effort here because there are a whole range of different laws, powers and regimes that intersect with each other.

Ms Foster : The mechanism that the commissioner established and is running ensures that things aren’t dropping between the cracks—that we are making sure that we know what effort needs to be applied, whether that needs to be by state or territory or by the Commonwealth, and we’re talking about it and sharing information relating to it.

Senator ROBERTS: Going to the root cause, Ms Foster, what vetting was done of each of the released detainees to determine their risk profile when living in the community?

Ms Foster : The High Court decision required us to release the affected detainees as soon as we formed a view that that release was legally necessary. The process that then was established was the one that the commissioner has been describing, which is to provide all of the information we have about those individuals who were required to be released to state and territory counterparts so that appropriate risk could be put in place and also so that visa conditions could be imposed, which would give the highest possible level of assurance of safety to the community.

Senator ROBERTS: Has there been any review of the immigration vetting in the first place?

Ms Foster : If you mean the granting of the visas—

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Ms Foster : We have been looking at our system end to end to make sure that we are looking at every touchpoint so that we can prevent having people who are going to cause risk. It may be that there are ways that we can relook at, say, the granting of visas in particular cohorts or cases.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I was getting at.

Ms Foster : So we’re looking at, as I said, the whole process.

February 14, 2024/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Backlog of Burn-Offs Runs the Risk of Severe Bush Fires

Transcript

ASIC Offers Some Hope for Banking Fairness

Transcript

The WHO Is Taking Two Shots At Increasing Its Powers

Transcript

Inconvenient EVs in Canberra Subsidised by Taxpayers!

Transcript

Fuel Stockpiles in a Frightening State!

Transcript

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Goes to Davos!

Transcript

Snowy 2.0 Will Never Dig Itself Out of a Hole

Transcript

Transcript

Foreign-Owned Homes Vacant as Growing Numbers of Australians Are Made Homeless!

Transcript

Damn the Economy – Net Zero at All Cost!

Transcript

Labor is Asleep at the Wheel When it Comes to Illegal Immigration

Transcript

Pages

Malcolm’s Fight

Categories