Posts

Setting the Record Straight with the BOM

,

During the recent Senate Estimates Session with the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), I tabled a graph from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report to challenge some of the exaggerated claims we’ve been hearing about extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods, and fires.

For years the BOM has always referred me to the IPCC’s work as the authoritative source on climate science. I specifically pointed to the IPCC’s Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, where they provide an analysis of a wide range of weather events. What struck me—and I think it should strike everyone—is that for nearly every major type of extreme weather event, the IPCC finds that there has been no detectable change in frequency or severity over time. This includes river floods, fire weather, tropical cyclones, and coastal floods. The data doesn’t support the claims that these events are becoming more frequent or intense because of “climate change”.

This is important because politicians and the media have often linked these events to human-induced climate change. They claim that floods, fires, and cyclones are somehow the direct result of our carbon dioxide production.

Yet if the IPCC itself, the body these same politicians refer to, says there’s no significant change in these events, why aren’t we calling out this misinformation? Why isn’t BOM calling out this misinformation?

For example, tropical cyclones – the IPCC indicates no change in their frequency or severity, not just for today, but looking ahead through to 2100—even under the worst-case climate scenario. And yet, we continue to hear false claims that “human-induced climate change” is worsening cyclone events. This isn’t true. These events have been part of the natural weather cycle for millennia.

The BOM Director, Dr Johnson’s response acknowledged that the science on cyclones is evolving and confirmed that while there may be fewer cyclones in the future, the ones that do occur may be more intense. Yet again, these claims are based on unsubstantiated projections—not hard data. They’re misinformation!

What’s more, looking at the IPCC’s tables, which break down the evidence of (naturally) varying weather patterns, for nearly every phenomenon—whether it’s precipitation, floods, fire weather, or tropical cyclones—the data simply doesn’t support the idea of dramatic increases due to “human-induced” climate change.

So, why are we still seeing politicians and the media push these claims?

This is not saying to ignore the importance of understanding climate variability, it’s about dealing with the facts – the measured data. The science must guide us, not the political agenda. And if the observed, measured scientific data says these extreme weather events aren’t changing as some claim, we need to stand firm against the misinformation.

Let’s be clear: the data doesn’t support the alarmist rhetoric. We should be calling out the misinformation and ensuring that decisions, policies, regulations and public opinion are based on what the science actually tells us—not on what some want us to believe.

I will continue to hold taxpayer funded agencies and politicians accountable. The truth matters, because, as always, it’s we the people who pay.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table this graph from a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as the basis for some brief questions. I don’t have too many questions today. I’ll start with a little preamble just to set the scene for this. When you get the graph, you’ll see it. I refer to misinformation being put out that cyclones and floods are getting more frequent and severe. Over many years in this committee the BOM has referred me to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This might surprise you, but I’m not actually going to argue with you on the merits of the IPCC today, even though they’re a bunch of net zero pushers and are politically driven. I’m going to quote them, because you claim they’re the authority. I’ll take you to Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, table 12.12, by working group 1, on the science of climate, at page 1856. In that table is just about every type of measurable weather event. Some call it extreme weather events.

The blank or white boxes indicate there is no detectable change in frequency or severity of the weather event. I’ll go down the list of what the IPCC itself says—not me. River flood—no change is detected in current period. No change is expected to be detected under the worst case climate scenario by 2050 or even by 2100. Fire weather—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Tropical cyclone—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Coastal flood—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Pluvial—there’s a minor risk in the most extreme, worst-case scenario. If your net zero gods at the IPCC say the data shows weather events are not getting worse because of climate change, why isn’t the Bureau of Meteorology calling out the misinformation peddled by politicians when they state that this flood is because of climate change, this fire is because of climate change or this cyclone is because of climate change? Everyone knows that’s not true. These events have been happening for millennia. Even the scientists in the United Nations that you reference say it’s not so.  

Dr Johnson: I might make a couple of preliminary remarks and then ask Dr Braganza, who is online, to join in. I haven’t had a chance to study the page that you’ve just supplied me. I think many times I’ve referred you to the State of the climate report that the bureau produces with the CSIRO every two years, which contains the latest up-to-date information on climate.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve read each of them.  

Dr Johnson: I know you read it, and I’d encourage you to refer to it again. Across a range of phenomena we know there are very strong signals already from climate change, in particular around temperature and in particular around drying in the southern, south-east and south-west parts of Australia. Those signals are very strong. The level of confidence in them is very high. Some of the signals for other phenomena, including tropical cyclones, are still evolving and maturing. We have seen an increase in the incidence of high-intensity rainfall. We know as a matter of fact that, as the atmosphere warms, it holds more moisture—probably up to 10 or 11 per cent more—than it would otherwise have, and that we’ve seen an increase in high-intensity events. We’ve certainly been on record saying that we expect in Australia it’s likely that there will be a lower number and frequency of cyclones, but they’re likely to be more severe. We’ve been on the record for that for ages. We’ve also been on the record on many occasions—  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you explain the basis for that? The UN says it’s not—  

Dr Johnson: I’ll come to that. Dr Braganza might want to say something about this in a minute. We’ve also been on the record that, particularly when it comes to individual cyclones and individual rainfall events, it’s very difficult to attribute single events to climate change. We’re talking about longer term global trends here. That’s been our position for some time, and it remains so unless new evidence is entered into existence that would cause us to change our mind. I can only be accountable for the science we do. I can’t be accountable for how those in the public domain choose to talk about it. We certainly provide advice, as we’ve done to this committee many times and in many other fora, about what we’re observing and what our science is telling us is likely to come down the pipeline, and also where we have higher or lower confidence about what is or isn’t coming. They would be my general comments.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did I hear you correctly—just before we go to Dr Braganza—that cyclones are not becoming more intense?  

Dr Johnson: No, I didn’t say that. I said that in our outlooks we think there’s a reasonable likelihood—Dr Braganza will be able to quantify this in more specific detail—that the Australian region is likely to see fewer cyclones, but there’s a likelihood that they’ll be more intense rather than less intense. Dr Braganza is our lead in this space and I’d rather he answer these detailed questions that you might have.  

Dr Braganza: For tropical cyclones, the bureau, as Dr Johnson has pointed out, has consistently communicated that we have potentially seen a reduction in the number of tropical cyclones in our region, in particular in the east. We haven’t communicated that we’ve seen any significant change in intensity. Categorising changes in tropical cyclones is difficult. We’re limited to the satellite era. Prior to the satellite era, categorising tropical cyclones for severity and even whether or not they’re a tropical cyclone in the mid latitudes becomes difficult. There are data limitations in trends in tropical cyclones. The bureau has been entirely consistent in how it’s described those and entirely transparent in the data limitations. We have not communicated that we have seen large changes in tropical cyclones that are due to climate change. We don’t communicate around these individual weather events that they were caused by climate change. For tropical cyclones there are multiple aspects to the weather event. When we talk about intensity, we’re often talking about wind speed. Wind speed is just one aspect of a tropical cyclone. There’s also rainfall intensity and there’s storm surge intensity. Due to sea level rise and increased warmth in the atmosphere, we expect increased heavy rainfall and increased storm surge activity from all such events, not just tropical cyclones. There are also events such as east coast lows and others. Observational data is what it is.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t expect you to comment on this, because you don’t have the table in front of you, but I’ll just go through chapter 12 and table 12.12, emergence of climate impact drivers in different time periods. That’s with regard to the future. The white colour indicates that there’s no confidence in what they’re saying or what they’re projecting. In terms of already emerged and ‘worst case scenario’ in the future by 2050 and by 2100: mean precipitation, no confidence in the data. No trend has emerged. River flood is the same. Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood is the same. Landslide is the same. Aridity is the same. Hydrological drought is the same. Agricultural and ecological drought is the same. Fire weather is the same. Tropical cyclones is the same. Coastal flood is the same. These are often taken advantage of by politicians and the news media; there’s no evidence for their comments attributing them to climate change caused by humans.  

Dr Braganza: I’ll have to take that on notice since I don’t have the material in front of me. Some of the phenomena you’ve called out again in terms of establishing observed trends is limited by sample size. You’re talking not about weather events necessarily; you’re talking about impact events such as the size of a flood following heavy rainfall. There are possibly data limitations involved, but I would have to see exactly the material that you’re referencing. 

/4 Comments/by

Tax Reform Urgently Needed to Create a Fairer System for All Australians

,

I believe we need to have comprehensive tax reform. Australia’s current tax system is destructive. Individuals on average incomes pay a staggering 68% of their income in various taxes, meaning they work nearly half the year just to cover government obligations. With median incomes at $67,000, many Australians are struggling.

We need reform to address the regressive nature of the tax system, which hits the less fortunate the hardest. Let’s strive for a fairer, simpler tax future for all Australians.

Transcript

In my first speech, in 2016, and many times since, I’ve called for comprehensive tax reform. The tax system in Australia as it exists is our country’s most destructive system, and not just exorbitant tax rates. I’ll give you some figures from the late 1990s and early 2000s. Someone on the average income paid 68 per cent of their income to government in the form of rates levies, fees, charges, special charges and special levies—68 per cent. That means someone’s working from Monday to mid-morning Thursday to pay the government. 

Since then, it’s got much more complex and more absurd, and some of the data I’ll give you is more recent. Some of the figures are indicative, not definitive. The ABS average income figure is $100,000. The median income figure is $67,000. Life is tough for people on the median. In 2015 Joe Hockey said that a typical person in Australia pays 50 per cent in tax—works from January to June to pay the government, and then gets to keep from July to December. Basically, as I said, people are working at least half the year—probably 68 per cent of the year—for government. 

Then we think about the tax. Tax on a house, according to a News Corporation article a few years ago and according to recent figures, is 45 to 50 per cent of the house price, The effective tax rate is 80 to 100 per cent. International accountant and auditor Derek Smith in Queensland says that 50 per cent of the price of bread is tax, which is an effective tax rate of 100 per cent. Petrol excise and tax varies. At 70 per cent, the effective tax rate is 230 per cent. So, a worker on the average income on payday gives 21 per cent of his or her gross income to the government. With what’s left—that’s 79 per cent—she the next day wakes up in her house and pays 80 to 100 per cent to have that house and makes some sandwiches because food is too expensive to purchase wherever she works. So, that’s a tax of 100 per cent. Then she fills up at the petrol station on her way to work, and that costs her 230 per cent tax. 

Then we have GST. GST can be levied on bills, including stamp duty, so we’ve got a tax on a tax. So, there are three aspects. First, there’s the total tax paid. Second, how is it levied? And third, is it enforced fairly? Ultimately, the people pay a tax in the form of higher prices. So, it doesn’t matter if a company is being taxed or if another entity is being taxed; they pass it on to the customers. 

Cost of living, inflation, overregulation and many other factors make sure that today’s system of government impositions—government cost recovery—is highly regressive. Look at the carbon dioxide tax and offsets—a UN tax, driven by the UN, introduced by the Liberals-Nationals in 2015 under Greg Hunt and Malcolm Turnbull and now ramped up under this government with Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese. We’ve got a highly regressive imposition of taxation and other charges by the government. The Australian Bureau of Statistics showed that the median income is $67,000. People on that median income are doing it extremely tough because of government and the mishmash that’s evolved in the taxation system. 

That takes care of terms of reference (a) and (b) in Senator Rennick’s motion. I agree with them; in fact, I agree with his whole motion, and I thank him for his motion. I’ve raised the need for comprehensive tax reform many times, so I support this motion. 

Then we see the core, one of the bedrocks of our federal system and Constitution—competitive federalism. That is being converted under the current tax system to competitive welfarism, destroying productivity in this country. The way competitive federalism should work is it promotes competition between the states—not cut-throat competition, just competition for efficiency. As I said yesterday, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, as Premier of Queensland, abolished death duties in Queensland and people moved to Queensland to retire, which developed the Gold Coast. The other states then saw their people were leaving, so they abolished death duties too. Now we’ve got Labor—and the Greens, I think—wanting to put in place a central death duty as a state duty—centrally imposed, no competition, no accountability. When you have a marketplace in governance because the state can’t operate according to their needs and the needs best suited to their constituents, then you have competitive federalism, a marketplace in governance, and that is priceless. One of the reasons we’ve got such low accountability in state and federal parliament is it’s too easy for the states to blame the feds and the feds to blame the states, as I said yesterday. The GST undoes competitive federalism and replaces it with competitive welfarism. It’s a reward for states like Tasmania and South Australia to be inefficient and not use their resources and, instead, bludge off of Western Australia. 

I mentioned yesterday that systems drive behaviour and behaviour shapes attitude, and the combination of behaviour and attitudes along with values and leadership and symbols determine the culture, which is the most important determinant of productivity, security and accountability. Energy prices, as I said, are a huge regressive tax on the poor. Massive record immigration is a huge regressive tax on housing, especially on the poor. As I list some of these examples, as Senator Rennick listed some of his examples, I urge you to think about the impact on our culture in this country. 

The tax system is Australia’s most destructive system. What behaviours does it drive? We’ve got the best and brightest accountants and lawyers in this country fighting the government, not helping our producers to fight our competitors overseas—the Koreans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Americans. We’ve now got a tax system that’s grown-up like Topsy; it’s a mishmash of dishonest promises to various vested interests for favours. What behaviours does that drive? Is that productive? It’s certainly not productive. Inefficient or suboptimal allocation of capital, allocation of resources, leads to inefficient or suboptimal decisions and a waste of resources and inefficient allocation to minimise tax rather than to maximise wealth and value. 

Then we have the ATO in a position where it can level complaints against people and businesses—small businesses particularly, because they don’t have the lawyers to back them up. In addition to prosecuting those cases, they adjudicate on those cases. How can that be justice? It’s not justice. It leads to corruption—and we saw that in the Australian Taxation Office just a few years ago. 

There is the complexity of various structures that Senator Rennick mentioned; he’s got far more experience in that than I have. They’re unfair to people who can’t set up structures. Senator Rennick discussed some of the modern structures in the technologies that have come up. That increases the appeal for workarounds. 

Then we’ve got something that Senator Hanson has talked about for many years, since 1996: multinationals basically pay no or little company tax. These use their resources for free. We’ve got the world’s biggest freeloader, the biggest tax avoider in the world, Chevron, taking our gas and sending it overseas, using our infrastructure, using our security forces, using our education system and not paying much at all for the gas. This is a figure I got from Jim Killaly, the former Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, Large Business and International, who retired in 2015 or 2016. I’ve met him. He said in both the nineties and in 2010—and it’s quoted in the newspapers—that 90 per cent of Australia’s large businesses are foreign-owned and since 1953 have paid little or no company tax. Who’s paying that share of tax? It’s the men and women of Australia, working families. 

Since 1953, when we had double taxation legislation enacted by the Menzies Liberal government, we’ve had foreign companies paying little or no company tax. In the 1980s, we had Labor, with the petroleum resource rent tax, making sure that large companies such as Chevron pay little or no tax when exporting our gas from the North West Shelf. Then we had transfer pricing rorts and so many other rorts, which Senator Rennick went into. So terms of reference (c) and (d) are definitely worth keeping. 

The tax reform, while it’s necessary and arguably one of the most important things in this country, is difficult because the uniparty, Liberal and Labor, sees new ideas, seizes on new ideas and then basically tells lies and misrepresents to destroy our tax system. Paul Keating, as Treasurer to Bob Hawke, introduced the concept of the GST. Later, when John Hewson raised it as opposition leader, who smashed it? Paul Keating smashed it. He destroyed the GST concept even though he’d come so close to putting it over the line in Australia. 

When Pauline Hanson, who wasn’t a senator at the time, got hold of the transaction tax, it was also sent to Costello by the originators of that taxation system and taxation proposal. Peter Costello, as Treasurer—and a good treasurer—was asked about it and he said: ‘Sounds like a good system. We must have a look at it.’ Then Senator Hanson introduced it to the public, and he used it to try to destroy her. 

And look at my motion for stopping bracket creep—a motion on a Labor bill for stopping bracket creep. Labor stood right up there and said it supports work to remove indexing of bracket creep, but it voted against it. The LNP, the Liberals and Nationals, did something similar. They stood up—Senator Hume, I think it was—and said, ‘We support removal of bracket creep, the stealth tax, the hidden tax, the deceit tax,’ but they voted against the indexation of bracket creep. Barely a few weeks later, Senator Sharma, in his first speech, said that one of his goals was to get rid of bracket creep. Well, pile on, but just a few weeks earlier he had voted against removing bracket creep. 

As Senator Rennick has already mentioned, the tax system has been wangled and mismanaged to protect special interest groups feeding off tax loopholes. The terms of reference (e), (f), (g) and (h) are all necessary. Tax is the cost of government. That’s necessary. But it’s now got to the point where tax, in this country of ours, is the cost of excess government interference and excess waste—well, all waste. It’s the cost of poor governance, and it’s the poor who pay regressively for it. 

I support Senator Rennick’s motion as a step to exposing the harm and inefficiency of the tax system. Because of the complexities of the tax system and because of the politics around it, I think the first thing to do is to get an agreement to understand that the tax system is so destructive and so inefficient. Senator Rennick’s motion is a commendable first step to exposing the inefficiencies and the unfairness in the tax system. Once there’s an agreement on the inefficiencies, then we need to develop principles—not a system but principles: for example, simplicity; efficiency, so the tax system actually collects more than the cost of implementing that tax; fairness; objectivity; and the fact that it’s inescapable, so we don’t have multinational companies coming here, stealing our resources and assets, using our infrastructure and our people, and skipping the country without paying their fair share. So we develop principles and get agreement on them, and then, once that’s done, the specific system falls out. 

I see Senator Rennick’s motion as leading to an important first step in identifying the problems and some of the solutions and then, ultimately, we can take the next step: comprehensive tax reform, defining the ultimate system and the transition of baby steps to getting there. I support Senator Rennick’s motion. Question agreed to. 

/3 Comments/by

Coalition Complain Labor’s Renewable Target is Behind Schedule

,

The coalition is complaining that Labor’s “renewables” target is falling behind, which is a good thing!

It’s time to tell foreign, unelected organisations backed by billionaire donors to stop dictating what we do in Australia and to bugger off. Australia’s wealth should be used to benefit Australians, plain and simple.

Transcript

For those watching at home, we’re debating a motion the Liberals-Nationals coalition introduced proposing a matter of public importance. The motion complains that, ‘Labor’s 82 per cent renewables by 2030 target is way behind schedule.’ I have two responses to that: ‘Who cares!’ and ‘Good!’ Renewables are the collection of wind, solar, hydrogen, battery, pumped hydro and other scams that parasitic billionaires own and pump up with billions more in taxpayer subsidies. Every new solar panel and every new wind turbine installed represents another increase in Australians’ power bills. 

I commend the Liberals and Nationals for further opening the debate on nuclear, which One Nation has always advocated. I cannot abide, though, the insistence that we do nuclear so that we can meet net zero targets. Net zero is economic suicide, human catastrophe and environmental disaster. The only thing that can truly bring Australian power bills down is coal and, in North Queensland, hydro. To comply with net zero, the coalition’s proposal is to forcibly acquire coal-fired power stations, shut them down and replace them with nuclear. We don’t need to end coal to do nuclear. We can do both. Why would we stop using coal here while we ship hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal to China and other countries every year. The United Nations World Economic Forum net zero target: that’s why. A foreign, unelected bureaucratic organisation is telling Australians what we can and can’t do. 

There’s only one solution: tell the foreign, unelected organisations and their billionaire donors, like Bill Gates, to bugger off. Australia is one of the most resource-rich countries in the world. We should be using every bit of these resources right here for the benefit of Australians and especially for getting back to being the source of the world’s cheapest electricity. Put Australians first. 

/4 Comments/by

What is Bracket Creep?

As inflation rages on, the Government is making money out of it through “Bracket Creep” – collecting more taxes.

I moved an amendment to a bill so that tax thresholds are indexed to inflation, meaning you won’t pay more tax because of inflation. Predictably, the major parties voted it down. They rely on squeezing more and more tax out of you and making money out of inflation.

This clip from the Centre for Independent Studies is a great explainer on how “Bracket Creep” works so that the Government benefits from inflation at your expense.

/by

$18 Billion in COVID Vaccines 💉

,

In a recent senate estimate session, I raised questions about the massive purchase of 267 million COVID-19 vaccine doses for Australia’s 27 million population. Despite only using a fraction of these doses, concerns remain about transparency and cost efficiency of that purchase.

Bureaucrats state that there was a need for a diverse vaccine portfolio and future supplies, yet exact delivery figures remain undisclosed due to commercial sensitivities. 👂 Listen as they sidestep the questions.

The question remains, was the expenditure justified and how much has actually been delivered.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to continue with the questions that I was asking before. Minister, the purchases of COVID injection doses were, by any measure, excessive—a cost of $18 billion—yet we have only used 37 per cent of Pfizer, 26 per cent of Moderna, 25 per cent of AstraZeneca and one per cent of Novavax. Why did we buy 267 million vaccines for a population of 27 million people?  

Ms Fisher: I think that Professor Kelly went through some of the rationale for the COVID purchasing arrangements earlier. But just to recap, I think the most important consideration at the time was to ensure that every Australian would have access to COVID-19 vaccines. Given that it was a new vaccine and a whole new disease, it was necessary at the time to have a portfolio approach to our purchasing, so we had a number of vaccines purchased, and we needed to make sure that they were all going to be safe and effective and that we’d have enough of each of the vaccines to cover the population. I would note that, in terms of the vaccine program, purchasing is carrying through into the future as well. Some of the vaccine numbers that you gave are those that are currently going through the system. Also, we have an acceptable level of waste for the program, which we look into to make sure that it’s an effective and efficient use of public money. 

Senator ROBERTS: According to my simple calculations, 267 million vaccines equate to 10 vaccinations for each individual; and that number also covers people who didn’t want to be vaccinated, so it’s even more than 10 person, per Australian, per baby.  

Ms Fisher: I won’t question your maths but, going back to my comment about having a portfolio approach— noting that different vaccines, according to the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, have been recommended over time for different groups, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine—it was necessary to have some flexibility in the purchasing arrangements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Were all of the 267 million doses delivered to Australia?  

Ms Fisher: Were they, at what time period?  

Senator ROBERTS: Have they all been delivered?  

Ms Fisher: No. Some of them continue to arrive through our advance purchasing agreements.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many have arrived and how many are yet to arrive?  

Ms Fisher: Due to commercial sensitivities and the secrecy provisions in the contracts, I’m not able to answer specific questions relating to specific vaccines around that. I am able to tell you how many we purchased of the different vaccines and some of the uptake that we’ve had overall, which is that 71 million vaccines have been administered over the last few years.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s about a quarter of what we bought.  

Ms Fisher: Yes, so far, but there are more coming every day.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, because of commercial sensitivity, you’re refusing to tell us how many have been delivered?  

Ms Fisher: Yes, to date.  

Senator Gallagher: And because of the requirements of the contract, the agreements, with the companies.  

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, Ms Fisher is ‘required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested’, and I’ve requested the number of vaccines that have not been delivered.  

Senator Gallagher: I don’t know what you’re reading from there but—  

Senator ROBERTS: The standing orders.  

Senator Gallagher: within the standing orders, there are also provisions for things like commercial in confidence. But we can tell you how much has been our expend. We can go through how many have been purchased from each company, and I would imagine we could answer by saying that the agreements are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the contract, for example. That’s the transparency, but there are still legitimate reasons before committees that matters remain commercial in confidence or security in confidence for a range of different reasons.  

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, there’s no privacy, security, freedom-of-information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and Ms Fisher and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. So, if you want to seek indemnity from providing that then you have to submit such a request to the committee.  

Senator Gallagher: If you’re insisting that we provide that, I can refer the matter to the minister for health to make a public interest immunity claim, and I’m happy to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; I’d like the data. 

/by

The NDIS System is Broken

During recent Estimates, NDIS Integrity Chief, Mr. John Dardo, stated that 90% of plan managers showed significant signs of fraud, and 87% of service providers were unregistered and unmonitored, lacking adequate training for their responsibilities. Mr Dardo said, “we have no idea what they do when putting in their invoices.” This underscores the broken state of the NDIS, stemming from an ill-considered election promise devoid of data, reminiscent of the Gillard government’s hasty policy announcements without sufficient planning.

I proposed that an inquiry should evaluate the merits of returning responsibility for these services back to the states from which they originated. I pointed out that an unintended consequence has been a shortage of workers in the health and aged care sectors due to the excessively high pay NDIS service providers receive—often triple what they would earn in equivalent roles within these sectors.

Labor’s penchant for wasteful spending was exemplified by the squandering of $430 million on “the Voice,” funds that could have been more effectively allocated to NDIS services. 

Ultimately, taxpayers foot the bill for this waste. I advocate for a shift away from the costly and ineffective centralised service model towards competitive federalism.

Transcript

At the recent Senate estimates hearings, the NDIS integrity chief, Mr John Dardo, admirably confirmed that 90 per cent of plan managers displayed significant indicators of fraud. The level of fraud it is now so high that there are dozens of examples of organised crime groups abusing the systems, with millions of dollars being rorted. The system is so out of control that 87 per cent of service providers are unregistered and unmonitored. I quote words that appeared in an article about Mr Dardo: 

We have no idea of knowing what they do when they put in their invoices. 

It’s taxpayers’ money, spent on something they have no idea of. He had the courage to admit that. He said that existing cases exceeded Australia’s judicial capacity, without finding more. 

NDIS funds must not be used to pay for sex workers, expensive holidays or new cars that other taxpayers cannot afford. Projections are for a blowout of NDIS spending to $90 billion within a decade; it must be prevented. Using the system to peddle drugs is happening extensively. The name of this bill says what we already know about the NDIS. It’s broken and getting worse. It’s a licence for criminals and fraudsters to print money. It’s so far off track that the hope that this bill will get things back on track is a pigs-can-fly pipedream. 

Since the Gillard Labor government’s NDIS inception, there has never been a track. It was hatched with no meaningful metrics or plan. It was simply an election slogan to desperately buy votes in an election that Prime Minister Gillard lost. It was hatched as a headline grabber and a vote harvester. Typical of ‘uniparty’ initiatives—and of policies and legislation in our parliament over recent decades—it lacks the discipline of a system based on hard data and a focus on customer needs. It was done to look good, not to do good. A hastily cobbled together election policy, it had holes in it a mile wide that clearly enabled fraudulent claims to be made with little chance of being picked up and stopped. 

As servants to the people of Queensland and Australia, Senator Pauline Hanson and I have been calling out the NDIS fraud model since 2016. A significant effort is now needed to remove dodgy plan managers and service providers and to protect capable and honest plan managers and providers, using stricter laws to prevent participants from being defrauded, to prevent unscrupulous service providers from abusing vulnerable people and to save NDIS for genuinely disabled people with real needs. If we really care, we’ll clean up this mess. If we really care for disabled people, then we’ll have to get tough and sort out the criminals and the rorters. Providers, managers and recipients who commit fraud under this NDIS scheme must be heavily penalised and banned from any involvement in the scheme again. Wasted money through overspending has cost taxpayers well in excess of $8 billion already, and it’s essential to ensure that the current 150,000 unregistered care or service providers become registered and then are monitored for effective compliance. 

The Gillard Labor government introduced the NDIS. In their election loss, they handed the incoming coalition government an illegitimate, loose and sloppy mishmash of slogans and empty titles, lacking discipline, coherence, focus and care, and lacking solid systems. If they’d cared, Labor would have put together a proper system, but they didn’t. They should have put together a system to provide effective care and to protect taxpayers’ hard-earned money. The Liberal and National parties tried to refine the monster, and now the NDIS is back in Labor hands for more mismanagement. The NDIS must be reconsidered and protections against mismanagement and abuse strengthened.  

But who should be responsible for management? References to the non-constitutional National Cabinet are just a poor joke. National Cabinet is a mere grouping of state ministers responsible for similar portfolios, with no statutory authority or constitutional recognition of its existence or authority. It’s toothless—all mouth and no accountability. There’s no accountability in the current system. Right at the very top there’s the bogus unconstitutional National Cabinet. In such cabinets the state and federal government ministers just go, ‘They’re responsible.’ That means no-one is responsible. There is no accountability. It’s fundamentally structurally flawed. 

I suggest an inquiry to consider the alternative model: putting the responsibility for providing for the needs of people living with a disability back to the states and territories, where it was stolen from. Clearly, each state is responsible. The states would work to ensure that services were monitored, reasonable and meeting client needs under a model reflecting the proven benefits of competitive federalism, the foundation under which our Constitution and government is made. This will provide the level of accountability that has been missing to date. Centralising doesn’t work; decentralising closer to the surface does. One of the unintended consequences of Labor’s mismanagement of NDIS funds is the shortage of aged-care and healthcare workers who migrated to work in the lucrative NDIS model. This is because NDIS wages are so overinflated that a worker can receive three times the rate of pay for the same work done in other sectors. This is not just hurting the NDIS. This rorting, mismanagement and waste of taxpayer funds is hurting aged-care and healthcare workers. 

Labor wastes money in other areas, too. Look at the wasted $430 million plus that the doomed referendum cost Australians—just like the Gillard government’s NDIS facade, which was based on slogans and empty promises lacking substance. Just think how that $430 million could have been spent directly to improve the lives of remote Australians living in need or spent on improving NDIS services and security for people who are disabled in some way. Then there are the follies of government cutbacks, such as when psychological services were cut from 20 appointments to a relatively useless 10 appointments for needy participants. Just think about what could have been supported with the wasted money—health, education and child protection are a few. Frontline staff are in short supply now, partly because of poor pay, inadequate training and lack of support and partly because of NDIS rorts and sloppiness. Many NDIS carers and support staff have little or no training in basic personal caring skills. Many recipients have physical health needs and their carers should have sound skills in lifting, mobility, feeding, toileting and showering. Expecting NDIS carers to do these things with no, or inadequate, training is unfair and dangerous for the recipient and the carer. 

I have described a support system in crisis. This bill tinkers around the edges. As it is, this bill will not make significant positive differences, and who pays for all of this waste? Always, it’s we the people. Instead of tinkering around the edges of a broken system, do the work! I call on the government to do the work to define disabled people’s needs for service and taxpayers’ needs for protection. Instead of the ubiquitous fraud under low levels of accountability, consider returning to the original system of state governance. One Nation knows what history repeatedly proves: administration and services are of higher quality when services are closer to recipients. That enables understanding of needs, which is core to effective service. Replacing centralisation with competitive federalism provides a marketplace in governance. That’s what we all want. That’s what we need because improved governance provides accountability, effective service and better care. 

/1 Comment/by

$2.5 Million EV Chargers Installed at Parliament House, Serving Just 2.8% of Vehicles

,

The woke and under-fire boss of Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) has installed 58 electric vehicle chargers at Parliament House, using $2.5 million of your money. This is despite only 2.8% of the vehicles in Canberra (the wokest city in Australia) being able to use the chargers.

I find it concerning that I needed to remind DPS Secretary, Rob Stefanic, that the money he’s using for these chargers belong to Australian taxpayers, not a pot of money that replenishes magically. His “out of touch” attitude regarding the chargers he’s installing and the origin of the funds is troubling.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Let’s move on to electric vehicle chargers. I’d like to return to the 58 electric vehicle chargers—that’s 58—that you’ve installed, Mr Stefanic, at Parliament House. Can I confirm you haven’t installed any petrol or diesel pumps? 

Mr Stefanic: No, we have not. 

Senator Roberts: So 2.8 per cent of the vehicles registered in Canberra are electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids. It seems to be a weird policy priority to spend $2.5 million on installation of EV chargers. Do you think your policy is out of touch with the reality of the types of vehicles that are in use in the ACT and Canberra? 

Mr Stefanic: Sometimes planning for a future state is important, and, given the take-up of electric vehicles within the country and particularly the rate of take-up within the ACT, I would have thought it to be prudent planning. 

Senator Roberts: What is the mix of seven-kilowatt and 22-kilowatt chargers? How many of each are installed? 

Mr Stefanic: I’d have to take that on notice. I’m not across the technical aspects of it. 

Senator Roberts: Thank you. As to question on notice 114, your cashflow statement is anticipating $160,000 in employee expenses and nearly $170,000 in the following year. Why do Australian taxpayers need to pay $330,000 in employee wages over the next two years for these EV chargers? 

Mr Stefanic: The business case for the chargers is a cost-recover over the long term. So, while it is an initial investment of Commonwealth funds, there is a recovery anticipated as part of that. 

Senator Roberts: So Commonwealth funds come from taxpayers, or loans. 

Mr Stefanic: They come from consolidated revenue, yes. 

Senator Roberts: Which comes from taxpayers. It’s a bit of a concern that it seems to be awkward to actually admit that it comes from taxpayers. Charging lithium batteries is a fire safety risk. Who did the assessment of the fire safety risk and mitigation for these chargers? Can you please provide those details on notice. 

Mr Stefanic: I know that all the appropriate engineering approvals were obtained, but I can get that detail for you on notice. 

Senator Roberts: I’d like to know who did the assessment in particular of the fire safety risk and mitigation. What is the plan if a charging station charging vehicles catches fire? Firefighters are telling us, all over the world, that they are nearly impossible to extinguish. 

Mr Stefanic: I believe all relevant risks were considered during the engineering assessment of the charging facility, but otherwise I’d have to take the detail of that question on notice. 

Senator Roberts: Yes, please. Are you introducing a fire risk by installing 58 of these chargers into Parliament House, given the difficulties of putting out lithium fires? Perhaps take it on notice. 

Mr Stefanic: Yes, I will take that on notice. 

Senator Roberts: Given that only 2.8 per cent of the vehicles in Canberra can use these chargers, I think it is completely out of touch to spend $2½ million of taxpayers’ money on 58 of them at Parliament House. There are far more important things to be spending money on. 

/by

Rampant NDIS Fraud Leaves Vulnerable Recipients in Need

,

My questions to the NDIS Quality & Safeguards Commissioner was primarily about the quality and safety issues that render the system inefficient and hazardous. 

It became evident that fraud was rampant, leading to significant financial waste and leaving many recipients’ needs unmet. 

While some recipients received excessively extravagant packages with overvalued components, such as massages, fishing trips and cruises, others remained in dire need of basic assistance for eating, washing, toileting and dressing. 

Initially, the system functioned fairly well, but it has now expanded excessively, resulting in waste, unmet needs, and dangerous conditions for vulnerable recipients.

/by

Questions Raised Over $430K Government Job

,

Under my questioning, Rob Stefanic, the head of the federal government department tasked with overseeing Parliament House, denied being in a relationship with his deputy, but refused to say whether he’d been in one with her before creating and placing her in a job paying about $430,000 a year. Cate Saunders was also given a $315,000 additional payment to retire, despite being far younger than the retirement age.

Listen to my questioning and tell me whether you believe Rob Stefanic’s answers are worth the $478,000 he is paid by YOU, the Australian taxpayer, as I had to remind him. I also asked about reports of there being a toxic culture at his agency, the Department of Parliamentary Services. Multiple staff have approached me and I am not satisfied with the fobbing off of these concerns.

If you’ve been a staffer in the Department of Parliamentary Services and have a complaint, please contact me confidentially at senator.roberts@aph.gov.au

/5 Comments/by

One Nation Priorities

,

Here are some bold ideas you won’t hear from anyone but One Nation.

1. Ensure cheap power by turning on coal-fired stations, building more, and ending solar and wind subsidies.

2. Stop inflation by halting excessive money printing.  

3. Guarantee cheaper housing and rents, prioritising young Australians.

4. Secure cheaper groceries by supporting farmers and building dams.

And lastly, use our natural resources for Australians first.

One Nation is committed to putting Australians first and freeing them from unnecessary restrictions.

Transcript

Here are things you won’t hear from anyone in the budget, except for One Nation because we’ve got the guts to say what you’re thinking. 

Firstly, guarantee cheap power—turn the coal fired power stations back on, build more coal fired power stations, and remove solar and wind subsidies. It’s the only thing that can save us right now. Secondly, stop inflation. Stop quantitative easing—printing excess money. A trillion dollars was concocted during the COVID response, which is a major cause of the inflation we’re still fighting today. Thirdly, we’ll guarantee cheaper houses, cheaper rents and get young people into their first home. Don’t just cut net overseas migration: start deporting. Prior to COVID, there were 1.9 million visa holders who needed housing and who were fighting Australians for a roof over their heads. That has increased to 2.3 million today, plus 400,000 tourists and others. Ten per cent of our population is on visas and needs extra housing. We will ban foreigners from buying Australian property. They’re currently snapping up nearly one in 10 new Aussie homes. 

Fourthly, get cheaper groceries—build dams and help farmers produce tonnes of fresh, healthy produce for Australians. Give farmers water and the right to use their land, and we’ll never have to worry about grocery bills again. Fifth, use all of our natural resources we have right here for Australians first. There’s no need to become a green superpower, and we never will. We’re already an oil, gas, coal and uranium superpower. The government won’t do this because some foreign, unelected organisation in Zurich or New York will claim that we’re not complying with our international obligations. 

Governments on both sides have forgotten that their first obligation is to Australians and no-one else. One Nation knows this. We’ll put our trust in Australia’s people and release them from the nanny state that tells them everything they can and can’t do, which will enable people to abound and flourish. That’s our promise of what would be a One Nation budget. We will always remind members of parliament to put Australians first. 

/by