Posts

Snowy 2.0 Will Never Dig Itself Out of a Hole

,

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.

/2 Comments/by

Double Jeopardy in Tax Unfair

I spoke on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. One Nation supports an efficient, honest and fair tax system. This Bill does nothing to make that happen.

Trickery with franking credits (again), the start of mandating Blackrock and Vanguard style ESG into Australia’s financial system and a potential Robodebt 2.0 are all in this Bill.

Despite Labor’s promises, they continue to fiddle with the taxation system and it is rarely for the better.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. One Nation supports an efficient, honest and fair tax system. An important aspect of a fair system to is to make sure tax is not double-charged. That’s what franking credits do. They make sure a tax is not double-charged. They ensure that Australians don’t pay income tax on the parts of dividends on which the government has already collected company tax. That’s fair. There’s no reason to allow the government to double-dip on Australian profits and then again on Australians’ income.  

In the 2019 election campaign, Labor proposed changes to the franking credits system. Australia completely rejected those thought bubbles. Labor learnt from that lesson and for the 2022 election, promised there would be no changes made to franked dividends if Australia voted them into government. Yet, now that Labor is in government, schedules 4 and 5 make a number of wholesale changes to how the dividend, share buyback, and franking system currently works. It is a broken promise, yet another to add to Labor’s list of broken promises. Just like when they promised to reduce your power bills by $275, Labor’s promise that they wouldn’t touch franking credits was a lie. As always, the government claims that these are simply modest changes. They’re anything but modest, with large implications for companies and for capital markets. The government hasn’t been able to articulate the need for these changes, nor quantify how big an impact they will have. They’re doing it, and they don’t even know what will happen. We cannot legislate on a hope, a vibe or a wish that it will be okay. While that is, according to some in government, Prime Minister Albanese’s modus operandi, it’s not a responsible way to steer a $1.7 trillion economy. It’s highly irresponsible. One Nation will be opposing these changes in schedules 4 and 5 and cannot pass the bill if they remain part of this package.  

Schedule 2 lays the groundwork for standards that align money to climate goals. This would presumably be to create alignment with the greatest scam in finance: ESG standards—environment, social and governance. The powers that be call them ‘sustainability standards’, yet there’s nothing sustainable about them. In fact, UN sustainability policies survive only as parasites on subsidies from the real economy—subsidies: that makes them unsustainable. So-called sustainability standards talk about protecting the financial system from risks. Yet they cannot quantify what those risks are. The idea that the government or, worse, a single bureaucratic department can ever predict and quantify risk to the financial system is sheer lunacy. A brief analysis of history shows that. Did the government and regulatory agencies see the risk of the dot com bubble coming in the 2000s? No. They had no idea. Did the American regulators see the risk of subprime mortgages leading to the global financial crisis? No. They arguably participated in and make it far worse. Did any regulator around the world predict the risk of almost every government in the world going certifiably insane in response to COVID, a bad flu? No, they did not. Over the last three years, the Reserve Bank created $500 billion in electronic journal entries, money concocted out of thin air. Did any regulator predict the risks that would lead to the skyrocketing inflation that we’re still trying to get under control? No, they did not. Actually, some did, and we were ridiculed by the experts. The point here is very simple. The government and the regulators cannot quantify the risk of financial system shock. History shows governments are hilariously bad at it. They certainly won’t be able to do it for supposed climate risks that are nothing more than fabrications concocted from inherent, natural, cyclical variation. By the way, everything in nature—everything in existence—varies, yet understanding of variation is not taught in schools and rarely taught properly, if at all, at university. That’s why Green, Labor, Teal and, sadly, some Liberal-National members and senators spout nonsense in this parliament and in public, concocting and spreading imaginary fears of climate apocalypse, when reality shows simply inherent, natural, cyclical variation. 

They cannot even come up with the only sound and essential basis for policy—that is, they’ve never quantified the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity. That means they have no basis for climate and energy policy, no specific quantified goals for climate and energy policy and no means of measuring progress towards those goals. We’re flying blind. Australia is flying blind. Energy costs and climate policies are out of control and needlessly imposing huge costs on families, small businesses, our country and our nation’s future. Anyway, the only thing we can do to protect against systemic risks is to make sure that financial intermediaries are well capitalised and diversified to survive any risk that comes to fruition. Doing anything else encourages a lack of diversification and actually increases risk. 

I don’t believe in this climate apocalypse nonsense, this climate fraud, yet even for those who do fall for this illusion there’s no serious risk to anything. Let’s look at the supposed science around climate risk. When I ask the government why we need to cut human production of carbon dioxide, they point me to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN IPCC. They’re a dodgy bunch—proven over 40-plus years—yet I don’t think anyone in here has actually read the IPCC reports they claim as proof the climate is going to collapse. If you go to the IPCC’s assessment report 6, you’ll see chapter 12 is the summary of Working Group I, who looked at the actual science around natural disasters. Table 12.12 summarises all of the available evidence on the frequency of extreme weather events. Let me read out the types of natural disasters where even the United Nations has said there has been no detectable increase in the number of natural disasters. I repeat that: no detectable increase in frost, river flood, rain measured in terms of mean precipitation or heavy precipitation, landslide, drought, fire weather, wind speed, windstorm, tropical cyclone, dust storm, heavy snowfall, hail, relative sea level, coastal flood, marine heatwave—and on and on. Although I do not put any trust in the United Nations, government claims it does, and the United Nations says there has been no increase in severe weather events in those categories—none. 

Even better, table 12.12 in the IPCC’s AR6 says the United Nations doesn’t expect to see any detectable increase in those categories in the next 80 years under its worst-case scenario. There’s no risk to the financial system from climate change because there’s no need to cut human production of carbon dioxide—end of story. 

As an aside, I ask: on what basis does Minister Watt get his frequent fanciful, scary claims of increasing extreme weather events? Wild imagination, Senator Watt? From where do the Greens get their dishonest claims? From where does Senator Pocock get his pseudoscience to support his Kermit green fantasy policies? Is it the family money of Simon Holmes a Court, who now relies on the millions of green subsidy dollars that support otherwise unsustainable and failing wind and solar net zero projects—parasitic subsidies from energy users and taxpayers who pay through needlessly higher prices. 

Recently in this chamber I heard Senator David Pocock cite scientists who said they have fears for the climate. Significantly, he did not provide any science to back it up, apparently because he seems to just swallow their words because they claim to be scientists. That’s what’s happened repeatedly in this chamber. People don’t produce the science; they say what scientists conclude and don’t analyse it. Those scientists are on major grants to push the climate fraud. Real scientists don’t peddle unsubstantiated fears. Scientists present science, presenting the empirical scientific data as evidence within logical scientific points, proving cause and effect. Never has anyone done that. Senator David Pocock never presents any such science nor references the specific pages providing such logical scientific points—never. Extreme weather has always been with us. It remains with us and will always be with us. It’s natural and often cyclical.  

So what’s the real reason for implementing so-called sustainability standards and ESG? The Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, said it in his second reading speech to this bill: the purpose is to ‘align capital flows towards climate and sustainability goals’. I’ll say it again: the purpose is to ‘align capital flows towards climate and sustainability goals’—political goals, not scientific. Those are the goals of predatory globalist billionaires and the rent seekers who are flogging wind, solar and battery products, billionaires peddling parasitic mis-investments in solar, wind and batteries and transferring wealth from families, small businesses and employers to billionaires, often overseas. 

Despite claims that these solar and wind products are the cheapest, the free market has utterly failed to adopt them, because they simply cannot survive in the wild on their own, without subsidies. In other speeches in recent weeks, I’ve documented the huge number of failures in wind and solar projects overseas and here in Australia. They’re falling over like flies. Billionaires behind the climate push are panicking now that their parasitic investments won’t get the return they need. The teals’ sugar daddy, Simon Holmes a Court; Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest; Johnny-come-lately to climate fearmongering Mike Cannon-Brookes; and old stagers Alex Turnbull and Ross Garnaut—having failed with climate scams in the free market, these climate doomsayers now need the government to direct money their way through implementation of ‘climate standards’—they’re going to standardise the climate!—to, as the Assistant Treasurer said, ‘align capital flows’. This is more of the crony capitalism that has ruined Australia. If it weren’t so serious, it would be laughable. This is why I’ve circulated an amendment to strike out schedule 2 of the bill. There’s no reason to even start down this path of folly and pretend that, hidden away in the cupboard somewhere, the government have a crystal ball they can use to predict the future. If they do, they clearly haven’t used it before. 

A final concern I’ll raise is with schedule 1, part 2, of the bill. This gives ASIC the power to use ‘assisted decision-making’ processes. That’s their label. This amendment is incredibly broad and vague, and we can assume this will involve some level of automation and, eventually, the implementation of AI, artificial intelligence. It’s incredibly concerning that the explanatory memorandum includes, at 1.24: ‘ASIC may change a decision made by an assisted decision-making process if it is satisfied the decision is wrong.’ Can you believe it? This very heavily implies that a human will not be involved in the decision-making process. An assisted decision-making process should only be in place to assist a human in making a decision. There should not be a robot using artificial intelligence to make the decision itself. The fact that Labor would introduce this blank cheque to the new robot overlords in the wake of a royal commission they called into robodebt is a stunning revelation. If the robots get it wrong, there’s no clear avenue of appeal for a person who is subject to the wrong decision. They’ll simply have to rely on ASIC deciding to look at it on their own motion and finding out it’s wrong. Good luck with that. This change is too broad, and One Nation is raising its concerns now so that these issues can be monitored in future. 

To summarise, the government would be better off going back to the drawing board on this con hiding behind the label ‘Treasury laws’. 

/1 Comment/by

Australia’s Infrastructure Death by Labor’s Secretive Cuts

The Albanese government is deliberately opposing my motion to reveal the infrastructure review it’s using to justify cutting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of badly needed infrastructure projects around Australia. Projects like dams for towns and agriculture, transport projects and visionary nation-building projects. It’s cutting costs in areas where we need to spend, while sending huge sums to the United Nations and Tedros the Terrorist at the WHO.

Australia needs a productive infrastructure so that we can build our competitive and productive advantage and stop relying on other nations who buy our raw materials such as iron ore, for example, for steel and other building materials. Why are we exporting raw materials and buying back finished products instead of making the whole product here? Australia has everything it needs to be self-reliant, except for a government with the common sense to facilitate it.

How many more times will this Labor government be exposed for the secrets its hiding from the Australian taxpayers?

Australians deserve the transparency and accountability they were promised, and the infrastructure this country badly needs.

Transcript

The Albanese government is making secret cuts to infrastructure projects. Twice now the Senate has passed my motion, forcing the government to hand over the full infrastructure review that they used to justify cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in projects. Twice, the government has opposed transparency and accountability about its secret infrastructure cuts. How many more times will the Labor government keep secrets from Australian taxpayers? 

This is the Labor review that concluded the Emu Swamp dam at Stanthorpe should be cancelled. Only three years ago, this southern Queensland town was in severe drought and ran dry. They had to cart in millions of litres of water by truck just to survive. Up to 50 trucks carted water hundreds of kilometres every day for 15 months. On what basis did the Labor government conclude Stanthorpe doesn’t deserve a dam? We might never know. The government has so far refused to hand over the review that justifies the decision. If Stanthorpe doesn’t have water, Stanthorpe will die. The Labor government needs to answer why they believe Stanthorpe should be left to die in the next drought. It has literally been hung out to dry. One Nation will keep fighting for those answers and we will fight for more dams across Queensland. What we need in Australia is productive infrastructure to build our competitive advantage—our productive competitiveness. We need dams that agriculture can use to boom. We need cheap power, from which the entire economy will benefit. We need functional roads that don’t have potholes big enough to destroy a car’s suspension. 

Australia needs visionary, nation-building projects—infrastructure projects like the Iron Boomerang. Right now, every year, we send 900 million tonnes of iron ore and 360 million tonnes of coal overseas. We ship it overseas. Those are two essential ingredients to making steel, which we largely import. We put that dirt on a boat, places like China buy it, they turn it into steel, they make things like unproductive wind turbines out of the steel, they put them on a boat and they ship the wind turbines back to Australia in the form of steel, where our dopey government buys it off them. 

We should let private enterprise build the Iron Boomerang track linking our iron ore and coalmines, so we can make the steel right here in this country. The government doesn’t even have to build Iron Boomerang. They just have to promise they won’t get in the way, and then private money will pay for it. That money is already knocking on the door. These are the kinds of nation-building infrastructure projects that would be on the horizon if One Nation had our way. We certainly wouldn’t be cutting productive infrastructure, like dams, in secret as the Labor government is doing. Before all of that we need accountable and transparent government. Labor continues to prove it will never be transparent. Their secret infrastructure cuts are just the latest example of a government that’s afraid of explaining itself to the voters.  

/by

What’s the Purpose of the NIAA? 

,

I asked the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) about their audits in relation to fraud and found out how their work on a report of recommendations was progressing. A broader chat followed about releasing aboriginal communities from the aboriginal industry comprising white and black activists, consultants, lawyers, bureaucrats, academics and politicians.

What the main remote communities need is autonomy. Allocating funds directly to aboriginal communities will cut out the middlemen and women. Jobs, health and housing.

I listened to Miss Broun talk about the role of the NIAA. Briefly, the NIAA’s purpose is to lead Commonwealth activities, inform whole of government priorities, coordinate indigenous portfolio agencies, enable policies, programmes and services and advance a whole of government approach to improving lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. What was the purpose of the ‘Voice to Parliament’ when the NIAA has such a broad role and funding?

The administration of the aboriginal industry does need to look hard at whether all these strategies, consultants, reports, and micromanagement are getting in the way of progress.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here today. I’ve got two sets of questions. There are some short ones to get out of the way, and then I’d like to have a discussion through some questions about behaviour change. I’ll get to the mundane questions, although they’re still important. What money was spent by your agency or given to others on promoting the ‘yes’ case for the recent referendum?

Ms Guivarra: None.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I like concise answers. What money has been spent by this agency in relation to any proposed treaty?

Ms Guivarra: We were allocated funding for work associated with the makarrata commission. You will see from the budget papers that that was in the order of $5.8 million, from recollection. I’ll get Dr Gordon to confirm that, and he can give you a breakdown of how much of that has been spent. But, specifically on treaty, again, none has been spent. Our role, essentially, has been to seek information on the processes that states and territories are currently involved in. But I’ll get Dr Gordon to give you a more comprehensive response.

Dr Gordon: That’s correct, yes. No funding has gone towards a makarrata commission. Where the funding has gone in the agency, from that $5.8 million, is towards work on understanding treaty and truth-telling processes underway in states and territories and internationally. As of 30 September 2023, we’ve expended $607,000.66 on that.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s involved in spending that money to gain understanding of what the states and overseas people are doing?

Dr Gordon: It involves some desktop research but also bilateral meetings with states and territories, or multilateral meetings. There have been a considerable number of bilateral meetings over the last year; I think it’s around 25 between the agency and our colleagues in the state and territory agencies, as well as a few kind of broader ones.

Senator ROBERTS: Face to face?

Dr Gordon: It’s virtual, primarily.

Senator ROBERTS: But it’s real humans with real humans? Okay. So you’ve spent six hundred and something thousand dollars out of $5.8 million allocated. What are the prospects for the $5.2 million left? What are the plans, rather?

Dr Gordon: As Minister Burney has stated a number of times, including on 2 August, the government will be considering next steps following the referendum, and that’s a process that’ll happen from this point on. What happens now in relation to that is a matter for government, and that will be informed by engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and also our ongoing work with the state and territory governments.

Senator ROBERTS: That goes to my next question. Minister Burney previously said, prior to the failed referendum, that $1 million had already been spent on the treaty. What is the full figure spent so far on all aspects of that—in the past as well? You’ve just told me zero currently. What is the full figure spent so far, and how much of it is proposed to continue to be spent, given that Prime Minister Albanese has backed away from the commitment to pursuing makarrata and truth-telling?

Dr Gordon: I’m not aware of that particular statement by the minister, but the figure that I just gave you is the amount that’s been spent on work looking at the treaty and truth-telling arrangements. And that process going forward for the remainder is what I just outlined as well.

Senator ROBERTS: A recent ANAO audit found inadequate safeguards and procedures in relation to identifying and dealing with financial risks, including fraud. What plans are being made in response to these
deficiencies?

Mr Worth: The report outlined seven recommendations for improvement in relation to our broader risk and fraud compliance risk management. We have developed, in response to that, an implementation program, making a number of changes to address all the recommendations. We have accepted all of the recommendations. We have completed a number of actions through that, and we’re on track to have closed out all of those recommendations by the end of this financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you list the recommendations, please—what areas? I want to get a feel for it. The reason for that is that the ANAO recently told me they can’t investigate corruption, which includes fraud. So I wanted to find out who can and does.

Mr Worth: The first recommendation was that the NIAA fully implement its risk management policy and framework, including by conducting assessments of enterprise risk, undertaking risk assessments when developing business plans and policies, and undertaking specific activities. The second recommendation was the NIAA conduct fraud risk assessments regularly and develop and implement a fraud control plan. The third recommendation was that the NIAA ensure that advisory committee actions are in line with their terms of reference and that the annual report of ARC, the audit risk committee, to the accountable authority clearly highlights any deficiencies in the risk management and control framework that have been identified. The fourth recommendation is that the NIAA fully implement program and subprogram fraud risk assessments, organisational risk profiles and activity risk assessments, and monitor and fraud risk assessments. The fifth recommendation was that the NIAA implement proactive mechanisms for the detection of provider fraud and noncompliance. The six recommendation was that the NIAA ensure that it maintains a record of referrals, the basis of referral assessment and decision-making against transparent criteria, and makes decisions on whether to proceed with fraud investigations in line with the organisational risk appetite. The final recommendation was that the NIAA monitor and report on resources, time frames and outcomes of compliance reviews and fraud investigations.

Those recommendations were made off the back of the assessments made by the NIAA regarding the effectiveness of the control systems and processes that were in place. So it’s not that things weren’t in place; we did have processes, frameworks and so on. But the conclusion, through the audit processes, was that they were partly effective and not as complete as they needed to be—hence those recommendations. I think it’s worth noting that the audit report itself was issued in May 2023, but a program of improvement had already been well underway and indeed was already underway when the audit team arrived and were doing their work. Work has been progressing, as I said, and is due for completion, to address all of those recommendations, by the end of this financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: Who can and does investigate corruption? ANAO told me they don’t.

Senator Gallagher: The National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it does now.

Senator Gallagher: Well, it does.

Senator ROBERTS: No, no—I’m agreeing with you, but is there any federal government agency that has a purview on that? And I notice that NIAA did a lot of this off its own bat. I’m not trying to single NIAA out.

Mr Worth: As with many granting agencies within the Commonwealth, NIAA has processes in place to proactively identify issues of noncompliance, fraud and corruption as well as a responsive mechanism whereby complaints or reports that are received by us are taken on board and investigated. As part of that process, we make an assessment of the accusation or concern and then respond accordingly. In some circumstances, from 1 July, it might be referred to the NACC, the National Anti-Corruption Commission. In other circumstances, depending on the nature of it, it might be referred internally for further fraud investigation and then, depending on how that investigation goes, it could be referred to the authorities for prosecution, or it could be subject to an ongoing Australian Federal Police investigation, for example, or state police forces. For matters of noncompliance it could be referred internally.

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Broun, could you tell me the main purpose of the National Indigenous Australians Agency please. What’s the main role? What do you hope to achieve?

Ms Broun: It’s in the annual report. It’s in our executive order, obviously, and that’s on page 9 of the annual report, if you’ve got it there. I’ll read from the annual report:

  • To lead and coordinate Commonwealth policy development, program design and implementation and service delivery …
  • To provide advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister …
  • To lead and coordinate … Closing the Gap … in partnership with Indigenous Australians;
  • To lead Commonwealth activities to promote reconciliation;
  • To build and maintain effective partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s), state and territory governments and other relevant stakeholders to inform whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s), and enable policies, programs and services to be tailored to the unique needs of communities;
  • To design, consult on and coordinate the delivery of community development employment projects;
  • To analyse and monitor the effectiveness of programs and services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s), including programs and services delivered by bodies other than the NIAA;
  • To coordinate Indigenous portfolio agencies and advance a whole-of-government approach to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s); and
  • To undertake other tasks the Prime Minister and the Minister require from time to time.

That’s the executive order.

Senator ROBERTS: The next question, Minister, is directed to Ms Broun, but it’s an opinion, in some ways, so maybe you’ll have to answer it. What are the main ways of addressing community needs, and what are the main community needs that you see in remote communities? I’ve been to every Cape York community and some of the Torres Strait Islands, and I’ve been to a couple of the Northern Territory ones. It reminds me of when I was a mine manager. Before becoming a mine manager, I worked on the coalface as a miner. When I became a mine manager, I was sent to various mines to turn them around. I’d walk in—and I was told by the previous mine manager, ‘They’re lazy; they’re incompetent,’ et cetera. I gave them accountability and autonomy and they were wonderful people—the same lazy miners! What I see in Cape York communities is people hungry for autonomy, and ready for it, but they seem to be squashed by what I’ll call—and I’m not referring to you—the Aboriginal industry, which is white and black activists, consultants, lawyers, bureaucrats, academics and politicians. The real people are just missing out. That’s why it’s such a—

CHAIR: That’s what everyone says about us, too!

Senator ROBERTS: I think they’re right; I agree with you! Is there any thought to allocating the money directly to communities and getting rid of the Aboriginal industry that’s feeding off—

Ms Broun: Thanks for that question—which is very broad ranging.

Senator ROBERTS: It is. I just want to start the discussion.

Ms Broun: The closing the gap national agreement identifies a whole range of areas we need to do better on. The Productivity Commission draft review identifies that we need to accelerate that effort as well—so it identifies some of the gaps. The minister has also consistently looked at those priorities around jobs, housing, health and education. Jobs is a really critical element of this, and it goes to your statement as well. In terms of funding communities directly, the Indigenous Advancement Strategy has a range of ways that that happens currently—so different programs go to different providers. One of the ones I mentioned in my earlier statement was the Indigenous rangers programs, and the funding that that provides to community organisations directly. It’s about jobs and about connection to country and culture as well. It has lots of elements to it and it currently employs about 1,900 people, with a plan to double that by 2030. That goes to your point around jobs as well. If there is more to that that you’d like answers to, I can get the right people up in terms of housing and jobs.

Senator ROBERTS: I was told by a very bright young councillor at Badu Island—I asked, ‘How’s closing the gap going?’ He said: ‘Mate, it’s not going. Whatever happens to the Closing the Gap campaign, there will be a gap because people are feeding off the money. It’s not the community’s.’ That’s what he said, bluntly. In America they have charter schools—I’m just trying to make a parallel and see what you can come up with. Charter schools are where the money goes from the government directly to the community for their school. They have found that, instead of going from the government to the bureaucracy, the locals have responsibility and the charter school flourishes because the principal and the parents take responsibility. I’m wondering if there is a parallel that can happen with the Aboriginal communities. These are wonderful people, very bright and ready to go; they’re just held back by bureaucracy and the Aboriginal industry. Is there any thought to giving the people the opportunity to develop their own future? That’s a sure way to get accountability.

Mr Brahim: Throughout Australia, there are quite unique and complex circumstances.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s not easy.

Mr Brahim: In relation to the schools—and I know Education was here yesterday—across Australia there are—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I meant community things in general—giving more autonomy to the community, not just schools.

Mr Brahim: Using the charter schools as an example: the education department funds Aboriginal independent schools—so that goes straight to the schools. We fund a lot of community as well not necessarily through a provider, so the communities themselves—

Senator ROBERTS: When you say ‘we fund’—

Mr Brahim: The NIAA funds. There are different funding streams that go through different pathways. One pathway is through to the community organisations—so it’s not always through to a provider as such. Some communities are incorporated and will receive the funding directly from us.

Senator ROBERTS: I will finish up with this: I can remember, sometime around 2012-13, I was driving into Canberra listening to the radio, and they had allocated almost $1 billion back then—when a billion was a billion—and built 15 houses in 18 months. The people from the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal communities, were saying, ‘Give the money to us and let us build them.’ I think that was a fine idea, but instead the bureaucrats controlled it and got consultants, workers and contractors in from southern parts of Australia when the Aboriginals were hungry for jobs. It just didn’t make sense, and the outcome wasn’t there.

/6 Comments/by

Native Title Inquiry Needed Now

I spoke in support of Senator Hanson’s motion for an inquiry into Native Title.

The problem many of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders we speak to have continuously raised with us is that under Native Title the land is locked up and can’t benefit from it. That’s about half of Australia locked up under Native Title and held with the government. Is it any wonder the United Nations is so interested in Native Title?

The white and black aboriginal industry consists of lawyers, consultants, activists, academics, politicians and bureaucrats. They all claim to be ‘closing the gap’ between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ standard of living and other non aboriginal Australians. The fundamental flaw in this system is that those running the industry are parasitically living off the money that is given to the aboriginal communities. It is a self-perpetuating problem.

Every year the billions of taxpayers’ dollars poured into solving the problem is being syphoned off by the same individuals who “claim” to be helping. Very little of the money makes it through to those in need.

You may recall when the Western nations were called upon to donate to ease the famine in African nations, very little of that aid often didn’t make it past the greedy government bureaucrats. This is what’s going on in Australia now. The pressure to scale it up is significant, but it will only increase the size of the industry and make it worse. What is needed is a solution to the Native Title problem that’s locking up the land. A sunset clause in the Native Title act should also be included. We need accountability within the white and black aboriginal industry.

Autonomy and accountability is what the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are hungry for, yet they are being blocked by those who are living off the industry in the cities, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

It’s time to close the gap for good. We need this inquiry.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak to Senator Hanson’s motion, which I’ll read for clarification. It states:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 June 2024:

(a) the establishment of a sunset date in relation to submission of claims of native title, after which no further claims of native title can be made; and

(b) the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system, options to improve economic development resulting from native title, and options to improve certainty over the claim process.

We want an inquiry.

Since the concept of native title was accepted by the High Court in the case of Mabo there have been mixed views from Indigenous and non-Indigenous commentators as to the benefits that have flowed to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The extent and nature of these was spelt out in the now rather complex Native Title Act 1993 and some further decisions of the High Court, including the Wik case in 1996. The act sets out a bundle of rights, some exclusive and some non-exclusive. Some exclusive rights relate to traditional activities, including the rights to fish, hunt and gather within the determined claim area—and I note as an aside here that Minister Plibersek’s latest piece of legislation seeks to take that away from Aboriginals, according to Aboriginals in northern Australia—but those rights cannot be transferred or on sold. Native title is extinguished by subsequent freehold and suppressed by leasehold, although that may revive at the expiry of the lease. Recent figures from the Native Title Tribunal indicate that determinations comprise more than 50 per cent of Australian land mass, more than half of our country.

One of the features of the Native Title Act is the attempt to balance the rights of all parties. The use of Indigenous land use agreements is a way of establishing possible land use, including mining leases and other means of gaining some commercial benefit, registered for the traditional owners. These can be varied at some later time through the National Native Title Tribunal.

When we were last in Cooktown we met with a local community leader, an upstanding man, who shared with us his views on native title and its impacts on his community and on many communities across Cape York. He said that native title was important from the aspect of recognition of the Indigenous perspective of their relationship with the land and recognising that Indigenous people were the first inhabitants of Australia and that they have inherent property rights in the land. His view was that the Native Title Act was not providing Indigenous people with something tangible, because they could not use native title to advance any individual interests. Land under native title cannot be mortgaged to help build a home or be used as collateral to support a business loan. The land is essentially locked up and not used to support small projects.

It’s really about seizing the land, holding it and not giving it to anyone to use. It’s no wonder that we see the words ‘United Nations’ so frequently in the Native Title Act preamble. This is a land grab and the Aboriginals are not benefiting. Because the land is not freehold, nobody is able to work towards owning their own home because the property is now locked away out of reach. No-one is getting this land. The Commonwealth government are able to reclaim native title land and convert it to freehold, and some compensation is then paid to the traditional owners, but this does not benefit any individuals. People in the cities think that this was all fixed years ago. They don’t realise that the No. 1 complaint in remote Aboriginal communities across the north of Australia is that they can’t get access to land to have their own houses and their own businesses. With land ownership prevented, there is little incentive to work towards beneficial goals. My friend said that he wished to own his own place in this community. He cannot own his own place in the community. He wishes to build up and expand his small business as a shop owner but he cannot buy the premises. He must hope that he can lease the shop from the local traditional owners.

These comments were echoed right across the cape by constituents, council mayors and council members, and in the Territory and, we’ve heard also, in Western Australia. It was universal. Not one person to whom we spoke had a good thing to say about native title, other than that it provides some recognition of them as First Australians.

When asked about the government’s closing the gap policy, he made the telling comment that the government was not serious about closing the gap because that would be contrary to the white and black Aboriginal industry that thrives on keeping Aboriginals dependent. With the exception of two Aboriginal members of parliament, Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Kerynne Liddle, Aboriginal senators—the other nine—don’t talk about the white and black Aboriginal industry that consists of lawyers, consultants, activists, academics, politicians and bureaucratics who are living parasitically off the money that is given to Aboriginal communities. They’ve stolen it from the Aboriginal communities. The billions of dollars that are poured into solving the problem are siphoned off by those supposed to be assisting, and little of the money and other handouts makes it to those in real need. That’s what’s going on in this country. It’s important for many people to keep the gap wide open.

I listened to a councillor on Badu Island, up in the Torres Strait, about closing the gap. I’ve been across the cape twice, and to some communities three times. In every community we asked, ‘What about closing the gap?’ Some people said, ‘What’s closing the gap?’ Others said, ‘It’s useless.’ When we asked this particular councillor on Badu Island, he said to me, ‘Malcolm, the point about closing the gap is that it will never be closed because there are people feeding off the maintenance of the gap.’ The parasitic white and black Aboriginal industry are feeding off closing the gap.

My friend went on to say that one of the biggest problems in communities was the lack of decent community housing. There were 19 people living in one of the local houses, and many people were homeless. In his community, 70 per cent of the residents were receiving welfare. Many were not coping. Mental health issues were climbing. What my staff have seen on Mornington Island is disgraceful. It’s caused by the white and black Aboriginal industry. They perpetuate the misery so that they can get the funds. As I said, this was a common comment across the cape and up into the Torres Strait.

Further north, a mayor told me that the problems also involved how grant moneys were divided up between the various interest groups, and again highlighted the housing and employment crises. There were no jobs and there was not enough housing.

Why will only two Aboriginal members of this Senate discuss the white and black Aboriginal industry? I have to commend Senator Nampijinpa Price for doing so with vigour. She points out that that white and black industry is destroying accountability, and things in Aboriginal communities won’t change without accountability. The people in the communities that I’ve listened to are hungry for autonomy and accountability. They want it.

I understand that in 1998 John Howard, as Prime Minister, attempted to amend the Native Title Act by putting in place a sunset clause. John Howard, I’m advised, moved to put in place a sunset clause. As Prime Minister, what advice did he get on the legality? Senator Cash would get some answers to clause (a) if there was some form of inquiry. What’s wrong with having an inquiry? Why do you keep blocking Senator Pauline Hanson wanting simple inquiries into basic, fundamental questions?

As I understand it, before Cook arrived the Torres Strait Islands had some form of property rights, handed down from generation to generation, where the holder of the land was clearly recognised. But the mainland not so, I’m advised. We were reminded by Senator Rennick that the High Court decision on Mabo was very close: four to three. We need an inquiry to see how it’s working and to go back to fundamentals. ‘Thirty-one years,’ Senator Rennick said. ‘We need an inquiry. We’re the house of review.’ I concur with Senator Rennick.

Senator Ayres raises the point about Aboriginal Warren Mundine possibly entering the Senate. I don’t know, but does Senator Ayres not want Aboriginals in the Senate because of their views? No-one tonight has offered a solution to the native title problem of land locking, although revisiting Indigenous land use agreements and considering leases for individual housing projects may deserve further consideration.

/7 Comments/by

Big consulting companies are draining taxpayer funds for nothing

The Government spends millions of dollars every year on consulting companies that overcharge to give the Government an opinion they want to hear.

Last week in the Senate I supported a motion creating an inquiry into the use of consulting companies so we can cut the waste.

Transcript

One Nation will be supporting Senator Barbara Pocock’s motion because we believe that the big consulting companies are basically guns for hire. They’re opinions for hire. They give the government what the government wants, at a million dollars a gig. Some of these big firms are multinationals out of Japan.

So we will be supporting this.

/2 Comments/by

High Speed rail isn’t practical for Australia

,

High Speed Rail! It’s a great slogan for politicians in election campaigns, but it just doesn’t work for Australia.

Our cities are too small, the distances too long and geography too complex to build it cheaply enough.

Our money is much better spent on other infrastructure like dams, power stations and a national rail circuit that’s up to scratch.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak to the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022—or, as I prefer to call it, the ‘elect Chris Minns as New South Wales Premier bill’. It’s not a coincidence that this bill provides for the national high-speed rail network proposal to start with just one section: between Sydney and Newcastle—just in time for the New South Wales state election in the coming March. Oh, the photo opportunities and announcements! I can see them now—for example, ‘Vote Labor and we will get you to work in 40 minutes.’ What dishonesty. What treachery.

I appreciate that that the Central Coast and Hunter are now dormitory suburbs of Sydney. Every day, more than 100,000 residents use rail and road on their daily trek to Sydney for work. High-speed would be a wonderful way to make that trip. One problem with making that promise is that high-speed rail on that route is never going to happen. It’s impossible. Here’s why. The route consist of mountain ranges, massive sandstone cliffs and waterways. Unless the High Speed Authority sprinkles magic dust, there is no way it will make a straight, flat track with the solid foundations necessary to sustain high-speed rail through the Hawksbury, Central Coast and Lower Hunter.

The current discussion involves sending high-speed rail along the existing alignment through the Central Coast, through the Gosford waterfront, through residential areas to Wyong and then via YE into the lower Hunter. The area’s geography makes any other route almost impossible, at least without substantial environmental impact, meaning massive, long tunnels and cuttings through national parks and equally long and heavily engineered bridges across the frequent waterways and soft ground.

Anything can be done at a cost, although the cost here will ensure a white elephant for taxpayers that will never recover the investment. I shudder to think how much the tickets will cost, certainly more than working families can afford, the families who are being targeted with this false, deceptive promise.

While Australia does need a modern rail network connecting our capital cities, airports and major ports, high-speed rail is not the answer. The federal government last examined the possibility of building a 1,748-kilometre high-speed rail link from Brisbane to Melbourne in 2013, when the cost was estimated at $114 billion, with the Sydney-to-Newcastle section costed at $17.9 billion. At that time, by the way, the Inland Rail was costed at $4 billion. It’s now $20 billion. That’s five times higher. So I would expect this same inaccuracy factor would apply to the fast rail, costing out the Sydney-to-Hunter section alone at $90 billion in today’s dollars.

The Grattan Institute has found high-speed rail projects have little chance of passing the cost-benefit test based on the typical discount rate used for transport infrastructure of about seven per cent. Marion Terrill, the current director of the Grattan Institute’s Transport and City Program, has said:

Australia is just not suited to high-speed rail because our cities are too small and too far apart.

Too small means the passenger volume will not be sufficient to justify the capital expenditure, leading to prohibitive fares or massive government subsidies—or, most likely, both.

To illustrate this point, when New South Wales XPT trains were purchased in 1982, the intention was to create fast rail in New South Wales. The XPTs are designed to travel at just 150 kilometres per hour. So what stopped fast rail at that time was the inability to build a track capable of supporting those speeds. This is essential for safety and reliability. Our rail lines curve around too much. The Great Dividing Range provides serious hurdles to fast rail, and our waterways along the coast complicate the flat sections that we do have. For clarity, fast rail is generally speeds up to 150 kilometres per hour. High-speed rail is 250 kilometres per hour to 300 kilometres per hour. Fast rail requires entirely different and substantially more expensive rolling stock and track.

It may be feasible with a large government investment to upgrade existing rail lines on the Sydney-to-Hunter route to travel express services at fast-rail pace rather than high-speed rail pace. One Nation would strongly support immediate feasibility studies on upgrading the Sydney-to-Hunter line to fast rail since New South Wales already has the rolling stock.

Senator McKenzie will be moving an amendment to this bill that will introduce Productivity Commission oversight of proposals and a transparent reporting system. If this amendment is passed, this bill will gain the checks and balances it should have had all along, and One Nation will support it. Without those checks and balances, One Nation will oppose this bill. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation, and we don’t lie for any reason—certainly not to the public to get votes.

/3 Comments/by