Chair: Senator Roberts, over to you for 10 minutes.
Senator Roberts: Thank you again for being here, Dr Johnson and Dr Stone. I would like to table these two articles, Chair.
Chair: Certainly. What are they?
Senator Roberts: They are newspaper articles.
Chair: Given they are public documents, we probably don’t need to table them; we can just circulate them around the committee.
Senator Roberts: The first document is about two articles in the Australian newspaper about parallel temperatures at Brisbane Airport—following on from Senator Rennick. The other one is about forecasts from the Bureau of Meteorology that have been inaccurate. Going to the first one, I’ve tabled some important news about parallel temperatures at Brisbane Airport, showing that your temperature probes do record different temperatures to mercury thermometers in the same location at the same time. If I could please go to Freedom of Information 30/6155, regarding the daily maximum and minimum temperature parallel observations for Brisbane Airport, which the stories relate to, what date did you first receive the FOI request? I think you said 2019.
Dr Johnson: It was received on 12 December 2019.
Senator Roberts: What date did you release the documents to the applicant?
Dr Johnson: Well, the documents were released, as agreed with the respondent, on 6 April 2023, but, as I said in my earlier response to Senator Rennick’s question, the documents released were the ones that we were quite happy to provide in 2019 to the respondent, but the respondent didn’t wish to avail themselves of that material back in 2019.
Senator Roberts: Why did you fight to keep this information a secret?
Dr Johnson: We didn’t fight. Again, I reiterate my response to Senator Rennick: we didn’t fight anything. We were unable to fulfill the request that we received in 2019 because the information that was requested did not exist in the form that the respondent requested it. So we offered the respondent the material we had. They declined and sought to appeal it through the various appeals processes. Our decisions were reaffirmed by both the Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the information that we offered to provide the respondent back in 2019 was provided in April this year. So this notion that the bureau’s withholding information is a fallacy.
Senator Roberts: So we’d have to look further into that, but not here.
Dr Johnson: That’s the record and the truth.
Senator Roberts: You’re paid by the taxpayer, Dr Johnson, just like I am. You’re meant to serve the
taxpayer, as I am. You have a remuneration package of over half a million dollars a year from taxpayers. The information you have, the work you do, belongs to the taxpayer, correct?
Dr Johnson: As I said in my response by Senator Rennick, all of the bureau’s data records are available to the public, either in digital or analogue form. They’re held in the analogue form in the National Archives, and the digital records are available on the bureau’s website.
Senator Roberts: I’ve heard that before, but I’ve also seen people who can’t access the information.
Dr Johnson: I can only tell you the truth, and the truth is that those records are available on our website or in the National Archives by request.
Senator Roberts: Why did it take an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for you to back down?
Dr Johnson: I reject that comment. The information that was requested by the respondent or the proponent—I’m not sure how you want to characterise it—was not available. We can’t create something that’s not available. We offered the respondent a set of alternatives, which they declined initially and then subsequently agreed to take. So, again, this notion that the bureau is withholding information from the public or from this particular respondent is just not true; it’s inaccurate. I can’t be any clearer on that.
Senator Roberts: No; you’re clear. Do you disagree that your temperature probes are recording different temperatures to mercury thermometers in the same place at the same time?
Dr Johnson: I’ll let Dr Stone address that.
Dr Stone: No, you actually expect pairs of measuring instruments to have different measurements.
Senator Roberts: So if we had two probes, they would be slightly different. I understand the natural
variation.
Dr Stone: Within tolerance, yes.
Senator Roberts: Would the difference between the two probes be less or greater than the difference between a probe and a mercury thermometer?
Dr Stone: I’ll reiterate that liquid-in-glass thermometers have a tolerance, an acceptable error, of 0.5 of a degree. Our electronic probes that we’ve been using for 30-odd years have a tolerance of 0.4 of a degree. The electronic probes that we’re about to roll out have a tolerance of 0.2 of a degree. You can expect a difference between the two probes that is the sum of the tolerances of the two probes.
Senator Roberts: I understand that. So there is a difference between the mercury in glass and the probes?
Dr Stone: In which sense? In tolerance?
Senator Roberts: No, in the actual measurement. There’ll be difference in the two measurements?
Dr Stone: Sometimes, because they operate within that tolerance.
Senator Roberts: I understand about tolerances.
Dr Stone: For the ones operating at Brisbane Airport, for example, I have the figures on the distribution of readings and the mercury-in-glass. I don’t have the exact figures, I’m sorry, but approximately 40 per cent of the time one of the probes measured a higher amount than another.
Senator Roberts: The figures are 41 per cent—
Dr Stone: About 30 per cent of the time, they measured below, and the balance of the time they measured very similar.
Senator Roberts: So there is a difference. There has to be.
Dr Stone: Correct, and we expect the difference—
Senator Roberts: So 41 per cent of the time it recorded a warmer temperature, and cooler temperatures were recorded 26 per cent of the time.
Dr Stone: Something like that, yes.
Senator Roberts: So are you saying that the analysis of Marohasy and Abbot is incorrect? Or are you
saying that it may be correct but it’s within allowable tolerances, so you don’t care?
Dr Stone: Which part of their analysis? They did quite—
Senator Roberts: The 41 per cent warmer and the 26 per cent cooler.
Dr Stone: If they are the figures. Sorry; I’ve got them here. Yes.
Senator Roberts: 41 per cent and 26 per cent?
Dr Stone: That is correct.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. Do you think it’s significant that your new temperature probes are, on
average, recording warmer temperatures than the mercury thermometers in the same locations at the same times?
Dr Stone: They are not, on average. There is a difference of two-hundredths of a degree, which is not a significant difference.
Senator Roberts: I said on average they’re recording a warmer temperature.
Dr Stone: No, sorry. On average, there was a difference of two-hundredths of a degree between the liquid-in glass-thermometers—
Senator Roberts: So, on average, the probes are recording a warmer temperature.
Dr Stone: 0.02 degrees is not a significant difference.
Senator Roberts: On average, they are recording warmer temperatures than the mercury.
Dr Stone: No. 0.02 degrees is not a significant difference.
Senator Roberts: Graham Lloyd is a credible journalist; I’ve seen his work many times. The story also
says that you, Dr Stone, claimed in response to these issues—presumably he asked you—
Dr Stone: No, he didn’t.
Senator Roberts: that all temperature data is publicly available on your website, including the parallel data. Is that true?
Dr Stone: All of our digitised data is available on the website, and, as Dr Johnson mentioned to you earlier, data that hasn’t been digitised is available from the national archive.
Senator Roberts: The temperature data that was released in the freedom of information request was not available on your website, was it?
Dr Stone: There were two pieces of information provided. One was scans of field books which hadn’t
previously been digitised. Those were digitised upon request and provided. Then the electronic data is available on the bureau website.
Senator Roberts: Well, why were you in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal trying to keep it secret?
Dr Stone: Sorry?
Dr Johnson: Senator, with respect, I think we’ve addressed this. This notion that we are withholding
information from the public is just false. The administrative appeals process was instigated by the proponent, who disagreed with the decision that both the bureau and the Information Commissioner had made in respect of the freedom of information request. Again, I reiterate that the bureau’s actions were affirmed by both the Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. So this notion that the bureau withholds data is false, and it’s very important that it’s on the record, because, as you say, taxpayers have a legitimate expectation that the data that is generated with their money—
Senator Roberts: Can you take me—
Chair: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Dr Johnson: is available. I just don’t know how much clearer we can be on this.
Senator Roberts: Can you provide the URL where the parallel temperature data was available on your website prior to the FOI?
Dr Stone: This is a key point. The applicants asked for ‘the report’ in which parallel data was recorded. I’ve just explained the data existed in two places. The respondent refused the offer of data on the basis that we couldn’t provide it in one form. It doesn’t exist in one form: there are field books that have the manual temperature readings written down, and there’s electronic data. Bring those two together, and you can construct the parallel dataset, but they specified that they would only accept reports of parallel data, which don’t exist.
Senator Roberts: I know—
Chair: Senator Roberts, we need to move on. Your time is up.
