We must oppose the injection of children under 4 years old. I shouldn’t even have to say this, yet except for Pauline Hanson and I the entire Senate voted down my amendment protecting children from the jabs after it was revealed Greg Hunt would be adding them to an injury compensation scheme.This Parliament should hang its head in shame.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I move One Nation’s amendment to Supply Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 on sheet 1589:
(1) Page 10 (before line 14), before paragraph 16(2)(a), insert:
(aa) must be made on the condition that the payment must not be used for expenditure related to the provision of vaccinations for the coronavirus known as COVID-19 to children aged 0 to 4 years; and
These bills that are before us include an additional $690.4 million to extend the COVID vaccination program until the end of 2022. While One Nation does not oppose the extending of the period that these vaccines are being offered, we oppose any attempt to mandate these vaccines and extend the use of these vaccines to infants and toddlers. We support freedom of choice and acceptance of a person’s choice. We oppose totalitarianism and we oppose control over people. Last night, Health Minister Hunt did indeed reveal that planning is underway to extend COVID vaccines to children aged zero to four—babies and newborn infants to four-year-olds. The four-year-old has been described as the height of human civilisation. I won’t go into the reasons why, but it’s quite clear.
This is the precious future of our species, of our nation. Clearly, this Morrison-Joyce government—and I hope the Liberals are listening—is intending on using the cover of the election to vaccinate infants and toddlers for a disease with a 100 per cent survival rate for a child that age. The injections are known to be killers, and now the Morrison-Joyce government wants to push it into babies.
I wish to observe these bills allocate additional funding to extend the vaccine injury compensation scheme to cover the administering of COVID vaccines to infants and toddlers aged zero to four. Clearly, if we are to inject these poisons into the arms of our youngest then compensation should be on offer when the inevitable and needless injury and death result. Those injuries and those deaths will be at the hands of this parliament and everyone who votes for these provisions.
For two years now the Liberal Party and their sellout sidekicks, the Nationals, the Labor Party and the tail that wags the dog, the Greens, have been acting as a pharmaceutical company parliamentary lobby. Vote after vote has lined the pockets of foreign multinational pharmaceutical companies that are selling products on the basis of spurious provisional approvals of untested, or partially tested, experimental gene therapy treatments. The health minister, Greg Hunt, said:
The world is engaged in the largest clinical … vaccination trial …
Yet what we’ve seen in this country is people forced, coerced and bullied into taking experimental gene therapy treatment or else losing their livelihoods, their ability to feed their children.
The notion of my body, my choice—such a stalwart of the Greens party—has been trashed, and Greens voters have noticed. People now see the Greens are about globalist control, camouflaged behind a cloak of green. The Greens pretend to talk about standing up to corporates, but they are the patsies of the corporates.
Everyday Australians are quite rightly asking questions around vaccine harm, prompted by the sheer volume of Australians experiencing major vaccine side effects. I met a mother last week whose 23-year-old daughter died as a direct result of a vaccine—a COVID vaccine. I’ve heard of many others and I commend Senator Rennick for his work on this.
These side effects were obvious right from the start, if ATAGI had bothered to look—that’s why we’re here protecting, because they haven’t bothered to look. We know that the highly limited testing of these COVID injections was compromised, corrupted and falsified. We know the TGA and ATAGI failed to obtain de-identified clinical patient data from the trials. Had they done so, they would have seen the trials indicated an unacceptable level of harm and loss of life. The Morrison-Joyce government made the wrong decision in approving these vaccines, and it knew, or should have known, at the time the wrong decision was made.
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency has been intimidating and threatening medical practitioners in order to suppress the truth and maintain their loyal service to the pharmaceutical industry. I’ve been to meetings with doctors who can now see their industry has been trashed, their profession has been trashed. We don’t go to see doctors now; we go to see ATAGI, we go to see TGA, we go to see AHPRA. The doctor-patient relationship has been trashed in this country—a 3,000-year-old tradition that started with the Greeks, trashed. We now consult with the regulators.
Now we can see doctors starting to stand up. We see the rates of miscarriage increasing 50 per cent in some instances, and 75 per cent is now the rate of miscarriage amongst people at fertility clinics—75 per cent of women miscarried. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency has been intimidating and threatening medical practitioners in order to suppress the truth and maintain their loyal service to the pharmaceutical industry. Decisions around COVID vaccinations have been made by expert committees with unacceptable, massive, open conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. University academics sitting on TGA expert panels are often funded by pharmaceutical companies. Career progression for academics depends on subservience to big pharma. The provisional approval process was conflicted to a criminal degree. A royal commission is needed to unroll the layers of disinformation, corruption and conflicted decision-making that have harmed so many Australians, in taking at least the 800 lives that we know of and the many, many more not reported because of the suppression of reporting.
The register of childhood vaccinations was recently expanded to include flu shots. Is it the intention of this government, Minister, to include COVID shots in that register? In effect, this would make the COVID shots compulsory for children under the No Jab, No Play rules. We do not oppose vaccines; we insist on freedom of choice and acceptance of that choice. Could this government and this health department be so evil as to make COVID shots compulsory for children under the No Jab, No Play rules? Could they be so evil? Could they be so inhuman? I do not want to find out.
Today I have moved One Nation’s amendment on sheet 1589 to ensure that these funding bills do not allocate funds for the extension of COVID vaccines to children under the age of five—from birth to the age of four. The 47th Parliament, of course, will be free to make that decision. It’s your decision. It’s your conscience. I can only hope that the debate will honour the democratic process and that the right decision will be made, and humanity will be treated with respect and reverence, as humans should be, especially infants to four-year-olds—newborns to four-year-olds, the height of civilisation. I ask the Senate to support my amendment.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/TGA-adjournment.00_07_05_22.Still001.png?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=110801920Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-03-31 12:58:112022-03-31 12:58:43Opposing vaccination mandates in children 0-4 years
The evidence continues to mount that these vaccines do not deserve the continuing provisional approval given to them by the TGA. Concerns about possible adverse side effects are too big to ignore any longer, especially after my COVID Under Question inquiry which you can watch by clicking here.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, tonight I’m speaking on this parliament’s therapeutic response to COVID-19 and the horrific medical harm and loss of life in that response. Last week, leading Australian parliamentarians came together in an event I organised called COVID Under Question to present documented evidence and victim testimony proving a catastrophic failure of Australia’s regulatory framework. COVID vaccine injuries are hidden behind anonymous government data, while supposed COVID virus harm is splashed across prime time. The very least we can do for the victims of COVID vaccines is to say their names—victims like Caitlin Georgia Gotze, a healthy and vibrant 23-year-old studying at Griffith University to become a vet while working as a horse strapper. Caitlin dropped dead at work of a heart attack following a second Pfizer shot. Her death was recorded as asthma, a condition Caitlin had never had. Reginald Shearer, a formerly healthy fit and active man, quickly went downhill and passed away from effects that began after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine. Daniel Perkins, a 36-year-old healthy father from Albion Park, died of a heart attack in his sleep following his second Pfizer injection. Douglas James Roberts died after taking AstraZeneca. His family are concerned that his GP didn’t warn him of the side-effects of the vaccine. In other words, no informed consent was obtained. Neurosurgeons at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital attributed his death to a stroke, despite no family history and a clean bill of health. They refused to report his death to the TGA—refused!
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency, Ahpra, has been bullying medical practitioners into not reporting or even for talking about the harm they’re seeing. The TGA erased 98 per cent of the 800 vaccine deaths—98 per cent erased!—that physicians reported. The TGA did so without autopsy or suitable consideration of all the patient medical data. TGA, ATAGI and Ahpra are the three monkeys of the pharmaceutical industry: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Section 22D(2) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 requires the Secretary of the Department of Health to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of the vaccines were satisfactorily established for each cohort for which the provision of approval is being granted. Data recently revealed in court papers in the United States clearly shows that vaccine harm was apparent in the clinical trials that Pfizer, BioNTech and others conducted. This information, if ATAGI had bothered to ask for it, should have resulted in a refusal of the application for provisional use. No data was provided to the secretary regarding individual test subjects—technically, anonymized patient clinical data. No independent analysis of the fundamental issues surrounding novel mRNA vaccines was conducted in Australia—none in Australia! Instead, the secretary took Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna’s word for it.
I will say that again: the secretary took pharmaceutical companies’ word for the safety of their products. These are the same pharmaceutical companies that have been fined over and over for criminal behaviour. AstraZeneca got a US$355 million fine for fraud and, separately, a $550 million fine for making unfounded claims about efficacy. Pfizer got a $430 million fine for making unfounded claims about efficacy, and a $2.3 billion fine—that’s billion dollars—for making unfounded claims about efficacy and for paying kickbacks.
This is who the Liberal-Nationals, Labor and Greens—our very own pharmaceutical lobby—want to pay more money to. That’s not on the basis of extensive local testing and inquiry, it’s simply on the basis of taking pharmaceutical companies safety assurances. There’s no testing. It’s an assurance made easy by indemnity against any damage that the vaccines cause. What deceit! What criminal incompetence! The Labor Party and the Liberal-National Party have accepted $1 million each from the pharmaceutical establishment in this election cycle alone. Billions more are being set aside in this week’s budget to pay the pharmaceutical companies to keep the COVID-19 gravy train going. What great value this parliament provides for those electoral donations.
Mention should be made of the TGA’s decision to ban safe, fully approved and widely accepted alternatives to COVID-19 vaccines. This includes hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin; vitamins, minerals and natural antivirals; as well as proven messaging around healthy eating and lifestyles. The decision to ban proven, safe, affordable and accessible alternative treatments that are working around the world was taken to ensure the fastest and widest-possible adoption of the vaccines. The TGA’s own customers fund the TGA. That means pharmaceutical companies fund their own product’s approval. That fails the pub test. Where are the checks and balances? There are none.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics is culpable in this scandal and cover-up. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ annual budget is $400 million. The most recent mortality data they provide is from November last year, four months behind. The most recent breakdown of mortality by cause and age is from 2020. The most recent data on live births is from 2020. Birth data used to be available six weeks after, not 15 months and counting. Are they hiding miscarriages?
At what point do we consider the actions of the TGA, ATAGI and the Australian Bureau of Statistics as interfering with the operation of the Senate? Peer-reviewed and soon-to-be-published data that must require the secretary to cancel the provisional approval of the vaccines has been released from outside of the government.
Let me review those quickly so the Senate fully understands the extent to which we have been misled. Firstly, freedom of information documents indicate the TGA has failed to assess the reproductive toxicology of the COVID vaccines. Freedom of information documents indicate the TGA has failed to assess the impact of microRNA sequences and related molecular genetic issues on the human body. Peer-reviewed and published in-vitro research shows gene based vaccine-generated spike proteins can migrate into human cell nuclei to disrupt DNA repair mechanisms. The TGA has dealt with this abysmally—murderously?
Vaccine-derived RNA can be reverse transcribed, leading to possible integration into the human genome, which the TGA denies, based only on pharmaceutical companies telling them to deny it. Internal Pfizer data released in February indicate they accept 1,272 different adverse vaccine events, including paralysis and death. German and US insurance actuarial data suggests the TGA’s database of adverse event notifications is underreporting side effects ninefold. Freedom of information documents from 2018 show the TGA keeps two databases of adverse event notifications: one internal, showing all reports of harm; and one public, showing only a part of those. This means vaccine harm is most likely significantly higher than reported.
Without honest and accurate data, the Senate has no way of deciding how much harm is too much harm. German pathologists describe pathological aggregates of spike proteins and lymphocyte infiltrations in inflamed organs in autopsies related to death post vaccination. In response, the TGA is failing to conduct autopsies on the 800 Australians the patients’ own doctors have reported as having died from the vaccines. What the hell is the TGA hiding?
Whistleblowers to the British Medical Journal provided reports of inadequacies, irregularities and possible fraudulent practices in the Pfizer vaccine trial—you know, the same trial for which the TGA took Pfizer’s word. From a modern immunological perspective, two frequent vaccines for respiratory viruses run the risk of desensitising the immune responses to the virus, and that leads to hypoimmunity and worse illness than without the immunisation. To put that simply: repeated vaccination is doing more harm than good.
These are the matters I sought today to refer to the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 without success. I thank Senators Hanson, Abetz, Rennick and Antic for their support, integrity and courage. The truth is the Select Committee on COVID-19 has been running a protection racket for the pharmaceutical industry, and today’s vote proves it. This unprecedented betrayal of the Australian people must be referred immediately to a royal commission. To the Prime Minister, the health minister, the federal health department and all those in the Senate and the House of Representatives—all of you who have perpetrated this crime—I direct one question: how the hell do you expect to get away with it? We’re not going to let you get away with it. We won’t let you get away with it. We are coming for you. We have the stamina to hound you down and we damn well will.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/TGA-adjournment.00_07_05_22.Still001.png?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=110801920Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-03-30 11:13:322022-03-30 11:46:32Malcolm Roberts drops bombshells in Senate after COVID Under Question inquiry
COVID UNDER QUESTION is a cross-party inquiry into the Government’s response to COVID held on 23rd March 2022. COVID Under Question was hosted by Senator Malcolm Roberts (One Nation Federal Senator for Queensland) and attended by Stephen Andrew (One Nation Queensland State MP for Mirani), George Christensen (Federal Nationals MP for Dawson), Gerard Rennick (Federal Liberal Senator for Queensland), Alex Antic (Federal Liberal Senator for South Australia) and Craig Kelly (Federal Palmer United Australia MP for Hughes).
Parliamentarians heard from a range of Doctors, experts, economists and everyday people about how the Government’s response to COVID has affected them and at times defied belief. The absurdity of Chief Health Officer dictates and power hungry politicians is all laid bare.
The full day’s proceedings were recorded and available for public viewing.
Dr Peter McCullough is board certified in internal medicine, cardiovascular diseases, and clinical lipidology. He cares for advanced patients with common medical problems including heart and kidney disease, lipid disorders, and diabetes. He has become an expert on COVID-19 illnesses and welcomes recovered patients into his practice.
After receiving a bachelor’s degree from Baylor University, Dr McCullough completed his medical degree as an Alpha Omega Alpha graduate from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. He went on to complete his internal medicine residency at the University of Washington and master’s degree in public health at the University of Michigan.
Since the outset of the pandemic, Dr McCullough has been a leader in the medical response to the COVID-19 disaster and published the first synthesis of sequenced multidrug treatment of ambulatory patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Dr Kat Lindley is a board-certified physician in Brock, Texas in the USA. After she fled warn torn Yugoslavia as a young adult, she did her medical school in Florida and became a family physician because she loved the idea of caring for the whole family. Kat is involved in health policy on a state and national level in the USA.
As a mother to five children she is acutely aware of the cost of the pandemic on children and believes this is something we don’t talk about enough. Dr Lindley is going to discuss lockdowns and masks, and emerging speech problems in children and dropping IQs. Since children recover well from COVID19 and develop natural immunity, Kat challenges the policy to vaccinate children against COVID19.
Dr Lindley is on the Steering Committee of World Council for Health with Dr Tess Lawrie, and is familiar with the proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty.
US Clinician – Author of “Overcoming the COVID Darkness” – currently a US national bestseller
Works on the frontlines in one of the counties hardest hit by COVID in the state of California. His clinic has treated 10,000 COVID-19 patients with only 7 deaths Dr Tyson will speak on early treatments and outcomes.
Research Director for Australian Citizens Party, with more than 20 years of experience in researching Australia’s economy and leading campaigns for economic policy solutions.
Paramedic and small business owner who provides medic services at large events such as music festivals and concerts. His business has been decimated because of the mandates and he argues that many events are now less safe because medical staff are now even harder to find.
Anne Nalder has a passion for small business and this led to her founding the Small Business Association in 2010. She is the current CEO and her objectives for the Association is to be a real voice of small business, minimise the rate of failure in small business and promote world’s best small business practice.
Anne’s love for event management was realised in the 10 years she was employed by Qantas and was inspired to build her own event management business, which has been operating since 1991. She has previously worked with the Women’s Royal Australian Air Force (WRAAF) and on air for Channels 6 and 7 in north Queensland.
Dan McDonald is a career firefighter of 18 years. It is the profession he has aspired to since he was a small boy. He currently holds the Station Officer position for the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service.
In his late forties Dan is the proud father of 3 adorable children. Dan believes that integrity and courage are the grounding of a person in a work environment and also forms the essence of a person’s character. He is dedicated to seeing things done correctly and that fairness is applied to all areas of a person’s working and social realms
Tammy suffered a heart attack and developed myocarditis. She says she is one of the lucky few who were able to have the condition recognised as vaccine-linked, many of her friends were not so lucky.
Ingi was a super fit, health triathlete, personal trainer who developed complications after receiving the vaccine that has completely changed the course of her life.
Mr Julian Gillespie is a retired lawyer and former barrister who has come out of retirement to fight the legal battle against the COVID vaccination. He believes that the Australian people have not been given accurate information around COVID deaths, and deaths from the COVID vaccinations.
He is currently managing proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia related to “Australian Vaccination-Risks Network Incorporated v. Secretary, Department of Health.
Professor David Flint AM is an Emeritus Professor of Law. He read law and economics at Universities of Sydney, London and Paris. After admission as a Solicitor of the NSW Supreme Court in 1962, he practised as a solicitor (1962-72) before moving into university teaching, holding several academic posts before becoming Professor of Law at Sydney University of Technology in 1989.
Professor Flint is the author of numerous publications. His publications include books and articles on topics such as the media, international economic law, Australia’s constitution and on Australia’s 1999 constitutional referendum. He was recognised with the award of World Outstanding Legal Scholar, World Jurists Association, Barcelona, in October 1991.
He was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 1995.
Dr Kory is a Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine specialist, former Associate Professor, Chief of the Critical Care Service, and ICU Medical Director at the University of Wisconsin. He is an internationally renowned pioneer in the field of critical care ultrasonography and senior editor of an award-winning textbook now in its 2nd edition, translated into 7 languages.
He co-founded and serves as the President and Chief Medical Officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a non-profit organization dedicated to developing the most effective treatment protocols for COVID-19.
He has co-authored over fifteen peer-reviewed manuscripts on COVID-19 and is considered one of the world’s experts in treatment of all its phases. Dr. Kory is also known as a master educator as he has won major Departmental Teaching Awards at multiple institutions throughout his career.
Dr Phillip Altman has a Bachelor of Pharmacy (Hons), a Bachelor and Masters of Science and a Doctor of Philosophy. He works as a clinical trial and regulatory affairs pharmaceutical industry consultant with more than 40 years experience in designing, managing and reporting clinical trials. Dr Altman has dealt extensively with the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration throughout his career.
Dr Altman has worked for, and consulted to, most of the international pharmaceutical represented in Australia. He was fundamental in the establishment of the Australian Regulatory and Clinical Scientists Association (ARCS), which is a peak educational forum for more than 2000 clinical and regulatory scientists working within the Australian pharmaceutical industry. He has Life Membership of this Association.
Dr Tess Lawrie is Medical doctor and research consultant based in the United Kingdom, CEO of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy (E-BMC Ltd) and EbMC Squared, founding member of the BIRD Group, a member of the World Council for Health, a leader for The Unity Project and is world renowned expert in health research.
Professor Ian Brighthope is a retired medical practitioner with over 40 years of experience. He graduated with a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery in 1974.
Professor Brighthope initiated a prophylactic and treatment protocol titled “The CD Zinc Campaign” to help people improve their health and increase their resistance to COVID19. The campaign was taken to the federal government, unions, public, media and business, however there was no recognition given to the protocols by the government or mainstream medical profession. Practitioners of nutritional and integrative medicine were supportive in the early days of the campaign.
Professor Brighthope has acted as an advocate of doctors practicing Complementary Medicine for over 35 years. He’s the founder of Entoura, an Australian medical cannabis manufacturer and educational company.
He is the author of 5 books and many scientific and medical lectures and reviews. His lifelong ambition is to change the way medicine and healthcare is practiced for the benefit of the public.
Dr Robert Brennan has a Bachelor of Science (Hons) and a medical degree. He has taught anatomy and several other biomedical sciences for about a decade, before attending medical school and a developing a career in psychiatry.
Recognising that government response to the pandemic was anti-science, anti-reality and anti-humane, he joined the Covid Medical Network and the Red Union group. Dr Brennan has been outspoken in claiming that lockdowns are more harmful than helpful, and campaigned against mandating the COVID vaccine. As a consequence of this stance, he has since lost his registration to practice medicine and been deemed a “danger to public health and safety” by the regulator.
Dr Brennan now hosts a weekly program on TNT radio live.
Dr Andrew McIntrye is a semi-rural physician who had his own day surgery and followed the COVID19 science closely. In December 2021 he lost his job as a consultant gastroenterologist on the Sunshine Coast due to Queensland Health vaccination mandates.
He is trained in the evaluation of new treatments and is critical of the campaign of fear and censorship and that the debate around how to best respond medically to COVID19 has been quashed.
There has been a lot of concern that our upcoming election could be stolen. One Nation and I were also worried about this. Last year One Nation introduced an electoral reform bill which introduced audits of our elections and generally changed our electoral laws to prevent elections being stolen.
The Morrison Government under Minister Morton eventually agreed on the need for our bill and introduced a series of electoral reforms that implemented everything we asked for, except voter ID which remains before the Parliament.
Australia’s elections will now be audited before the election, and again after the election. With the other checks and balances introduced in this round of reform it is simply impossible for a federal election to be stolen.
One Nation is proud of the work we did to ensure Australian federal election integrity.
Every registered Australian voter is now free to participate in the electoral process, as a candidate, poll worker, supporter or donor confident in the knowledge that your efforts will not be wasted.
The result of the next Federal election will be the will of the people.
You can see a history of hard work and questioning I did on this over a long time here: Election Integrity Articles
https://mcusercontent.com/0d0298ad8de0084fd26150fc5/images/ead0c04b-1092-709f-79c3-77fd1be8710a.jpg400711Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-03-10 15:18:572022-03-10 15:19:05One Nation inspired Election Audits could make next vote the safest in history
Despite billions of dollars in funding and endless virtue signalling from inner-city lefties for Aboriginal and Torres-Strait Islanders, the state of healthcare services being provided by Governments on Mornington Island is close to third world.
You should get the same government services regardless of skin colour. If the government can’t take care of the basics, why should we allocate more funding?
Transcript
Senator Roberts : Thank you all for attending today. I’d like to ask some questions about Mornington Island, following my questions last year, and then perhaps some general questions. How did the federal government allow the Mornington Islanders’ situation—their health and wellbeing—to slip into one of a Third World country’s?
Ms Rishniw : Mornington Island—I think we provided some answers to questions on notice that we took last time. As you are aware, we work closely with ACCHOs and with the communities. With Mornington Island in particular we worked very closely with the Queensland health and hospital services there, and we are working closely with them to make sure that the services on the island are improved over time.
Senator Roberts : Can you tell me how you are working with the government?
Ms Rishniw : Mr Matthews?
Mr Matthews : There are a number of arrangements. It’s a very broad question when you get to health because you can’t differentiate the health and wellbeing from the broader people, social and environmental aspects around that.
Senator Roberts : I agree.
Mr Matthews : Probably the headline way I would respond to what is happening is through Closing the Gap, which is the framework for the government and states to work in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around improving outcomes generally. That agreement was signed and struck around the middle of 2020. It’s been in place about 12 months. Its aim is to reset the relationship. It is looking at a broad range of factors to work with. Rather than doing things to people, it’s the concept of doing things with people and bringing them to the table and then looking at how the overall investment across the range of things, from education, employment and housing through to health and health outcomes, come together around that situation. That is probably the nutshell, the main context of the answer to your question about how that’s going to progress into the future from here. Health is a part, but it isn’t the only part in relation to that question.
Also, when you start to get into the provision of hospital services on Mornington Island, they are delivered by the Queensland government, as are a range of education services and those sorts of things, so it’s not a simple Commonwealth Department of Health question; it’s a very broad question. In that context, it’s about understanding the landscape through the lens of where Closing the Gap is resetting that and also some of the other mechanisms—for example, when Senator Dodson was asking about the development of the voice, that is geared towards empowering and encouraging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be more in charge of their future, which will hopefully lead to improved outcomes over time.
Senator Roberts : There were some wonderful points there that I’d like to continue with. First of all I endorse and value your comments about needing an holistic approach. Health is just one part of it. Health is an outcome of the whole way of life, so I understand that. That was a very broad statement, but what are the current initiatives for working with the Queensland government and doing things directly? The Premier of Queensland and the Queensland health minister promised to visit the island last year or early this year. Have they done so?
Mr Matthews : I couldn’t comment on anything about the Queensland government or their ministers and their intentions around that. We don’t have visibility or necessarily monitor or track that, because that’s obviously a matter for the Queensland government.
Senator Roberts : More specifically, how do you work with the Queensland government?
Mr Matthews : From a health point of view—and my colleagues from the National Indigenous Australian Agency may be able to talk more broadly from a broader Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs perspective—from the Health perspective, there are two mechanisms. We have what are called partnership forums in each jurisdiction, including Queensland. They are regular meetings that usually happen a couple of times a year between Queensland health officials, Commonwealth health officials and officials from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health sector in Queensland. They’re largely geared towards trying to increase the alignment between the Commonwealth, the state and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders, many of whom are delivering services there, to ensure that we are aligning our policy and delivery as far as possible. I’m not talking about Mornington Island specifically, but there are a range of things that will happen through that. Many of the programs we talked about, including things like our syphilis program, will deliver services into Queensland. Over the last two years we have also been looking to increase investment in our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services, where we’ve increased investment in the Aboriginal community controlled health system by a bit over $160-odd million.
Senator Roberts : Specifically doing what?
Mr Matthews : The investment we’ve lifted into the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health service is really around increasing the primary resourcing that goes to primary health care delivered by Aboriginal and community controlled health services in communities. That is different from Mornington Island, which doesn’t have one; it does have some servicing through the Mount Isa service into the community, but a lot of services are delivered by the Queensland government there. What we’re looking to do is increase the resourcing for primary healthcare services delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations because they know their clients well and will put in place a stronger framework around comprehensive primary health care. That is something we’ve been doing across the country, not just in Queensland, and will continue to do over—
Senator Roberts : Is that funding for nurses or doctors or—
Mr Matthews : It’s for both really. It funds the resourcing of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health clinic and the health clinic will use that for a range of things—it could be used for an Aboriginal health worker, for a doctor, a nurse or other things it may do from a comprehensive healthcare point of view. It is really about the patient coming in and having their needs understood and looking at their broader circumstance and spending an increased amount of time. It’s a little different from a normal visit to a GP. We will bring them in, spend more time with them, look at their other issues and try and provide some of those wraparound supports. That’s how comprehensive primary healthcare works within an Aboriginal community controlled health setting. One of the things we’re doing is increasing our investment in that over time and working with the sector in particular to expand that and look to improve how they service over time as well, which is their intention.
Senator Roberts : How would you characterise not just the quality of the relationship but the actions and behaviours that come from the relationship? Are you a money provider? Are you a resource provider? Are you someone looking over their shoulder in a helpful way that identifies shortfalls in the Queensland government’s approach? Are you advisers to them? How would you describe it?
Mr Matthews : Are you referring to the Queensland government, or to the Aboriginal health services?
Senator Roberts : The Aboriginal health services, with the Queensland government—not just Mornington.
Mr Matthews : I hope the Aboriginal health services wouldn’t characterise us as looking over their shoulder.
Senator Roberts : I mean in the sense that you are working with them.
Mr Matthews : Our intention is very clearly to ensure that we have a partnership approach with Aboriginal health services, which is one of the priority reform areas in the Closing the Gap agreement as well.
Ms Rishniw : Senator, we take the Closing the Gap agreement very seriously. It talks about a partnership with Aboriginal people and Aboriginal services. The money that Mr Matthews outlined goes directly to service delivery by community controlled health organisations. We provide funding—
Senator Roberts : It doesn’t go through the state government?
Ms Rishniw : No, it doesn’t. It goes directly to the sector. It’s deliberately flexible to allow them to address the particular issues around health and providing holistic health services to their community. We work very closely with the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, and all of the services, to make sure that what we are achieving is a collective set of outcomes that everyone has agreed to around improving health and wellbeing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Senator Roberts : It was wonderful to hear Mr Matthews talking about a holistic approach—not just health but health as an outcome of lifestyle. What about personal accountability? Two or three people in my office and I visited all the Cape York communities. Although the communities are quite different in their needs and their backgrounds, they have some commonalities. Mr Matthews mentioned Closing the Gap. I put it to all the communities that Closing the Gap perpetuates the gap, and they resoundingly said yes. First of all, the underlying intent is to focus on the gap which perpetuates the gap. But putting that aside, there is also what some people call the ‘Aboriginal industry’ and it consist of whites as well as Aboriginals, who are consultants and lawyers et cetera that feed off this and they perpetuate the gap, because without the gap there is no Aboriginal industry. Any comments on that?
Ms Rishniw : I don’t want to speak for Mr Matthews, but our job is to make sure that we can provide comprehensive health care for all Australians. The government invests significantly in the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as First Nations peoples because of the disparity in health outcomes to date, and that is what the closing the gap agreement is about. We have worked tirelessly. The community-controlled health sector has been a major part of the infrastructure of delivering health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for over 50 years now and to suggest in any way that that is not a necessary and evidence based investment—
Senator Roberts : I wasn’t suggesting that—
Ms Rishniw : I just wanted to clarify—because asking Mr Matthews for a comment on that. It is evidence based. It is clear. It is a government commitment.
Senator Roberts : You would agree, I would hope, that personal accountability has a lot to do with managing people’s health?
Ms Rishniw : Everyone, I think, across the country wants the best health care and the best for their family and themselves. Personal accountability is one element. We recognise social determinants of health and a range of historical factors as well.
Senator Roberts : So you’re agreeing with me that personal accountability is important?
Ms Rishniw : I think I said it was one of the factors.
Senator Roberts : It is one of the factors so it has a part to play. What we’ve done in this country, under both Labor and Liberal since 1972—people in the communities have told me we have created a sense of victimhood, not beggars but of victimhood, and that’s the opposite of accountability. What I’m trying to do is to get an understanding of the environment in which you work, because if that accountability is not there—these people in the communities are wonderful. There are a diverse range of them, as you know. But they seem to be held back by the ‘Aboriginal industry,’ maybe not deliberately, maybe subconsciously, but that is what’s happening, and lot of it has been caused by state and federal governments, particularly since 1972.
Mr Matthews : We are probably limited to speak from the health perspective. It is where our responsibility is. Just to repeat Ms Rishniw, it would not right be to characterise the community controlled health sector, that is delivered and run by Aboriginal people for Aboriginal people, in a negative connotation around an ‘Aboriginal industry.’ We fund them because of your point around getting good services delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We are talking about the provision of health services. There is clear evidence that it is effective in delivering it because it comes from an empowering place of empowering people to do it—
Senator Roberts : That is what I was after.
Mr Matthews : That is why we are growing the sector strongly, investing in it and trying to work very closely with the sector on the way through. I think if you were listening to Dr de Toca’s evidence around our response to COVID we’ve also centred that 100 per cent with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and experts for that very reason.
Senator Roberts : What I’m interpreting—it is very welcome if I am interpreting it correctly—is that you’re giving more responsibility to the communities for their health and managing that health?
Mr Matthews : This is always very difficult to verbal, but I would imagine from our colleagues in the community controlled health sector that they would say they are services that are—that their membership is the community and their boards are elected from their community, so they would say they are in and of the community. They would express their view very strongly around that in terms of providing services to their own people.
Senator Roberts : That is welcome news. Is there a plan within your organisation that is part of an overall plan within the government’s—I don’t know what’s Ken Wyatt’s department name title is. The department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or the—
Mr Matthews : The National Indigenous Australians Agency.
Senator Roberts : Is there a coordinated plan with the National Indigenous Australians Agency?
Mr Matthews : This is something that’s easily googled. If you google ‘national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health plan’, you’ll find the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan that was released on 15 December last year, which is now a new 10-year national plan around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, worked up very extensively by, and predominantly led by, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health experts in the sector around the development of that plan and refreshed to be consistent with Closing the Gap and many of the things we’ve learnt over the last few years. As I said, it was released in the middle of December.
It has at its very heart the concept of how the broader social determinants, linked with health, bring in a dimension around the cultural determinants of health, of how culture plays out for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and impacts on their health and how health needs to respond to that landscape. So that’s been recently refreshed. If you are looking at where the national plan is, that is probably the prime and most important one to have a look at. I’d encourage you to do that. We can provide the link on notice, if you like, just to refresh. If not, that’s okay. That would be well worth having a look at. I also note that it’s endorsed by the majority of the states and territories. It forms a plan now that is developed in and of through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sector, agreed by the Commonwealth government and endorsed by the majority of the states and territories.
Senator Roberts : Thank you. That’s welcome news, too, because there are a lot of outstanding people with a lot of potential in those communities who are somehow stymied by an invisible hand. It’s varying from, say, the Lockhart River, where they are really going ahead, to other parts of the country.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just quickly, we are very close to time, and I have one question that I would like to ask the officers before we finish up.
Senator Roberts : Last question, then, Chair. Thank you for that notice. Has there been a drop in the death rate from suicides in the last year? What’s the overall trend in suicide, because it’s quite alarming?
Ms Rishniw : I might go to my colleague online, Mr Roddam, who can talk about speak suicide data and prevention activities.
Mr Roddam : Overall, in 2020, there was a 5.4 per cent reduction in suicide for the whole population. Unfortunately, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, suicide remained the fifth leading cause of death that year, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to die by suicide at more than twice the rate of non-Indigenous people—27.9 per 100,000 population compared with 11.8 per 1,000 population.
Senator Roberts : Can you tell me the overall trend? Relative to the rest of Australia, it’s high. Thank you for that. What’s the overall trend? Is it increasing, decreasing, flat—
Mr Roddam : It did increase slightly in 2020. I’m just trying to get the figures for 2020 compared with 2019. I know that it was a little higher, while the whole-of-population rate fell.
Ms Rishniw : Senator, given the time, we can take that on notice and give you the data around the trends. But it also goes to why we are investing heavily in suicide prevention and mental activities across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We have a 24/7 crisis line that’s about to be launched—and we’ll start services from 24 February—and a range of other activities that Senator Dodson well knows we’ve been undertaking around suicide prevention.
Senator Roberts : And just like physical health, mental health is an outcome of cultural and social factors. I think those were Mr Matthews’ words.
Ms Rishniw : There are a range of social determinants that impact on an individual’s health across the board.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/csXTj8VTf9E/0.jpg360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2022-03-04 11:21:232022-03-04 11:21:36Billions spent on the Aboriginal industry for third world healthcare
When the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) allocates water to farmers at the start of the season, they do it based on a very conservative ‘extreme dry’ scenario.
This means farmers are allocated far less water then they should be. If the rainfall for the following season is above the extreme dry scenario (it very frequently is) the MDBA will allocate excess water to the farmers, but at the end of the season.
This end of season allocation is nearly useless to farmers as they need certainty from the start to be able to plant the amount of crops to match their water allocation. The MDBA seem to think they have a crystal ball and predict every year will be a drought. Farmers miss out, crops aren’t planted, small communities are slowly destroyed and less Australian grown food is on our shelves as a result.
MDBA questioning part 1: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/menindee-lakes-sdl-water-acquisitions-and-lock-zero-mdba-part-1/
MDBA questioning part 2: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/why-did-the-government-vote-against-a-water-trading-register-mdba-part-2/
Transcript
[CHAIR] Senator Roberts, I believe you have one question before we release the agency.
[Senator Roberts] Mr Reynolds, you gave us a statement here at Senate estimates on 28 May 2021, and I’ll just read from that:
Finally, the March rain has delivered a more positive forecast for the next irrigation year compared to the same time last year. Indicative opening allocations for next year under a conservative extreme dry scenario are …
Then you gave us the releases. In fact, the rain in that period was well above average, with some areas experiencing record falls. This is from your website. Even the area in red is now blue. I’m not blaming you for the weather forecast, by the way. Dam levels are from 92 per cent. It seems that farmers always start with minimal water allocations and then later, after the season, farmers get offered some more that farmers can’t use. So farmers have missed an opportunity to make more money. Surely this has to stop. Who provided the ‘extreme dry’ scenario? When was it changed to ‘pouring down’, as in this year? Did the use of the ‘extreme dry’ scenario cause farmers to lose early season water allocations?
[Mr Reynolds] No, it doesn’t. When we do our analysis, we model a range of scenarios. I don’t recall exactly the words in that statement, but I would have quoted from one of those scenarios, which was extreme dry—very conservative. States, under their allocation frameworks, provide the allocation to irrigators. The MDBA’s role is to advise the states on the volume of water they might expect to have under a range of scenarios. States adopt a conservative approach to allocating water to make sure they don’t over-allocate early in the season and are unable to deliver it later in the season—that is a much poorer outcome. When the MDBA provides advice to the states on the water they might have available, we provide them a range of scenarios, not just the extreme dry, and they work within their own allocation framework on where they actually make an allocation decision.
[Senator Roberts] On whose advice do you base that consideration?
[Mr Reynolds] The MDBA does the statistical analysis of projected inflows for the season and develops those estimates of the volumes of water that might be available to each of the states, applying the water sharing arrangements that are specified under the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. The states then use their allocation frameworks and their assessment of the appropriate level of risk in making allocation decisions.
[Senator Roberts] Thank you. Chair, we understand that there was a discussion about Yanco, which I hadn’t intended asking questions about. We’re going to evaluate the Yanco decision, because it is significant to us, but I’m not going to ask questions.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/st-s_90Uxm4/0.jpg360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2022-03-04 11:08:532022-03-04 11:12:36Farmers always left high and dry by water allocations – MDBA Part 3
The Murray Darling Basin plan has been a disaster for regional communities. Overwhelming complexity, water being flushed out to sea and bureaucrats thinking they know better than everyone else have caused enormous damage.
Despite the evidence, the government and MDBA refuse to take responsibility for the mess they’ve made.
MDBA questioning part 2: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/why-did-the-government-vote-against-a-water-trading-register-mdba-part-2/
MDBA questioning part 3: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/farmers-always-left-high-and-dry-by-water-allocations-mdba-part-3/
Transcript
CHAIR: Alright; thank you. Senator Roberts, over to you.
Senator Roberts: Mr Taylor, I’d like to reference an exchange we had at a previous estimates regarding Menindee Lakes. I’ll quote from Hansard. I said:
So, Menindee Lakes is a vital component of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan?
You said:
It’s a vital component of our environmental management of the system.
Then I said:
And it’ll stay there.
You said:
And we’re actually getting those golden perch out of that system, connected through the Great Darling Anabranch, down into the Murray and distributing those fish. They become callop, as they’re called in South Australia, and they travel thousands of kilometres over their life. So, this is a critical part of what we’re doing.
That was not an answer to my question. You dodged my question, so let me try again. Will the Murray-Darling Basin Authority keep the Menindee Lakes as an environmentally important wetland having the same area as it currently has, including water storage with the current capacity, with the level, of course, decided by basin inflows? This is Queensland water, and we’d like to see it used properly.
Mr Taylor : Not sure I’m in a position to answer on behalf of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in terms of feature plans and management. I think the other thing is that the Menindee system is a jointly managed lake and water resource, jointly managed between New South Wales, the Commonwealth, South Australia and Victoria. So I’m not in a position to talk about—
Senator Roberts: Is anyone from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority who could answer that question here?
Ms Connell : Mr Reynolds.
Senator Roberts: Will Menindee stay as it is, a vital part of the environment?
Mr Reynolds : As discussed earlier, New South Wales is scoping, or rescoping, the Menindee project, now called the Better Baaka project. That anticipates changes to the Menindee infrastructure and the operating rules for it. As departmental colleagues explained earlier, we’re yet to have a scope of that project brought forward by the New South Wales government. I can’t give you the assurance that you’ve asked for because that rescope project will inevitably change arrangements at Menindee Lakes. I think the proposal for the project is to look at how things can be done differently. If the project proceeds, then I think the circumstance at Menindee will be different to what they’ve been in the past.
Senator Roberts: So you can’t give me—
Ms Connell : It will continue to be subject to water resource plans and water sharing plans which will contain requirements in relation to environmental measures and environmental outcomes.
Mr Reynolds : Absolutely. The project in terms of its development will have to consider environmental impacts and benefits that can be achieved ultimately, but, until we see the scope of the works, I can’t advise on what the changes on the Menindee arrangements would be.
Senator Roberts: Setting aside the sustainable diversion limit acquisitions currently underway, how much water is still required to complete the sustainable diversion limit acquisitions? I’d like a figure. Secondly, how much is required to complete water acquisition, the baseline diversion limits?
Ms Connell : We addressed some of those questions this morning. The 605 sustainable diversion limit adjustment measure program is made up of about 36 projects for which a gigalitre component was identified when those projects were conceived. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority will go through a process we refer to as reconciliation in the lead-up to 1 July 2024, and I’ll let Mr Reynolds talk you through that.
Senator Roberts: Okay.
Ms Connell : Earlier this morning we provided an update on progress towards the 450 in terms of current entitlement holdings that are with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, projects that are contracted and projects we are in discussions with states over.
Mr Reynolds : In terms of the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism reconciliation process, the authority is required to take a decision in December 2023 as to whether or not a reconciliation is required. That decision can’t be taken earlier than that, because states are able to advise notifications to modifications of projects up until that point in time. So we won’t have clarity about what the package of works looks like until that point in time. If, on the basis of our understanding of the projects, their progress and the condition they’re likely to be in in June 2024, the authority determines that the adjustment amount is likely to be different than what was determined in the original decision, we will undertake a reconciliation. We will assess the projects as they are notified at the end of December 2023 and make an assessment of the volume of water, or the offset that they will achieve at that point in time.
Senator Roberts: You have a document on the website of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority entitled ‘Progress on Water Recovery’. Under the heading ‘Summary of surface water recovery progress’ it states:
Following the amendments to the Basin Plan, the overall target for water recovery is 2,075 GL/y plus 450 GL/y of efficiency measures by 2024.
That’s 2,525 in total. And then, on the third page, under the heading ‘Total water recovery still required’ it is just 46 gigalitres.
Ms Connell : We addressed those figures earlier this morning as well. The gap bridging target under the Basin Plan is 2,075 gigalitres—2,100, and I think five gigalitres have been recovered and are held by way of entitlements with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. So 98 per cent of the target has been reached, but there remain about 46 gigalitres across the basin that need to be recovered from different water resource plan areas.
Senator Roberts: The other comment Mr Reynolds has already covered, so thank you for that. Before I move on, how much water is required to complete the baseline diversion limits, the up-water?
Ms Connell : I guess there are three overall programs. There’s the water recovery target of 2,075 gigalitres, so there’s 46 gigalitres still to go there. Then there is the 450 up-water program, as it is known, which I referred to earlier in terms of what’s being delivered, what’s contracted and discussions we’re having with states. Then the third program is the 605 sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism program, which Mr Reynolds was discussing in terms of the reconciliation process that happens in 2024. There are 36 projects which go to make up that program of work that South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales have to deliver, and the authority will look at that program of works at the end of next year to determine whether reconciliation needs to happen to identify whether the 605 will be met or what component of it will be met.
Senator Roberts: As I’ve discussed before with Mr Glyde and Mr Reynolds and also the previous water commissioner, it’s a very complex issue, isn’t it? The whole thing is very complex, with many variables and a lot of variation.
Ms Connell : There are some key, major complex areas of work. The Basin Plan is a significant water reform, and there are some complex components, as you would expect in a system, I think, where there are 20 surface water areas and about 13 groundwater systems.
Senator Roberts: Then we have a naturally variable climate. The north varies considerably, in a different way from the south. So I would raise that for the future. Turning to the south-east drains SDL acquisition, Mr Reynolds, a reminder of your answer at the last estimates:
The water from the south-east drains has been put forward by the South Australian government as an SDL adjustment mechanism project. So the water that comes from the south-east drains into the southern lagoon will be accounted for through that process.
That means it will be counted as SDL. How much water is the Murray-Darling Basin Authority counting against the remaining SDL target for the south-east drains restoration flow?
Mr Reynolds : As we’ve explained previously, the assignment of individual volumes to projects in terms of the adjustment mechanism can only be an estimate, because the whole package of projects is modelled as a whole, and they interact with one another. We have made a range of estimates against individual projects. I will see if I can get the number for that particular project. I don’t think I have it in my papers here. I will have to get someone to provide that to me, but I will provide it this morning.
Senator Roberts: I would be very interested to see that number. I’m wondering if we’ve just found some more water.
Mr Reynolds : Well, the south-east drains project is part of the adjustment mechanism, so it’s been accounted for.
Senator Roberts: It is my view that this is a significant unaccountable flow—it hasn’t been to date—and may provide a substantial part of the remaining SDL acquisition that can both take the pressure off farmers elsewhere in the basin while restoring the amazing Coorong wetland and moderating extreme salination in Lake Albert by flushing from the south-east, not from the north-west; from the north-west is not really flushing. Have you the south-east inflows? I think the answer was ‘no’ in the last Senate estimates in October. Have you modelled the south-east inflows, both aquifer and surface flow? How much water is available? How much can be redirected—and this is really important—without interfering with agricultural production?
Mr Reynolds : We haven’t modelled that directly. The South Australian government manages that part of the system. We have consulted with them about the volumes. There’s not a direct estimate available of the total flow from the south-east drains, including through the groundwater systems into the Coorong. The operation of the south-east drains does provide water back to the southern lagoon in the Coorong, and that scheme has been developed and the operating rules have been developed to achieve that. There are requirements to manage the flows through the south-east drains. It is drainage from agricultural land. It does carry a nutrient load. There are particular management challenges with that water. So part of the south-east drainage scheme passes water through wetlands and the like to remove nutrient loads from that water before it enters the Coorong. If that’s not done, there are undesirable ecological impacts in the Coorong itself. That limits somewhat the volume of water that comes from the south-east drains. The South Australian government is continuing to work through those issues.
Senator Roberts: As I understand it, the drains are made by humans? They’re not natural and they take up a significant quantity of water, straight to the ocean.
Mr Reynolds : The area that’s been drained naturally was a low-lying marshy area, and water tended to lie in that area. Some of it would have seeped through groundwater systems to the sea. Some of it would have made its way to the Coorong. The drains are man-made structures that have taken water from that area and dried it out and made it more productive as an agricultural area.
Senator Roberts: I’ve been there and seen those drains. They’re definitely man-made. There is a belief that there’s a significant amount of water to be recaptured and sent to the Coorong.
Mr Reynolds : And water is being captured through that system and does flow to the Coorong. I think from memory it’s in the order of 26 gigalitres, on average. Obviously it would change with seasonal conditions. In wet years it will be more; in drier years it would be less. But it’s of that order.
Senator Roberts: My understanding is there’s a lot more water to be captured than that.
Mr Reynolds : I think the South Australian government clearly has an interest in trying to improve the health of the Coorong. They’ve undertaken an enormous amount of work in that region to do that. I’m sure they’re examining whether or not it would be beneficial to take more water from that region if it’s possible to do so, for that purpose.
Senator Roberts: So the Coorong problem has been man-made, not by the rest of the basin, but by diversion of water that used to go through the Coorong straight to the ocean? I’m not being critical, because in those days they were trying to look after their narrow scope. That’s something that, to return the environment to its natural state, would require a lot of water to go back to the Coorong and keep it clean.
Mr Reynolds : There are obviously significant volumes of water diverted from the basin, which has reduced the volume of water that reaches the end of the system, particularly coming down the Murray. Part of the challenge is to address some of those issues. To get back to the natural balance of what happened in the Coorong before river regulation would require all of the water that’s subsequently been diverted to be returned to the environment. No-one is proposing to do that. We’re looking for alternative solutions and alternative balances.
Senator Roberts: Shouldn’t that south-east portion be counted as part of the basin? You just said water is diverted from the basin, but it’s not included in the basin yet?
Mr Reynolds : I’m sorry; when I said that I meant water is diverted from upstream right across the basin. Very significant volumes are diverted.
Senator Roberts: This water’s going straight to the ocean, and doing damage by not going through the Coorong.
Mr Reynolds : I think the benefits that can be provided to the Coorong, by diverting some water from the south-east drains, are being realised through the project that’s been implemented. I’m sure the South Australian government and others will continue to examine where additional benefits might be able to be accrued. Significant money from the Commonwealth government has gone to the Goyder Institute. I think $8 million has been committed to examine options and other interventions that might be possible around the Coorong, Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth. That could include activities within the south-east drain system, although that has been explored fairly extensively already.
Senator Roberts: It’s very complex, and it’s made even more complicated by the politics involved at the state and federal levels. We will end it there for now.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m sorry to interrupt you, but could you make this your last question? Sorry, Senator Roberts! We knew what was going on.
Senator Ruston :They don’t look anything alike.
CHAIR: They don’t.
Senator Roberts: I don’t know who you’re insulting the most. That was my last question.
CHAIR: Make this your last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: Concerning Lock Zero, in the last estimates, you spoke about engineering challenges and other issues, and you said, ‘Lock Zero was examined in some detail.’ If salt water is used in the Lower Lakes to protect against sulphur emissions—and that would be a one-in-100-year type drought; it’s an absolute last resort—then suddenly we will be wishing we’d built Lock Zero, won’t we? Doesn’t the Murray-Darling Basin Authority or the department have documentation on Lock Zero? Your comment ‘examined in some detail’ suggests such documentation exists. It seems like too significant a project not to have some formal process underway.
Mr Reynolds : During the millennium drought, Lock Zero was considered as to whether or not it would be an arrangement that would help protect the Lower Lakes. Part of that was looking at what flow would be required past Lock Zero to ensure that the Lower Lakes retained their ecological character. There is significant concern that if the flow of fresh water to the Lower Lakes was terminated, and if just sea water was allowed in, that would progressively concentrate through evaporation and become hypersaline, and so the Lower Lakes would not be a natural estuary.
Senator Roberts: It’s not natural at the moment, with the barrage, is it?
Mr Reynolds : No, but the Lower Lakes naturally would have had a much larger volume of fresh water flowing to the Lower Lakes, to the end of the system. We take a lot of water out upstream for irrigation and other productive purposes, and so the natural balance of mixing of fresh and salt water at the Lower Lakes cannot be reinstated unless there’s a lot more water coming down the river system. Building Lock Zero does not alleviate that issue.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/NMcFtd7qQbE/0.jpg360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2022-03-04 11:05:222022-03-04 11:15:54Menindee Lakes, SDL water acquisitions and Lock Zero – MDBA Part 1
Speculative water trading is a blight on our country. Even still, the Water Act 2007 specified that a transparent, public register of water trades should be established. 15 years later, we still have no public register.
The most recent attempt to establish a public register, my amendment to the Water Act, was voted down by the Liberals, Nationals and Labor. The question is, what have they got to hide?
MDBA questioning part 1: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/menindee-lakes-sdl-water-acquisitions-and-lock-zero-mdba-part-1/
MDBA questioning part 3: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/farmers-always-left-high-and-dry-by-water-allocations-mdba-part-3/
Transcript
[CHAIR] Senator Roberts.
[Senator Roberts] Mr Reynolds, as a senator for Queensland, I have to cover many issues and, although I’ve travelled the entire Murray-Darling Basin, have overflown it and crisscrossed it many times, in listening to people I just can’t keep all the acronyms and numbers at hand. I just can’t keep them in my head. Fortunately, we have many farmers who watch these Senate estimates sessions in particular and they let me know when I’ve missed the details, and they’re excellent auditors. They know, from being on the ground, when I’m getting nonanswers. They tell me, and they’re blunt auditors. It seems to me that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is now avoiding the numbers for both acquisition and total targets. The Murray-Darling Basin—and Senator Patrick knows this—is all about numbers. The plan has reduced farmers’ businesses, rural communities and Australia’s agricultural capacity to a set of water numbers, supposedly, for the environment. Getting those numbers is like pulling teeth, and I welcome Senator Patrick’s partial success on the 605 earlier. For the rural community watching this at home to get a hint for the future, I’d like to ask again. I’m asking for three simple numbers. How much water has the government acquired so far under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan? How much is under acquisition? How much will the shortfall be against the plan in the absence of further projects, and where do you intend to get that water from? The third question was two combined.
[Senator Davey] Senator Roberts, do you mind if I throw one in as well to complement yours? From the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, how much actual wet stuff allocation do you have this year? There’s the difference between the entitlements you have, but this year the allocations may be over the 2,750 gigalitre rule. Who knows?
[Senator Patrick] And the costs associated with each of those [inaudible] too.
[Senator Davey] We want to know everything!
[Senator Roberts] We do.
[Ms Connell] I’ve lost track of the question! I’ll just provide the headline numbers, and then I’ll ask Mr Taylor to come to the table and talk to what he has available in this water year. In terms of surface water recovery, as I said before the break, 2,106 gigalitres of surface water has been recovered and is now held in entitlements by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. In relation to groundwater, 35.3 gigalitres has been recovered. In relation to the 450, two gigalitres in entitlements have been returned to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. We have another 16.4 under contract, and we are discussing arrangements in relation to about another 10 to 15 gigalitres with the states. In relation to the 605 gigalitres, the concept of that program of works is to—in lieu of 605 gigalitres being recovered from the consumptive irrigation pool, there are a suite of 36 projects which deliver environmental benefits in lieu of that. The framework under the Basin Plan requires the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to have a look at the end of next year at the progress of those environmental projects and the extent to which they will contribute, from an environmental measure, towards the 605. It is quite a complex concept.
[Senator Roberts] It’s very complex.
[Ms Connell] Yes. I do appreciate that. In terms of the current holdings that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder has to utilise this year, I’ll pass to Mr Taylor.
[Mr Taylor] This year, we have new allocations, up to 31 December, of 2,054 gigalitres. Up to the end of that same six-month period we have used 1,038. So we’ve used about half our water for this year at halfway through the year.
[Senator Davey] How much did you carry over from the previous year?
[Mr Taylor] The previous year’s carryover was 738 gigalitres.
[Senator Davey] That would have made available this year 2,7—
[Mr Taylor] 85.
[Senator Davey] Thank you.
[Ms Connell] I will just note that the department does have a webpage that sets out these water recovery targets, so we’d be happy to provide you with that information.
[Senator Roberts] We will come asking if we need more. Minister, the South Australian water storage is outside of South Australia—
[Senator Ruston] Yes, for geological reasons.
[Senator Roberts] We’re not complaining about that. South Australia’s a valid part of the plan. This is a national plan that includes—
[Senator Ruston] Thank you very much, Senator Roberts. We’re very delighted that you would think that.
[Senator Roberts] While we’re concerned about wasting our water, we’re not concerned about supplying South Australia and Adelaide, in particular, with water—
[Senator Patrick] It’s not Queensland’s water [inaudible].
[Senator Roberts] Well, we can argue that—
[Senator Patrick] It’s national water.
[CHAIR] Let’s not get into that.
[Senator Roberts] I’m not interested in getting into that. I’m just saying that South Australia has a right to that water. It’s longstanding.
[Senator Ruston] Everybody in the Murray-Darling Basin has a right. We can go into a discussion about ‘riparian right’ and the like but the plan outlines that this is a shared resource that has to be maximised to the benefit of all people in Australia.
[Senator Roberts] We want to protect the South Australians but we also want to protect the environment and we want to protect all the other stakeholders. It gets messy. It’s had a long history; some argue it is ingrained in our federation. South Australian water storage is outside South Australia, at Dartmouth, which South Australia partly funded, Lake Victoria and Menindee Lakes. Menindee Lakes has held water eight years out of 10. Even though government raised the natural banks a little to create a larger storage, Menindee has been a natural wetland since before Western settlement. Menindee stored South Australian water and local—
[Senator Ruston] They’re ephemeral, aren’t they?
[Senator Roberts] You could argue that, but they have stored water eight years out of 10. Menindee stores South Australian water and local irrigation water. While that water is there it sustains the amazing wetland around Menindee. And that has developed to counter natural climate variability. In Australia, the climate is more variable than in probably any other continent. But we wonder why a frog near a coalmine is an environmental matter of national significance yet 47,000 hectares of wetland is not. With 220,000 bird movements a year, it is a national treasure. And now the testimony in this place is that the state and federal governments are going to murder Menindee. The Murray-Darling Basin is murdering an environmental treasure to come up with water to meet environmental targets. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
[Senator Ruston] I don’t think there would be anybody else in the room who would agree with your term ‘murder Menindee’. That is a highly emotive way of describing how, collectively, everybody is trying to work together to engineer a solution to ensure the long-term sustainability of the river system whilst dealing with the social and economic implications of water recovery and the like that minimises any detrimental impacts. The sole purpose of the plan was to protect the amazing riverine environment, so I cannot accept your terminology around what’s happening at Menindee. At the moment, we do not have the submission back from the New South Wales government in relation to the proposal for activities at Menindee. Until we can actually see that, I don’t know that anyone could be making the kind of assessment you’re making. I acknowledge that you accept that the plan is for all Australians, particularly all those who live in the basin, but you are picking on one particular component of it and suggesting that it is environmental vandalism when at this stage we don’t really have any clarity around what is going on there. We need to be really careful that we don’t compare what happened prior to the development of the river system and what is happening now. There has been so much intervention along the river—through dams, locks, weirs and all sorts of infrastructure, including the urban build-up in towns—that it’s almost impossible for us to do anything apart from assess what’s before us at the moment. I would counsel against talking about what Menindee Lakes used to be like and what the Lower Lakes used to be like because so much has changed in the years since irrigation has occurred along the river. So we need to manage what is before us now.
[Senator Roberts] I accept that. At the same time, a fundamental target for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been to restore the Coorong, and that cannot be restored while we’re avoiding the science. But let’s move on to something else—
[Senator Ruston] It’s really about the words that you use. We seek for the Coorong to be healthy. Does that restore it under the true definition of the word ‘restore?’ I would suggest that that is very difficult. I mean, the barrages are there. They weren’t there.
[Senator Roberts] The barrages are there. The drains are there.
[Senator Ruston] Yes. When we talk about ‘restoring’, what we want to see is a healthy Coorong, a healthy Murray-Darling Basin system. We want to see environmental assets protected. But we also want to protect the river communities because they are such an important part of the economy of Australia and all the people who are supported by it. I think we need to be careful of the words we use because we don’t want to give the impression that somehow we’re going to turn the river system back to exactly what it looked like before there was any intervention. What we’re seeking to do is make sure the environmental outcomes are good.
[Senator Roberts] One thing that is very frustrating in the parliament is that so few decisions are made on data and science. They’re made on emotions, whims and looking after vested interests. You said everyone wants to protect the environment. I’ll get onto more of that in other questions. Minister, I have trust for you, so I’m not having a go at you. I’m having a go at several governments in the past and possibly this government. I don’t have much faith in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan because it’s not based on data. We don’t measure much of the river system, yet we’re allocating water. An ABC report was entitled ‘Basin states agree to support ACCC Murray-Darling Basin water market reforms to regulate brokers and market behaviour’. Last year when I moved an amendment to force the water trading register into life, which is a requirement of the Water Act 2007—the one that the Murray-Darling Basin has been required to produce since then—the Liberals, Nationals and Labor voted against it. I was told there was no need for a water trading register. It’s just speculation. There is no profiteering and no need for a register of water trading. What changed so that the states are now taking action?
[Senator Ruston] I’m not sure that I agree with the fact that the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party last year thought there was no need for—
[Senator Roberts] They voted against the amendment to bring in the water register.
[Senator Ruston] Yes, but there were a number of other complex technicalities around what was being proposed at the time, so I don’t think you can naturally jump to the conclusion that the government or the opposition didn’t believe that water regulation could potentially improve the operation of the river systems and improve the operation of how water traded. I think possibly it was that the mechanism by which you were proposing to do it was not something that we were necessarily agreeing to. But I’m happy to take that on notice and get you some more information because I have to say I can’t remember exactly.
[Senator O’Neill] Senator Ruston, just before you continue. Is there any chance that the document Senator Roberts was referring to could be tabled?
[Senator Ruston] That’s just a media story, isn’t it, Senator?
[Senator Roberts] Yes, this is a media story from the ABC. They’re talking about a mandatory code of conduct.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, would you like to have that tabled so others can refer to it?
[Senator Roberts] Yes.
CHAIR: Thank you.
[Senator Roberts] It just seems like this code of conduct is a way to smokescreen their reluctance to have a water trading register. It’s a way of avoiding the issue.
[Senator Ruston] I might speak with the secretary. In terms of the ACCC review and implementation I wonder if you could give Senator Roberts a bit of an update about where that’s at. We could see if in any way you can alleviate some of the concerns he appears to have.
[Ms Connell] Water trade and water markets are principally the responsibility of state jurisdictions at the moment, so states and the ACT are responsible for having and maintaining water registers. Each of them does have a register in place. In terms of the media release you’re referring to, it was to indicate that the water market reform process had been set up. Minister Pitt announced last year that he would appoint a principal adviser. Mr Daryl Quinlivan has been appointed to work with states to take what is a very significant report by the ACCC—I think it goes to about 700 pages and makes a broad range of recommendations—
[Senator Roberts] It has some serious concerns.
[Ms Connell] That’s right. Mr Quinlivan has been working with Basin states, supported by an advisory group, and consulting stakeholders more broadly to determine what should be the initial recommendations that are progressed. We can table a copy of Mr Quinlivan’s December advice. The advice sets out the five principal initial reforms that he recommends be progressed, and the basin states support recommendations in principle. Critically, at the moment there’s no code of practice to govern the behaviour of water market intermediaries, water brokers, so one thing the states agreed to is the development of a code that can put a compliance framework around the way that part of the market operates.
He also recommended that the Commonwealth introduce legislation to prohibit insider trading and market manipulation, so that’s something the department is looking very closely at. He made recommendations around collection and publication of trade data and a number of other recommendations. He is now working with basin states and stakeholders to develop a final draft which is due to the minister in June this year. So, the terms of reference for the work that he’s doing are on our website and we can provide you with a copy of that as well.
[Senator Roberts] Ms Connell and Senator Ruston, can you see the public and farmers, in particular, are very concerned? I haven’t discussed this with you, but apparently you had a successful business with flowers. Water is key to that, and you’ve developed remarkable efficiencies in the use of that water, as I understand it. I’m not a farmer, but I know listening to farmers that water is like gold. It dramatically increases the productivity of farmland, so it’s worth a lot of money. But it’s also worth a lot of money to traders and speculators, and we’ve removed the connection between water allocations and farmers’ property ownership.
[Senator Ruston] You’re talking about the unbundling of water from land?
[Senator Roberts] Correct; I am. What I’m saying is that, in the absence of significant measuring of water flows right across the basin, in the absence of science, the contradiction of science and the highly variable climate, which is natural—and we’ve got the north being different from the south, and people not understanding each other—there’s a lot of suspicion that the government, and governments in the past, have simply protected water traders because we still don’t have a water trading register. Whether that’s a state and territory issue, it needs to be done. And now we’ve got the ACCC saying there are significant concerns even though they didn’t identify any particular fraud. This does not build confidence in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, nor the plan.
[Ms Connell] I think there are three components to the question. So, under the constitution, states are principally responsible for water resource management, so the obligation is on them to establish and maintain water registers. Each of the Murray-Darling Basin jurisdictions has in place a water register at this point in time.
[Senator Roberts] I’m not interested in why we can’t do it; I’m interested in what we should do.
Ms Connell : It’s being done—
[Senator Roberts] It’s a major impediment to you.
Ms Connel l : and you can get access to those registers online. I think the Bureau of Meteorology now aggregates information from each of those state registers in their water information portal, so we can provide you with the link to that quite easy to use website.
[Senator Roberts] Thank you.
[Ms Connell] I would just like to get on the record that the ACCC didn’t find any evidence of speculative activity.
[Senator Roberts] I just said that, but they had significant concerns.
[Ms Connell] One of their key recommendations was to get in place a code backed by enforcement and compliance powers to improve the integrity and transparency of the market, and that’s what the basin states have agreed to and the principal adviser has reported on. We’re now working with basin states to look at how we can develop that.
[Senator O’Neill] But it hasn’t happened. What’s the date for that to commence? Senator Roberts, I’ve got a whole lot of questions that I want to follow up on. When you get out there and talk to people, as Senator Roberts has said, they just tell you straight up about—
[Senator Roberts] The corruption.
[Senator O’Neill] The corruption that’s happening. Their computers aren’t fast enough to compete with people who are in the space. You would’ve heard it as much as I’ve heard it. What’s the timing on the response to this?
[Ms Connell] We’re currently working with basin states to look at the development of a draft code. One of the key things will be to consult with stakeholders on what that draft code will look like. When making changes that will impact on a regulated community it’s important to undertake a process whereby we publish a proposed draft code, provide an opportunity for comment and also provide a period of time for that regulated community to come into compliance. We’re actively working with states on progressing that proposal.
[Senator O’Neill] But do you have a time line?
[Ms Connell] I can take that on notice; I don’t have it in front of me.
[Senator Roberts] I brought eight copies of an article from News Weekly, ‘Murray-Darling Basin Plan ruining the Edward River’. Once again, we’re talking about environmental damage of a type never before seen along the Murray system, caused in all probability by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The first paragraph of this article says:
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan (MDBP), which has the goal of protecting the environment—
As Senator Ruston said—
is instead destroying it.
And there are so many examples; it’s the same type of damage that we’re seeing elsewhere. We’ve raised this about the Murray itself. When is the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, or the department, going to convene a proper public inquiry into environmental destruction along the Murray River system? Landholders along the Edward are just flabbergasted at how much damage is being done in the name of the environment.
[Mr Reynolds] The Edward system, in effect, runs parallel to the Murray. Part of the work we’re looking at around the choke is how we manage water through that part of the system, and that includes water through the Edward River as well. Clearly, there are a lot of demands on the system to manage it for consumptive use as well as for the environment. One of the key things we’re looking at as part of the Barmah Choke Feasibility Study is how to manage the system holistically, not just moving a problem from one part of the system to another. So there’s a lot of activity to examine the Edward system as well.
Erosion is a natural feature within our river systems. We have a heavily regulated—
[Senator Roberts] Excuse me; some people would disagree with you. They’re saying the amount of water and the duration of high river flows are quite unnatural. Farmers along the Murray and people along the Edward are saying the same thing. That’s what’s doing the damage, according to them.
[Senator O’Neill] Exactly, that’s what they’re saying to me too, Senator Roberts.
[Mr Reynolds] There’s no doubt that we’ve regulated the river system to achieve a whole lot of benefits which that provides, but that has substantially changed the natural flow patterns in the river. We have higher river flows through summer because we’re delivering water to meet irrigation demands which are critical to the prosperity of many communities throughout the basin. That’s one of the aspects of the Basin Plan: we work through that balance between environmental outcomes and the social and economic prosperity of communities throughout the basin as well.
There are going to be impacts on a regulated system—there’s no doubt about that. We’re looking, through the Barmah Choke Feasibility Study work, at options we might have to alleviate some of those pressures on that part of the river system—the Edward, the Murray and, indeed, the Goulburn system as well. I can’t say that there are no impacts on a regulated river system, but I guess those impacts are balanced against the other benefits that they provide to communities in a wide range of—
[Senator Roberts] I’m not accusing you—and I mean this sincerely—or anyone here of anything. Government in this country—and I’m not talking about the Morrison Joyce government, I’m talking about federal governance—is quite often about wealth transfer. The more regulation we have then the more that can be hidden. It’s built into this, the whole thing. There are just so many avenues for it to be loose and sloppy and the people who pay, time and time again, are the everyday Australians who pay for the mess in government.
I’m not having a go at you; I’m not looking at you in particular. I’m just saying that this is a mess. How can we sort it out so that the people and the environment stop paying the price for mistakes?
[Senator Davey] I think that finishing that choke study might be a good first step.
[Mr Reynolds] In that part of the river system, in particular, there is significant work, investigation and analysis on how we can manage some of these detrimental impacts while still achieving the good impacts that people are looking for.
Some of the impacts we’ve seen in terms of high river flows and the river flowing at higher flow rates, or at least at levels higher than it has in the past, are the result of lost capacity in the river system and the deposition of sand within the Choke. That means to get the same volume of water through the Choke and downstream that we had in the past, the river needs to run at a higher level for a longer period of time. That’s absolutely the challenge that we’re dealing with. The work that we’re doing to understand that, and to understand the options we have to take the pressure off the river system, is a critical part of that intervention.
[Senator Roberts] I’m saying the core problem may be something even deeper. Thank you.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/WgkBONZ6Sq0/0.jpg360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2022-03-04 11:02:002022-03-04 11:14:33Why did the Government vote against a water trading register? MDBA Part 2
Services Australia is pressing ahead with plans to move to convert 5 suburban offices into one riverfront high-rise office. The fit-out alone will cost taxpayers $89 million. After that, the leasing costs for the high-rise office will be $1.7 million a year more expensive than Service Australia spent on leases for the entire financial year.
How on earth can an extra $91 million cost be justified as ‘value for money’ for taxpayers? I certainly don’t feel like it’s money well spent.
Transcript
[Chair] Senator Roberts. So we’ll give Senator Roberts a call.
[Malcolm] Thank you Chair and thank you for being here tonight. Might, also have some questions about Services Australia’s service centres. Services Australia is spending $89 million purely on a fit-out for their expensive new riverfront high rise office in Brisbane. Minister, when Australia has such a huge debt, due to the COVID restrictions, what is the cost benefit that a Services Australia would achieve from year one? And why not postpone it?
[Chair] Senator, you may be surprised to learn that I haven’t done a personal cost benefit analysis on the particular project. But I’m more-
[Malcolm] Wouldn’t most projects have a cost benefit?
[Chair] I’m just saying I haven’t-
[Malcolm] No, no, I mean-
[Chair] Yes, of course. So what I was gonna say is that I would, perhaps, if with your indulgence, ask the agency to please provide the cost or the justification for that particular project.
[Services Australia] Senator, we support a work force that’s over 30,000 people. We require both office space and as I’ve outlined, have a range of service centres and residential properties. We have 392 commercial properties. We are where we can looking at ways to reduce the overall costs of the office footprint. And so you will see us in places like Brisbane, amalgamating some of the office space. They all go through a proper procurement process, which in the whole and the whole cost benefit analysis is looked at. It is important to that we maintain office space that meets contemporary work, health and safety standards. And is able to manage a modern and contemporary technology. So all of those aspects go into ensuring that office space remains fit for purpose. And I can assure you that we look very carefully at making sure we manage our property footprint and service centres within the agency’s envelope for property.
[Malcolm] Thank you. Looking at some of the, I think five service centres, from the suburbs in Brisbane are being amalgamated into one, downtown?
[Services Australia] No not service centres. We need to be very clear about that. The service centres are separate. We are looking to amalgamate a smattering of different back office leases into a better fit for purpose centre.
[Malcolm] So these are not service outlets?
[Services Australia] No senator.
[Malcolm] Okay. They’re not customer-
[Services Australia] They’re not shop fronts if you like. So we, as I said, we’ve got a very large workforce. Most of our telephony and things are done in big smart centres, we have large technical workforce lawyers, all sorts of people. We all work in offices and we have 318 shop fronts and then access and agents points. We also do have some residential properties to support our remote and regional servicing.
[Malcolm] From the figures I’ve got, the annual, the current annual leasing bill for Services Australia in Brisbane, this financial year, is 32.35 million or 1.73 million cheaper than the proposed new building. That’s per annum. Are there any risks to productivity? Because of-
[Services Australia] There’s no, no Senator, there’s no risks to productivity.
[Malcolm] So you’re gonna pay more to go downtown? 1.73 million more?
[Services Australia] I will take on notice… Lease costs are renegotiated at various points in the leases of other buildings anyway. So extrapolating how other lease costs may have gone up around a single lease. Let me take on notice particular details around the five sites versus the cost of the one.
[Malcolm] Okay, thank you. How many public servants in your department are now working from home?
[Services Australia] For various reasons we have around 10,000 people working from home. So Services Australia has a mixed workforce. So some 28, 29,000 Australian public servants, but there are also service delivery partners that support us. And some, and contractors, particularly in our ICT space. So a number of those people were also working from home and some of our service delivery partners have been able to work from home. But broadly about 10,000 people are working from home as part of the Services Australia at the moment.
[Malcolm] Is there any reluctance from people coming back to the office?
[Services Australia] We’ve not experienced that we’ve had. We are nationally distributed. So our workforce, we manage our workforce against each of the state and territory requirements. For example, we had many more people working from home in Victoria for large parts of last year In Canberra, most people were still coming into the office if they to work; we’ve seen different arrangements through Omicron. You know, our work is our people both work from home and come to the office and we haven’t had any real issues with people coming and going in that arrangement.
[Malcolm] Yeah, thank you. Last question. I understand Services Australia has the federal government’s second largest property portfolio after the Department of Defence and you lease around 720,000, almost 721,000 square metres of commercial property. What do you do to ensure that property costs are reduced and that services are located where they’re needed? I know, I’ve just learned that these are nothing to do with customer interface, but… What are you doing?
[Services Australia] So Senator, I think, as I’ve stated, we are, what you’ve outlined with things like, bringing together five leases in Brisbane, we’ve done something, we’re doing something similar. There’s a new building being built in Adelaide which brings and reduces three or four leases into one. So we are trying to drive an efficient and fit for purpose, office requirements. Every dollar that comes out of my budget into a property is money I can’t use for transformation or other things. So we are very focused on driving an appropriate fit for purpose workspace that delivers the outcomes for the best value, which is as we are required to do, under the PGPA; and consistent with the finance property guidelines.
[Malcolm] So in your response that you’re gonna give me on notice. You’ll be able to tell me why we’re going to go downtown and have $1.73 million more expensive than the current scattered five outlets in five centres in Brisbane.
[Services Australia] Well, I will take on notice that framing of your question and we will-
[Malcolm] And you’ll check the assumption?
[Services Australia] Yeah, we’ll check the assumptions that you’ve got there and own the decision and the context around, the full context of our decision to do that.
[Malcolm] Okay, thank you very much, thank you, Chair.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/4vhtJZMG91g/0.jpg360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2022-03-03 09:50:462022-03-03 09:50:59Services Australia burning $90.7 million for flash riverfront city office
