Event: Pialba – Fraser Coast Crime Forum

Senator Malcolm Roberts will introduce a very special family to the Fraser Coast community, a family who have been directly touched by the shocking impact of crime in our community. Our area will rally behind these special people, as they share their experiences.

But there is hope. We will be joined by another special guest, a local who is running camps for at-risk kids, a diversion program aimed at youth who need help to be accountable and get on track. There are solutions to the youth crime problem, we just have to ask the questions and place pressure on those who control the leavers. 

These are the stories that need to be shared, the ones that the ‘powers-that-be’ in Brisbane must confront.

Hope to see you there! 

When: Saturday, 10 June 2023 | 11:00 am to 1:00 pm

Where:

Pialba Memorial Hall
5 Main Street
Pialba, QLD 4566
Google map and directions

Contact: Senator Malcolm Roberts | senator.roberts@aph.gov.au | 07 3221 9099

RSVP here: https://www.onenation.org.au/senatorroberts_crimeforum_hervey

/2 Comments/by

The AEC are their own worst enemy!

,

I receive a lot of constituent inquiries regarding election issues. My staff look into these and we created a file of potential electoral irregularities. I have been working through these potential issues with the AEC for three years, and still there are questions on the list. The AEC are doing a great job of running elections and a crap job of explaining irregularities when they occur.

Elections can always be more secure and more efficiently run. The AEC would be well advised to work with critics to solve these issues off these issues or explain them openly and honestly. I was pleased that Commissioner Rogers met with my staff and reviewed these issues a few weeks ago. I thank the Commissioner and his team for his time. As a result many old issues were explained to our satisfaction. Today I asked about those that were not adequately explained.

The answers today on the quality of the electoral roll for instance confirms our suspicions that there are 1.5m incorrect entries on the roll, based just on a data matching exercise against known databases – usually drivers licenses. It is One Nation’s position that only a physical audit can really get to the bottom of how many orphan or incorrect entries are padding out our electoral rolls. This is an urgent issue. A request for the last known proper audit that was promised at our meeting was sidestepped, so this is something I will pursue.

Answers also dealt with the question of why some people get postal vote applications they did not request in the name of previous residents of their premises. Postal vote applications are often made after a letterbox drop by a major party or activist organisation. Those postal vote applications are returned to the political party, who have, according to testimony, created their own voter database of these likely supporters. Are these groups submitting postal vote applications on behalf of voters without their knowledge, including voters who have moved on? This is a really dodgy way to do postal voting. Applications must go directly to the AEC to prevent this sort of voter interference.

Mr Rogers did provide assurance on other issues around ballot box security, and we look forward to getting an actual ballot box seal to test for ourselves. One Nation believes the best system for moving ballot boxes from temporary voting locations to the regional counting centre is a point to point professional courier with GPS locating so there can be no doubt the ballot box was secure in transit.

Regional counting centres should also be equipped with alarms and security cameras.

Finally I asked about the new audits that the AEC were required to have conducted as a result of legislation passed in the last Parliament as a result of One Nation’s actions. There seems to be some confusion on which audit we were talking about, so I will follow that up with a more detailed request.

These issues should in no way discourage Australians from voting or be taken to mean our elections are rigged in any way. Every Australian can have confidence Australia has amongst the world’s most accurate elections, however there is always room for improvement. We live in an internet age where one report can be amplified thousands of time to create an impression of impropriety that is not fair on the 100,000 Australians who help run our elections. More effort by the AEC to address these “internet rumours” is needed.

Click Here for Transcripts

PART 1

Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here again today. Firstly, Minister Farrell, thank you for  arranging the briefing by Mr Rogers and his team.

Senator Farrell: You’re always welcome, Senator, and if you have any other questions I’m sure the commissioner or his team would be very happy to help. And that invitation I extend to all senators.

Senator Roberts: We appreciate the briefing. We were very pleased with the briefing—the way it was conducted; the thoroughness of it. My apologies for not being there, but I got caught up in the Senate, I think, at the time. Anyway, the briefing was most helpful and cleared up a lot of questions that we had—a lot from constituents, of course. It’s very important for the AEC to have the confidence of the people of Australia in election results. I’ve got some follow-up questions, because constituents deserve an answer. It impacts on election credibility. In the meeting with my staff, you mentioned that the electoral rolls had been audited twice in the last 10 years, and I’d understood that the details of those audits would be sent through. We haven’t received them yet. Can you provide more details, please, of those audits?

Mr Rogers: I might just get Ms Gleeson to step up momentarily. I’ll follow up and find out what we said at that meeting and what we promised to provide, and we’ll provide whatever information we have on that.  But while I’ve got the floor, for the reasons that you said, it’s important, I think for Australians to have faith in the electoral system. It is great news, I think, that first of all the electoral roll is at 97.2 per cent completeness. It really is in many cases the envy of the democratic world, which is great. As to the processes that we have in place to ensure high integrity, Australians can be very satisfied with that. I think, in fact—I’m looking at Ms Gleeson—we put online every year the results of that.

Ms Gleeson: The Annual Roll Integrity Review is conducted yearly, and those results are available on the website.

Mr Rogers: And not only that. Every transaction we undertake with the roll—and there are millions on an annual basis—is an integrity transaction in any case. It’s interesting—it’s important, I should say—to reflect on what ‘integrity’ means with the roll, because there are two components for integrity which are very critical for us to think about. One is to make sure that only the individuals who should be on the roll are on the roll, and that’s a really critically important part. But the second part of integrity, internationally accepted, is to make sure that everyone who should be on the roll is included on the roll as well. So with those two metrics in mind—those two guardrails—over the last decade the AEC has gone to great extents to grow the roll and also to look at those aspects of the roll where individual groups have been underrepresented. As we said before, youth and Indigenous Australians have been traditionally underrepresented. We’ve been doing a lot of work in that regard, and we’re very satisfied with what we’ve done with that.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Ms Gleeson, I want to understand the details of the audits on the rolls. I think the last ANAO audit of the Australian Electoral Commission was in 2013, with a report that came out two years later, in 2015. So could you please send the details that were promised at that meeting?

Mr Rogers: Yes, sure.

Ms Gleeson: Of course.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. We don’t know what it audited, what the specific findings were and what rolls were involved, and it was 10 years ago. This is a follow-up question regarding the new audit provided in section 273AA of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, requiring a substantive audit of the Australian Electoral Commission computer systems by an auditor accredited by the Australian Signals Directorate.. Can you confirm that that audit is underway, and do you have an expected return date, please?

Ms Gleeson: Senator, can you repeat the section of the act you’re referring to, please.

Senator Roberts: Section 2733AA of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Ms Gleeson: Section 273AA is an assurance of the security of computer systems for Senate scrutiny, or the IRAP assessment. This is an assessment conducted by a person or body accredited by ASD—that is, an IRAP assessor. It provides a draft report from the assessor with recommendations and identified risks. The AEC actions recommendations and implements appropriate mitigations to manage those risks, and a public statement is published on the AEC website stating a security risk assessment has been completed as required. For the 2022 federal election, accredited assessors completed security risk assessments of applicable systems prior to the federal election. Recommendations made were accepted by the AEC, and prior to the election appropriate mitigations were implemented to manage those risks, and a statement of assurance relating to those assessments was published on 19 May on the AEC website. I’m happy to provide the link to that statement.

Senator Roberts: Yes, please, if you could take that on notice. I’d like that link. I understand there are three audits. One is a software audit that audits the software used to allocate Senate preferences, which you passed. Another is an audit of the accuracy of scanning Senate ballot papers, which was passed as well. Mr Rogers, while you and your staff were most generous in giving your time, there was one issue the meeting did not get to, and that’s postal voting. My office received many reports of people receiving postal votes in the name of past residents in their premises—sometimes multiple ballots. I’m trying to understand the system to see if an improvement can be made or if indeed this is still best practice. This line of questioning is based on the number of reports of multiple ballots arriving at the same address in the name of residents who have not been there for years but who are still on the rolls. This suggests that a third party—maybe a political party or activists like GetUp—could be recording applications from the previous election and re-using that data to put in fake applications. Is it true that any voter can request a postal ballot by filling out the application and posting it to the Australian Electoral Commission, who ensure the person is on the rolls and, if so, send out a ballot?

Mr Rogers: I might start on that. Postal voting is a legislative part of the Australian electoral process. Not only that, it provides access to the vote for a large number of Australians who would otherwise—

Senator Roberts: We accept that.

Mr Rogers: be unable to achieve it. There is a process in place. Citizens are able to jump onto our website and make an application for a postal vote, or the way it has worked in elections is that political parties also send out applications. Regardless of where the application comes from, we do a thorough check of the information coming back, so no vote is included in the count—let me be more accurate: no elector’s vote is included in the count unless we’ve first assessed that they have an entitlement for that process. So it’s not so much about the information that goes out; it’s what comes back that’s the most critical part of that process. Perhaps Ms Gleeson might like to add to that.

Ms Gleeson: The process that Mr Rogers is referring to is preliminary scrutiny, which is a process outlined under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That means that, when we receive back a completed postal vote, it goes through a process of checking that the information provided on the declaration certificate on the front of the postal vote is correctly completed in compliance with the Electoral Act. Then there is a check against the electoral roll to confirm that the elector is in fact enrolled and entitled for their vote to be counted. At that point, the vote is either accepted and progresses to further scrutiny or rejected and not opened.

Senator Roberts: Is it marked off once it’s accepted?

Ms Gleeson: Correct. If it is accepted it is marked off as that individual having voted.

Senator Roberts: The voter gets the application form by going to the website. Are there other ways?

Ms Gleeson: There are a range of ways that voters can access a postal vote application. Applications can be lodged online through our online postal voting application system, and the majority of voters do use that system.  There is also the option to use a paper form, which is available from our website or from AEC offices, and you’d be aware that there are also party postal vote applications, which the AEC does not issue but parties are entitled to issue under the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Senator Roberts: So you don’t send out how-to-vote cards—sorry, postal vote application forms as a matter of course? You don’t letterbox drop; you don’t post them in the mail?

Ms Gleeson: No.

Senator Roberts: They can get them through political parties. So a political party can letterbox  postal vote applications, and, if completed by a voter, that application goes first to the political party and then to the AEC—is that correct?

Mr Rogers: That’s correct. Just to be very clear, though, because I know sometimes people get confused about that, political parties do not receive citizens’ votes. All they receive is the application form, which is then sent to us. The postal vote certificate, which includes the votes, is sent from AEC and never goes to the political parties.  It’s an important point to note because I know we get some complaints about that. And, only because you just mentioned it, Senator, I will deal at the same time with sending out how-to-vote cards. The AEC does not send out how-to-vote cards.

Senator Roberts: That was a slip of my tongue.

Mr Rogers: But sometimes we get that, and I might just opine on it, because I suspect what occasionally happens is that someone will receive possibly even a postal vote certificate from the AEC with their duly authorised postal vote, and, when they pick up the material from the letterbox and put it on their table, quite often there will be other material that’s distributed at election time. They’ll open the material and go, ‘Oh, my God, the AEC has distributed how-to-vote cards,’ because it’s on the list of materials. We do not ever distribute how-to-vote cards. It’s an important point.

Senator Roberts: There is a lot of distrust in the electorate right now because of what’s happened in the last three years. There’s been a lot of lost confidence in governments. So a political party can letterbox postal vote applications. What about the case of a renter, say, who’s just moved into his or her rental place and they’ve got five applications through the mail?

Mr Rogers: They might have received—

Senator Roberts: In different names.

Mr Rogers: I’m not aware of that, but they might have received five applications from different political parties or entities—but, again, what goes out is one thing. The important thing for us is what comes back and what we then mark off and that we then ensure that that voter has an entitlement to vote. It’s a legislative entitlement for political parties and entities to distribute postal vote applications. It’s actually enshrined in the Electoral Act. We have our own integrity measure for that coming back, and we’re confident that we’ve got processes in place that are robust.

Senator Roberts: Are there any rules around harvesting of the data by the political party?

Mr Rogers: What political parties do with the data they have is a matter for them. I know that all the political parties have databases that they use that are not controlled or contributed to by the AEC.

Senator Roberts: So can they go directly to the AEC if the applicant wants, or do they have to go through the party?

Mr Rogers: Not only that, Senator. I’m just expressing a personal preference here—I’m not annoying anyone—but if it were up to me I’d encourage citizens to come to the AEC website to apply for their postal vote application.

Senator Roberts: Chair, I am going to quickly read through some questions I’m going to submit on notice.  First, how many postal vote applications were received before the 2022 election? Second, of those, how many were duplicates—the same person applying more than once? Third, how many applications were refused after being checked on the electoral roll? Fourth, how many postal vote applications were approved and sent out? If not the same figure, please explain. Fifth, how many postal ballots were returned to the Australian Electoral Commission with a comment such as ‘not at this address’ or ‘didn’t request’, and, as a result, were any challenges issued to enrolled voters? Sixth, how many completed postal ballots were received back, whether in time to be counted or not? Seventh, how many people voted on polling day and then a postal vote was also received in their name? We’re just making sure that citizens can have confidence in the election.

Mr Rogers: We’ll provide that information. But just let me answer that last bit: citizens can have confidence in the election.

Senator Roberts: We’re getting a lot of questions that suggest they don’t. That may be due to the last three years; I don’t know.

Mr Rogers: Senator, we have one of the most transparent, robust electoral processes globally. On that, in terms of its transparency—because you raised the point that citizens need to have confidence, which we back up—we’ve given something like 12 hours of evidence at over 10 hearings since the election. We’ve submitted an untold number of submissions—43,000 words. At the election itself we made ourselves available for 400 media interviews, me included. We answered 4,000 media inquiries. Critically, one of those transparency measures was the 105,000 workers that we had who were members of the community, who were involved in every step of the process. Tens of thousands of party scrutineers were involved in that process. There was the fact that all the results were put online.  I know you know this, because you and I have spoken about this previously, but it’s always useful to remind citizens that there are so many transparency and integrity measures that underpin a really robust framework. Australian citizens should be rightly proud that we’ve got one of the most accessible electoral systems in the world, one of the most high-integrity systems and one of the most transparent. We’re very proud of that. A lot of that is due to the work of committees like this, with the legislation that buttresses the electoral system, but a lot of it also is the work of bureaucrats and members of the AEC over many, many electoral cycles, who have produced such outstanding results.  I know that you, as a member of parliament, won’t mind me saying that, because you’re aware of just how important it is that citizens do have confidence in the processes that exist. I know from time to time you ask these sorts of questions, but it’s important for me to respond that way so people understand that what we do is produce one of the world’s best electoral systems. Citizens should have great confidence in the outcomes of that process.

Senator Roberts: Thanks to your answers in past Senate estimates and our own research, on many of the questions that have been submitted to us—and we’ve had a number of topics covered—we can reassure people, which is important. There are some where we have not been able to reassure. The last election raised several issues that, bit by bit, have been resolved. The fact that we still get complaints, despite all the work you’ve done to publicise, shows how deeply entrenched that feeling is in the community.

Mr Rogers: Senator, it’s interesting—and I’m sorry for taking up your time here, but it’s worthwhile talking about that—that some of those many, many complaints, like things that we get, are not in any way tethered to the reality of the legislation or election delivery. We’re still getting stuff where people are telling us that we’re using Dominion voting machines. I’m sorry, I—

Senator Roberts: That’s an easy one.

Mr Rogers: But do you know what I mean?

Senator Roberts: I understand.

Mr Rogers: You’re talking about many complaints. If we get 10,000 people telling us we’re using Dominion voting machines, it’s irrelevant.

Senator Roberts: Yes.

Mr Rogers: That’s why it’s important for me to make those statements I made that we really do have one of the world’s best electoral systems and I’m very proud of the work that all of our staff have done. I know you’ll know this, but, every day in Australia, AEC staff do great work. We’re running close to, I think, 1,000 industrial elections of one sort or another a year. We’ve got 100,000 schoolkids most years pumping through the Electoral Education Centre here in Canberra. We’re looking after the roll. We’re working with our state colleagues. Every day, AEC staff are making a contribution to electoral integrity in Australia. It’s so important. I’m so proud of the team that support that outcome, and it’s important for the community to know that as well.

Chair: You do have to identify issues that affect the integrity of an election and respond accordingly, don’t you?

Mr Rogers: Absolutely, which is what we do on a very regular basis. Let me do another shout-out—it’s not just us; we’re supported by a range of other agencies who also assist with that matter of electoral integrity. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to say that, Senator. It’s just important for the community to understand that.

Chair: Can you think of an example, in 2013, when such an event happened?

Mr Rogers: Events like that are like a crucible, and they enable us to come out even better from the process, which is what we’ve done. It was an unfortunate circumstance in 2013. We went through a whole period afterwards analysing what we’ve done. Where we are today is significantly more advanced from that process as a result of—

Chair: As someone who lost their seat in that era, event or whatever you would call it, I express my confidence in the current processes. Thank you for your evidence today.

PART 2

Senator Roberts: The remaining questions go mostly to how ballots are moved. The movement of ballot papers continues to be something that constituents ask my office about a lot. The Australian Electoral Commission moves ballots from prepolls to regional counting centres as required to facilitate counting. Is that correct?

Mr Rogers: That’s correct.

Senator Roberts: The movement is done by AEC staff in private cars—their own cars, presumably. The ballot boxes are sealed and there is a movement log to control the process. Is that correct?

Mr Rogers: That’s correct. And each of the ballot boxes is sealed in the polling place in the presence of scrutineers. The seal numbers are recorded. So, that’s a tracked process.

Senator Roberts: Having scrutineered, I can verify that—for the actual location, not the movement. Can I have a sample of a movement log, please, with personal identifying information redacted?

Mr Rogers: No, Senator. The time for the asking of those questions was in the 40-day period after the conclusion of the election, where those records are retained and opened for people to examine. But in terms of movement logs, they are certifications that are, to provide a chain of custody, signed by the officers at each point of the process. It is inherently personal, with their names, signatures, and other issues, so I won’t provide that.

Senator Roberts: Okay. I accept that. Does the log have the time that the staff member left the prepoll location and the time the ballots were signed into the regional counting centre?

Mr Rogers: I’m not sure—possibly.

Senator Roberts: There is a possibility that they could be left in the car overnight in the driveway, for example?

Mr Rogers: No. The material is returned.

Senator Roberts: Yes, but what’s the time elapsed from when it’s removed, picked up, and when it’s deposited?

Mr Rogers: They leave the polling place and then go back to the outposted centre for the material to be collated and checked in.

Senator Roberts: Directly?

Mr Rogers: Directly.

Senator Roberts: Do you require staff who are transporting ballots to travel from point to point, so they’re required to go straight from the prepoll to the regional polling centre?

Mr Rogers: That’s generally the assumption.

Senator Roberts: It’s an assumption. Do you require that?

Ms Gleeson: As you can imagine, there are hundreds of thousands of logistics routes that ballot papers travel during the course of an event, and each movement of ballot papers is planned and is signed off by the appropriate supervisor at the AEC.

Senator Roberts: The actual route used?

Ms Gleeson: Yes. We do route planning, and there are exception processes if there’s—

Senator Roberts: A flood?

Ms Gleeson: a long route to be travelled and a documented reason as to why a long route needs to be travelled. Our documentation supports that and is appropriately signed off, but there are a number of permutations that the movement may take, depending on the complex logistics that the ballot papers have to travel.

Senator Roberts: Could concerns about the integrity of these ballots running around in private cars be alleviated by using secure point-to-point couriers equipped with GPS, as couriers are these days?

Mr Pope: I don’t think there’d be enough trucks in Australia—I’m serious.

Mr Rogers: We’re talking about 8,000 polling places. We’ve already got 105,000 staff. Quite often these movements occur late in the evening. Effectively, that’s a process that’s used not only at federal elections but also at state elections and has been used for 120 years without any mishaps. So, I’m very confident in the processes we’ve got in place.

Senator Roberts: So, it’s not a matter of cost, because the minister’s just allocated $364 million for a referendum. It’s about logistics.

Mr Rogers: It would be a huge matter of cost, let alone of whether there is actually that number of trucks available at that time in Australia in those locations to do it.

Senator Roberts: That’s what Mr—Price, is it?—said.

Mr Rogers: Pope.

Mr Pope: Pope.

Senator Roberts: Pope—sorry. Have you personally examined the seal the AEC uses to seal the ballot box? Have you tried to open it without detection and generally assured yourself that it’s fit for purpose?

Mr Rogers: As it happens, I have.

Senator Roberts: Good.

Mr Rogers: I’m very happy with those seals, and I’m very happy with the process that we have in place.

Senator Roberts: Can I have one to examine?

Mr Rogers: Sure.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Maybe that’s a perfect video topic for you to quell any lack of confidence.  For clarity, please: videos showing the movement of ballot boxes posted online appear to show four seals on a ballot box. Is that correct?

Mr Rogers: I haven’t seen the video that you’re talking about, Senator.

Ms Gleeson: We have a range of types of ballot box, Senator. It depends on which one you’re referring to.

Senator Roberts: Okay. Each of the seals has a unique number?

Ms Gleeson: Correct.

Senator Roberts: All seals are accounted for at the end of the count?

Mr Rogers: They’re accounted for in the process of movement. They’re recorded at the point of departure.  They’re recorded at the point of arrival. So, in that sense, they’re accounted for.

Senator Roberts: Were any missing in the 2022 federal election, and were any duplicate seals, fake seals or boxes with broken seals detected?

Mr Rogers: No, absolutely not.

Senator Roberts: Do you do a reconciliation on ballot papers printed and ballot papers accounted for at the end of the process?

Mr Rogers: Yes, we do.

Senator Roberts: What was the figure in May ’22 for unders or overs? Zero would be impossible, of course; we understand the logistics effort. There had to be some variance. What is that variance?

Ms Gleeson: Could you clarify what you mean by ‘unders’ and ‘overs’, please, Senator.

Senator Roberts: Well, comparing ballot papers printed and ballot papers accounted for, sometimes one would be higher than the other. So what is that variance?

Ms Gleeson: We don’t have that to hand.

Senator Roberts: No, you wouldn’t have it here.

Mr Rogers: Let me take that on notice, Senator.

Senator Roberts: That’s fine. Thank you. Are watermarks on a ballot paper a feasible security option?

Ms Gleeson: Our ballot papers are watermarked, Senator.

Senator Roberts: Okay. That shows you I don’t pay much attention! Close enough!

Ms Gleeson: It’s deliberately difficult to detect, perhaps, but very obvious to electoral administrators.

Senator Roberts: This is just a matter of curiosity: are you examining online voting? I know some university academics have a system for secure online voting using blockchain technology. Minister or Mr Rogers?

Mr Rogers: Well, Senator, it’s a very interesting question, but, if you wanted a very short answer, the answer would be no. For us, paper based voting has a number of security aspects that are almost impossible to replicate online. But I guess there is a point at which, at some point in the future, supply of paper and printing is going to be an issue for Australia in the sort of quantities that we’re talking about. We’re not there yet, but, at a point, that will need to be looked at. But, just to be very clear, we’re not examining any online or electronic voting system for use in any federal election, referendum or by-election.

Senator Roberts: I’m with you. I like the paper system. It’s very hard to corrupt, because there are always people around. Will you be using scanning to count the referendum, or a manual count?

Mr Rogers: A manual count.

Senator Roberts: That’s why the cost is so high—$364 million.

Mr Rogers: Handcrafted.

Senator Roberts: Sorry?

Mr Rogers: Handcrafted.

Senator Roberts: Ha, ha! And how will scrutineers be picked? It’s not a matter of parties having scrutineers they can put them forward but some people loosely on a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ campaign. How will you select scrutineers?

Mr Rogers: The legislation is slightly different for the appointment of scrutineers at a referendum. It can be through the registered officers of political parties, but the state governors and the Governor-General can also appoint scrutineers. That’s pretty much the process, I think.

Mr Pope: The state governors and the Governor-General can appoint an authorised person who can appoint those scrutineers on their behalf.  But, just to be precise around your question, it’s got nothing to do with us. It’s not our appointment.

Senator Roberts: I know. That’s what I’m getting at: who does it? I didn’t think you’d be appointing them.

Mr Pope: Oh, I thought you said, ‘How are you appointing scrutineers?’

Senator Roberts: I’m sorry. I meant: how will you allow scrutineers in?

Mr Rogers: Again, the registered officers of registered political parties, state governors and the Governor-General.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

/12 Comments/by

“Voice running costs? Don’t you worry about that.”

,

Senate Estimates exposed the billion-dollar costs given to indigenous agencies and the unlimited costs required to run the Voice if the Voice is agreed to at the Referendum.

An open cheque book will be required from the taxpayer to fund thousands of jobs and a brand new bureaucracy for the Aboriginal industry to exploit at tax payer expense.

There has been no detail provided as to how the Voice would work if it gets up. The government approach is one of “Don’t you worry about that. We are the government and we are here to help you.”

Click Here for Transcript | Part 1

Chair: I understand Senator Roberts has some questions for the NIAA, so I give the call to you, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing today. What are the total dollar costs to the taxpayer of holding the proposed Voice referendum?

Dr Gordon: Thank you for the question. In the 2023-24 budget, the government provided $364.6 million over the three years from 2022-23. That included $336.6 million over two years for the AEC to deliver the referendum; $10.6 million to produce information pamphlets for the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ cases; $12 million over two years to deliver a civics education program on the referendum, the Constitution and the referendum proposal; $10.5 million in 2023-24 for the Department of Health and Aged Care to increase mental health supports for First Nations people during the period of the referendum; and $5.5 million in 2023-24 to the NIAA to maintain existing resourcing levels to support the referendum. Those measures build on measures from the budget in October last year, and those measures were $50.2 million to the AEC to commence preparations for the referendum, $6.5 million over two years to NIAA to support the referendum and $2.4 million to the Department of Finance and the Attorney-General’s Department.

Senator Roberts: That totals $364 million?

Dr Gordon: It’s $364 million in 2023-24 plus those figures from the October budget last year.

Senator Roberts: What is the $10.5 million to be spent on mental health for?

Ms Guivarra: I think we’ve got colleagues from the department of health in the room next door. We might just get them to come in so they can provide more detail on that.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

Senator McCarthy:I’d just note, too, there was a follow-up question from Senator Stewart around the mental health as well.

Mr Matthews: I missed the question. I think the question was to understand a little bit more about the $10½ million for mental health support for the referendum. Is that the question?

Senator Roberts: That’s correct.

Senator Stewart: We both asked it.

Mr Matthews: You both asked the same question? That’s good. I’m just clarifying that I’ve got the frame of the answer right. The budget does provide $10½ million in support for mental health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the referendum. That’s in recognition that the referendum process may have an impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and cause levels of concern around the debate that plays out publicly in that. So it is to provide additional supports and places that they can go. The measure will basically provide funding through to the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, who will coordinate the use of that funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to reach in. It will provide a range of supports for people. That will be co-designed very heavily with NACCHO and other mental health experts into the design and delivery of that funding. There is also half a million dollars in there for a process to monitor and evaluate that process.

Senator Roberts: So $10 million is for mental health assistance and half a million dollars is for monitoring that assistance?

Mr Matthews: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Are there any expected mental health issues?

Mr Matthews: There’s obviously wide research over time about the impacts of racism on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the impact that that has on their mental health and wellbeing and, indeed, their broader health outcomes. That is a known phenomenon. I think there is also a range of literature and lived experience that, when there are a range of public discussions around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs or things that are sensitive around that, that can bring up issues for people and make things difficult for that. So it’s to ensure that there is support for that.  Part of this also leverages back to the experience of the same-sex marriage debate. I think the learned experience out of that is that that also did raise issues for many people in the affected communities for that that were looking for increased support through that process. So it’s looking at what happened in that experience, and this is really framed to respond to that experience and ensure that, upfront, we’ve got supports in place and are expanding on it. It also builds on the existing mental health effort—that’s probably the other bit that I should add in. It’s not a standalone thing. The government invests probably about $1½ billion per year on mental health funding overall. That’s for mainstream and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There are, obviously, specific things within that funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health generally but also the mainstream population. This would put a specific support over and above that for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but obviously the vast weight of that money is also for—

Senator Roberts: What do you mean by ‘the mainstream population’?

Mr Matthews: The broader Australia population, so anybody can access it.

Senator Roberts: Can you confirm the total sum of $781.5 million was allocated to the NIAA in the October 2022-23 budget, building on $1 billion and $21.9 million previously announced? That’s a lot of money.  The figures are taken from the budget papers. Is that correct?

Ms Guivarra: We have our CFO online. Nick, do you want to confirm those for the senator, please?

Mr Creagh: Sorry. Could you repeat that question, Senator?

Senator Roberts:Can you confirm the total sum of $781.5 million was assigned to the NIAA in the October 2022-23 budget, building on $1 billion and $21.9 million previously announced?

Mr Creagh: Senator, I will have you shortly. I just have to quickly draw on the October portfolio budget statements. It might be best if you go to the next question, and then I will come back to you when I’ve got the answer for you.

Senator Roberts: Okay. Does the role of the NIAA, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, already include raising to government issues that are specific to the needs of the four per cent of the population of Australia who are Indigenous?

Ms Broun: Thank you for that question. The NIAA has a broad role working, leading and influencing right across government and leading a couple of important pieces of work like Closing the Gap, so we do have that role, but we are also a deliverer of programs to First Nations people right across the country. That is a role that we take quite seriously—that leading, influencing and working in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—but we are a government agency.

Senator Roberts: So will the NIAA still be relevant if the Voice proceeds?

Ms Broun: I think that there’s a lot of work to be done before that question can be answered, and we don’t have a position on it at the moment.

Senator McCarthy: The response is yes, Senator.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Should the ‘yes’ vote in the coming referendum be successful, please tell us what the set-up costs of the Voice are estimated to be and what the yearly running costs of the Voice would be.

Ms Guivarra: Of course, the work to date has been in establishing design principles for a Voice. That is the work of the Referendum Working Group. In terms of how the Voice will function, a lot of that obviously will happen through a consultation process that will be conducted post referendum in finalising the design, and of course that design would be considered by parliament. So ultimately some of those features that you’re describing will be things that parliament will need to consider.

Senator Roberts: So we don’t know the cost, really.

Mr Matthews: At this stage, no.

Senator Roberts: There would be many costs involved. There are the direct costs and then the indirect costs in terms of another entity being put in place in the legislative process, for example.

Ms Guivarra: I think it would just be a bit speculative at this stage to try and predict what the costs associated with the administration of a Voice might be. As I said, there are design principles, so we know some of the elements of how the Voice may function, but, indeed, many of the things around the specifics of the design will be things that would be considered through a consultation process with the broader Australian community and be settled with parliament involved as well.

Senator Roberts: Yes. Minister, it leaves me concerned because, the way this parliament works, it doesn’t work on data when it makes policies and legislation. To have an open-ended script or a blank cheque doesn’t seem the right way to go. I have some questions for you, representing the Prime Minister. Why are these costs of running the Voice being held back from Australian voters?

Senator McCarthy: Senator Roberts, there’s nothing being held back. We’ve been as open and transparent as we can be in terms of our steps towards the campaign and in terms of the referendum itself. We’ve certainly been open and transparent about the costs that are associated with running a referendum, the costs associated with running a civics education campaign and the costs, of course, of the actual referendum itself, right across the country. We’ve also been very clear that, should the campaign and the referendum be successful, the debate has to occur within the parliament, and that will take whatever the next 12 months will be post the referendum. We’re also incredibly mindful that this is a challenge. It will be up to the Australian people to determine whether they’ve got enough information as we lead into the campaign proper. We still have to debate the constitution alteration bill that’s before the House at the moment. We still have to debate it in the Senate. We still have some work to do just here in the parliament.

Senator Roberts: So there’s a lot of uncertainty?

Senator McCarthy: There’s always uncertainty about any referendum.

Senator Roberts: Especially when the proposal is not clearly defined.

Senator McCarthy: The debate hasn’t concluded in the Australian parliament yet.

Senator Roberts: While people are tightening their belts during this period of out-of-control costs, with savage inflation biting and huge cost-of-living increases, how can Australians afford this expensive exercise of destroying the Australian parliamentary system of democracy that has worked so well to date?

Senator McCarthy: I totally disagree with your concept that any debate that we are having right now is destroying anything. It’s enabling our country to have the democratic conversation that we should.

Senator Roberts: I agree with you: debates are always wonderful and very useful—if they’re done openly, and that’s my concern.

Senator McCarthy: It’s before the House at the moment. It comes to the Senate. There is nothing that has not been brought before the parliament in terms of the bills. This is where we have the open debates.

Senator Roberts: I’m talking about the definition of what the Voice would, will like, how it will operate, what the systems will be, where it will impact—

Senator McCarthy: Those principles and the design principles are very clear. You may not accept them or like them, but they are very transparent and open for everyone to see.

Senator Roberts: It’s not matter of whether I like them or not. It’s a matter of definition—

Senator McCarthy: It clearly must be, because you keep referring to the fact that there’s nothing out there, when it is out there, in terms of the design principles. We’ve said that on numerous occasions here in this estimates process. It is there on the website. It is there in the information for the public to access.

Senator Roberts: Do you think the Australian voters will support a ‘yes’ vote if they know how much this will cost them in taxes to pay for it? It will cost a lot of money to put in additional bureaucracy.

Senator McCarthy: Any referendum in this country is very difficult to win. Forty-four have been held. Only eight have been won. We acknowledge that this is a challenge and that the Australian people will determine the outcome.

Senator Roberts: This is an open cheque written on behalf of the Australian taxpayers. There are so many things that are undefined. The direct costs of running the Voice, if it gets up, and then the indirect costs and the impact on so many operations in this country are huge.

Senator McCarthy: The process is not concluded. The bill is before the parliament in the House and yet to be debated in the Senate. We have not concluded the process of the parliament and therefore, when we do, there will be many things that the Australian people can make their decisions on.

Senator Roberts: Why isn’t the government talking about the indirect and direct costs of running the Voice if it gets in?

Senator McCarthy: You’ve seen the total already. We’ve been talking about the figures, which—

Senator Roberts: No, that’s the referendum.

Senator McCarthy: In terms of the referendum, but we’ve also looked at the costs of going forward with regional voices. These are things that we are bringing forward in terms of our debate in the parliament. I think I’ve made that very clear.

Senator Roberts: The Labor Party or the government has not talked about the potential negatives openly with the people: the frustration of parliamentary processes and the addition of a ninth chapter. We’ve only heard the benefits, and even those have been very vague. This doesn’t give people confidence.

Senator McCarthy: Only time will see on that front.

Senator Roberts: What will be the other costs to voters from the slowing down of government, bogged down with court proceedings and increased bureaucracy?

Senator McCarthy: As we’ve heard from legal experts across the country, that will not be the case.

Senator Roberts: How many new jobs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will be created by the Voice?

Senator McCarthy: This will be an opportunity for First Nations people in every state and territory jurisdiction to be able to speak to the parliament and the executive, should we be successful at this referendum, which will also mean that local and regional voices will also be established. In terms of particular jobs right now, our focus is on jobs across the CDP sector; and the health sector, in terms of the 500 health positions that we want to roll out. These are connected in terms of where we want to lift the problems that we encounter right across the country.

Chair: Senator Roberts, you’ve had a good 15 minutes now.

Senator Roberts: Last one?

Chair: Great. Then I will give the call to Senator Steele-John, and then we are back over to this side.

Senator Roberts: How many new bureaucratic officers will need to be found and what will be the salaries of the thousands of new positions created to service the Voice?

Senator McCarthy: I’d certainly like to think that our First Nations regions, in terms of the Voice should it be successful, will need the capability of a secretariat of sorts to assist them in terms of defining specifically what that will be. Clearly we have to see what happens with the outcome of the referendum and our debate post that.

Senator Roberts: Sticking to that point about the bureaucracy: having travelled to all of the communities on Cape York—mixed communities and Aboriginal communities—they’re very concerned, frustrated and sometimes angry about the lack of impact of the funds that we give them on the ground. They see that the bureaucracy, whether that be black people or white people, it doesn’t matter; the bureaucrats, the lawyers, the activists, the politicians—people are frustrated. They want real change, not more bureaucracy.

Senator McCarthy: Nowhere is that more clear than for those of us who’ve only just come into government in the last 12 months. We understand that, and that’s why we’re trying to create the changes that we see will give our country hope going forward.

Senator Roberts: But you’re adding more layers of bureaucracy.

Senator McCarthy: We’re giving hope.

Senator Roberts: Thank you, Chair.

Click Here for Transcript | Part 2

Chair: Senator Roberts, you now have the call.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Continuing our discussion, Minister, on ATSIC’s failure. It was a dismal failure, and it showed money without accountability is no substitute for truth. We see Aboriginal women like Senator Liddle and Senator Nampijinpa Price talking about the real issues affecting Aboriginal communities and Aboriginals across Australia, and they’ve won huge admiration across all sectors of Australia’s population.  Wouldn’t an open discussion be far more productive than spending and wasting billions more dollars? We have to get the truth.

Senator McCarthy: Senator, I just want to pick up on the lead-in to your question, about ATSIC. I think that everyone has a distorted view of ATSIC, and I can certainly reflect on the ATSIC that we had in the north, with Garrak-Jarru and regional councils. They were certainly not a problem for our organisations across most of Australia. The incident around the particular chair at the time, and others, was seen in a different view, and there has since been political commentary, even by the Liberal-Nationals, in relation to that previous Indigenous affairs minister and ministers who could have handled that very differently. So I do want to pick up on that; it is wrong to use that as the example for why we should not embark on a referendum.

Senator Roberts: You didn’t answer my question, Minister. I said that an honest debate with truth would be far better than another bureaucratic body without accountability.

Senator McCarthy: I did actually answer your question previously today when I said that we have been transparent in every way. We have brought to the parliament, from the very first night we won government, that we were maintaining the promise we took to the Australian people that was qualified in us winning government.  We have then proceeded with a working group, an engagement group, and we’ve certainly continued with the principles of the design around the referendum, which are on the website for all Australians to see. We’ve had debates in the parliament over the referendum bill, which have been open and transparent. And we currently have the constitutional alteration bill before the House, yet to come to the Senate. All of this is open and transparent, as it should be.

Senator Roberts: I’m talking about a debate on what the Aboriginal people need and what Australians need.

Senator McCarthy: This is the debate of the parliament, and every single member of the parliament is able to bring their reflections and their views in terms of the people they represent.

Senator Roberts: I’m not talking about a debate on the Voice. That is going ahead. I’m talking about a debate on the issues affecting Aboriginal people and why their needs are not being met. I acknowledge that they’re not being met, and I’d say it’s largely because of the Aboriginal industry. That’s not a slight on the Aboriginals; that’s a tarring of black and white consultants—

Senator McCarthy: It is a slight. You’ve used the word ‘industry’—Aboriginal industry. Straightaway, you’ve put First Nations people in the negative.

Senator Roberts: You cut me off.

Senator McCarthy: You need to be mindful of your words. Words can be weaponised.

Senator Roberts: That was very cleverly done. I was about to explain what the Aboriginal industry is. It’s white and black consultants, activists, politicians and bureaucrats who seek power and manipulate power. That is not looking after the Aboriginal people; that is hindering.

Chair: It’s the same industry we have here in parliament, Senator Roberts, and we all belong to it. I don’t think races have particular industries, unless we’re all part of one here.

Senator Roberts: That’s correct.

Chair: Senator Roberts, do you have a question?

Senator Roberts: Yes, I do. Wouldn’t it be better to have a truthful debate about the real issues—not about the Voice but about the real issues affecting and holding back Aboriginal communities?

Senator McCarthy: Can I ask you what contribution you’ve made to the Close the Gap debate when we have that every year in February?

Senator Roberts: I have proudly called out the Close the Gap initiative because I’ve listened to people across Cape York and people in the Torres Strait Islands, and they have told me that Close the Gap only perpetuates the gap because of the Aboriginal industry. We need to get to the issues—

Senator McCarthy: Doesn’t that answer your question, then? That is the time that we debate all of these issues that you’re raising. Don’t you think you’ve just answered your own question?

Senator Roberts: No, I do not.

Senator McCarthy: The reason why we have Close the Gap debates every February—prior to that it was every October because the previous government changed it for a couple of years; we brought it back to February—is that it reflects back to the stolen generations apology from the Prime Minister at the time, Kevin Rudd. As a result of that, we began Close the Gap so that the parliament, every single year, would know about the treatment of First Nations people and the spending of monies to First Nations people, and we would debate it in a respectful way. That happens every year.

Senator Roberts: I’m ashamed of the way the current Prime Minister and previous opposition leader and the current opposition leader have discussed the gap. It’s just a farce. It’s a sugar coating and a veneer. What I’m talking about is an open and honest debate about the real issues, as Senators Nampijinpa Price and Kerrynne Liddle have discussed at length widely around the country, and as Senator Pauline Hanson has discussed widely around the country. That’s what I’m talking about—a real debate.

Senator McCarthy: Are you saying that the Close the Gap debate is not real?

Senator Roberts: Criticism is not racist.

Senator McCarthy: That is the opportunity. This is what I’m pointing out. You’re putting your questions as though we don’t talk about it at all in the parliament—when we do. We have a specific time when we do it. We also have time, as you know, through the Senate processes: through motions and through private senators’ bills.  They are thoroughly discussed and debated in a very open way. I’m not too sure where you’re going with this when we already discuss it. It doesn’t mean that we’re pleased with the outcomes. Certainly, I would agree with you on that.

Chair: We have time for one more question and one answer, and then we’ll break for afternoon tea. Thank you.

Senator Roberts: We are not discussing this openly and honestly. It’s about labels, veneers and pretence.  What we’ve got in this country, through this kind of discussion—a charade around an insincere closing the gap—is an ‘us versus them’ situation, which will be exacerbated by the Voice.

Chair: Senator Roberts, where is your question? These are statements. These are debating points for the parliament.

Senator McCarthy: I disagree with you completely, Senator Roberts. You are in a position of power. You are in such a position of power as a member of this parliament. For you to say that it does not get discussed and debated is really quite appalling.

Senator Roberts: It wasn’t discussed until these two women entered the parliament.

Chair: Senator Roberts, you don’t have the call. Minister, have you finished your answer to Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: I haven’t got my question out yet. Isn’t the Voice based on race?

Chair: You are raising debating points, not clear questions.

Senator Roberts: I haven’t finished my question.

Chair: I did say we were about to break for afternoon tea.

Senator Roberts: The Voice is based on a racist proposal.

Senator McCarthy: You’re wrong. You’re totally wrong.

Chair: It seems you’re trying to invoke a debate about this question. On that basis, we will temporarily suspend for afternoon tea.

/8 Comments/by

Snowy 2.0 continues to throw good money after bad

,

I questioned the Snowy Hydro Authority on the Snowy 2.0 project at Senate Estimates.

Snowy 2.0 is a ‘big battery’ that pumps water from the Talbingo Reservoir up to the Tantangara Reservoir during the day when there is excess wind and solar electricity, then lets the water down during the evening peak to generate electricity when the sun isn’t shining and wind isn’t blowing.

If this sounds like we are planning on generating electricity twice to use it once, that is exactly what pumped hydro does.

The original cost of $2 billion is now out to $5.9 billion and likely to go over $10 billion. In addition, the transmission lines to bring the power into the grid will gouge out national parks and farmland, and cost another $10 billion. And their main boring machine has been bogged for more than a year.

I asked if this project is worth continuing.

The lack of detail around how much the power will cost electricity customers is frightening.

Listen to the answers. It sounds like the Snowy Authority is planning to profiteer by having the only power available when solar and wind are not generating enough power.

All I can say is be worried – this Government is actively planning massive increases in power bills.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing again today. Florence is now acknowledged to be bogged. When will it be unbogged?

Mr Barnes: I expect in weeks, not months. As soon as the slurry plant is operating, we’ll push forward, obviously in close consultation with our colleagues at DPIE and Parks, but we expect it to be relatively soon.

Senator Roberts: I empathise with you, having managed underground projects, some quite large—not as large as this one. There is a lot of uncertainty, and it’s hard telling people who are looking on how to think about this. It’s very difficult to describe.

Mr Barnes: You’ve got to see it to believe it.

Senator Roberts: That’s right. We’ve got journalists—admittedly journalists—now saying it’s time to cut our losses on Snowy 2.0. If the project is completed and all the high-voltage transmission lines are built across farmyards and national parks, there must be a calculation that takes the capital cost of the project as a whole and divides that by the life of the project to get a figure for how much the annual amortisation charge for the capital costs will be. Do you have the latest projection, please?

Mr Barnes: There was quite a lot in your question. Obviously we haven’t got an updated cost here, and we’ll provide that in months. We don’t have the cost of transmission, so I wouldn’t be able to provide that. I fully expect, through our corporate plan process, we’ll assess the returns from Snowy 2.0, and, if anything, the commercial case for it has got stronger since FID.

Senator Roberts: Sorry?

Mr Barnes: The commercial case for it has gotten stronger since the financial investment decision.

Senator Roberts: There were many factors that drove that commercial decision in the first place. Well, it wasn’t commercial, from what we understand, because there was no cost-benefit analysis, and the business case was redacted heavily, under Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership. This annual amortisation charge, which you can’t provide, is combined with annual costs like labour and maintenance to calculate what the real cost per megawatt hour will be once the project starts. You wouldn’t have the projected cost per megawatt hour either then?

Mr Barnes: That’s correct, but to think about Snowy 2.0 in megawatt hours is perhaps not the right way to think about it.

Senator Roberts: It’s a battery.

Mr Barnes: Yes, but it’s the provision of dispatchable demand over very long storage duration that allows lots of variable renewable electricity to be delivered. So we look at the business case in a much more fulsome way across the whole Snowy business. For example, over the past few years, we’ve procured 1,500 megawatts of solar and wind PPAs to enable the transition, which assets like Snowy 2.0 support. I think you’ve got to look at a whole-of-business business case, and the simple amortisation plus labour is, perhaps, too simplistic a way to consider the business case.

Senator Roberts: Now you’ve got me really worried. It’s not your responsibility with the solar and wind, but now I’m terrified of it. Your website lists the levelised cost of storage at between $25 and $35 per megawatt hour. On 340,000 megawatt hours each year, this suggests an annual cost of $11 million, including operating costs, maintenance, capital costs and the cost of buying the electricity to pump the water uphill. Is the $25 to $35 figure still accurate and, if not, what is the new figure?

Mr Barnes: I’ve not got a calculator that capable in my head, but I think there might be a multiplying factor out on those numbers. The levelised cost of storage I think we have on our website is sourced from international studies and our view of levelised cost of storage. I don’t have the updated figure in my head at the moment.

Senator Roberts: Our staff team did some calculations. Now, admittedly, we don’t have all the costs, but it just seems ridiculously low. When we pile on these extra costs of the delay, we’re wondering about what will happen.

Mr Barnes: Just to be clear, the levelised cost of storage is what one would add to variable renewable electricity to provide a firm product. Also, the 340,000 megawatt hours of storage is not deployed over a year. It will be deployed multiple times through the year, depending on the market dynamics.

Senator Roberts: It seems to us that the capital cost is becoming a huge stumbling block. Even if you take just the cost of the project, at $6 billion—and there are serious doubts about that now—and amortise those across 50 years, the annual capital charge will be $120 million, and double that if you add the pole and the wires. That puts the cost of your electricity at over $700 per megawatt per hour, including the poles and wires. The current spot price for last weekend—admittedly the weekend was cold down here—for last weekend was $150 per megawatt hour. Is there something we’re missing?

Mr Barnes: We’ll certainly do a full financial review of the project when the increased costs are known. But I think you’re mischaracterising the nature of the asset in that it isn’t an energy provider. It’s an insurance provider for when the wind isn’t blowing, the sun isn’t shining or there is plant failure elsewhere. So we don’t sell it as a baseload energy price, which is what you’re referencing.

Senator Roberts: Hasn’t it been touted as a peak period source of electricity?

Mr Barnes: The two major sources of revenue will be the difference between the price we pump the water up to Tantangara, which will soak up demand from solar and wind when it’s not required, and the price at which we sell it in peak periods when solar and wind aren’t available or other plants are not available. So it’s an asset about being there when everything else isn’t. It isn’t sold on an energy basis, which are the reference prices you’re quoting.

Senator Roberts: Okay. But the projected cost must be the single most important KPI of this project.

Mr Barnes: Cost and schedule are my most important KPIs. The reason we came out with the schedule is that there are many stakeholders interested in the schedule, and we’ll work through the cost and associated business plans around that.

Senator Roberts: There seems to be a real risk, though. I acknowledge your point that we can’t just charge per kilowatt hour—or we can’t just recognise a per kilowatt hour figure. But there seems to be the real possibility that the price of electricity generated, recovered and stored will be massive, even without government subsidies coming in year after year.

Ms Barnes: I think that’s for others to comment on. My focus is on getting the project at schedule and cost and making a business case for it, which I think is very strong. There are many other factors which will determine the price of electricity.

Senator Roberts: Minister, can you provide on notice the current projected cost per megawatt hour of electricity generated by Snowy 2.0 on the first year of operation, please?

Senator McAllister: Senator, I will take that on notice. I would also direct you to the evidence given to you already by Mr Barnes in relation both to the variability in the electricity market that Snowy will participate in but also—

Senator Roberts: A lot of variability means uncertainty.

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I think that Mr Barnes has given an indication that he thinks it’s a strong business case and they’re presently working through it. I have taken your question on notice.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. This had nothing to do with your government, but right from the start of this project, Malcolm Turnbull’s government refused access to the cost-benefit analysis and heavily redacted the business case. There have been lots of questions about this project right from the start and now there are even more questions—and I don’t blame Mr Barnes for that.

Mr Barnes: My interest is running a commercially viable and efficient company, and that’s what I’ve done all of my career. The reason I joined Snowy was to get the opportunity to deliver Snowy 2, because I think it’s an incredibly important asset to the energy transition. I fully expect it to be very commercial. We’re trying to deal with the hardest part of the transition, which is providing deep storage to enable more renewables. So I expect it to be a very commercial business.

Senator Roberts: Can I confirm media reports that Snowy Hydro was found in a third independent audit last year to be noncompliant on environmental plans in 15 instances and that you have at last 10 management plans overdue?

Mr Barnes: I think, Senator, that you’re maybe referring to a National Parks Association report that was released last Thursday, without consultation with Snowy Hydro. We are currently operating under all of our construction approvals. So there are no breaches there. The plans and requirements as a result of the construction and operation of Snowy 2 obviously changed in nature over time. There are some that are relevant to construction, and we’re fully compliant with those. There are some that are relevant to operation and some that are relevant to rehabilitation. We work closely with all of the agencies to make sure that they’re reviewed and consulted on in every thorough way. I think there’s been a misunderstanding of some of the dates on various websites. So I have reached out to the National Parks Association to help them understand how it operates.

Senator Roberts: So it’s a misunderstanding that 10 of the 16 management plans for multibillion-dollar pumped hydro projects are overdue by 31 months, as reported in the media, citing the National Parks Association? So you think they’ve got it wrong somewhere?

Mr Barnes: The plans that are being referred to are prepared by Snowy and they are reviewed by various agencies. In consultation with the agencies, some of the dates that were originally envisaged are not being met and, therefore, are phases of the project which are way into the future. One of the things that may be useful for us to do is to work with the various agencies to make that understanding of how this process works. I would have happily taken the National Parks Association through that process.

Senator Roberts: Okay; so they jumped the gun?

Mr Barnes: They didn’t consult with Snowy Hydro before releasing it to the media.

Senator Roberts: Can I go to your opening statement? You recently announced a one- to two-year delay.  That’s a heck of a range, 100 per cent—from minimum to major.

Mr Barnes: It’s a project that’s being constructed over more than one to two years. It’s been in construction a few years. I think it was appropriate to give a range until we do more work.

Senator Roberts: I appreciate your honesty. I am not questioning your honesty—and I appreciate that you have given us that figure. But, for the project, that’s a pretty big number. What was the original planned project duration?

Mr Barnes: It was before my time. Perhaps we’ll come back to you. We gave a notice to proceed in mid-2020 and power was expected in 2025-26.

Mr Whitby: First power was for 1 July 2025, from a notice to proceed from August 2020. So five years was the original—

Senator Roberts: So the delay is 20 per cent to 40 per cent?

Mr Barnes: That would be the simple maths.

Chair: Senator Roberts, I’ll get you to wind it up and share the call, if that’s okay?

Senator Roberts: Okay. You mentioned in your statement the combination of four factors. What are the four factors? I’ve been through your statement and I couldn’t see them.

Mr Barnes: In our advice to ministers and in our media release we identified the effects of COVID and bushfires on the mobilisation of the project, the effect of many global factors on the availability of skilled labour and also the costs of materials. There’s a lot of steel and concrete in the project. We’ve found that some elements of the design—as we’ve gone through the process of design—are, in some cases, more costly to complete. And finally, the site conditions, of which the Florence ground conditions are the most impactful, also includes things like additional eroding. They’re the four factors.

Senator Roberts: Good luck getting that machine out.

Mr Barnes: Thanks.

/5 Comments/by

Libraries peddling sexually explicit material to kids

,
I asked the Classification Board about giving the graphic novel “Gender Queer’ a rating of M. This rating is only a recommendation, allowing the book to be made available in Libraries and sold in bookstores to children of any age. This publication is a common choice for drag queen story time and similar events.

I do understand the position the Classification Board is in. The rating system for publications is limited and the next step up from M is R, which requires the publication to be sold in a plastic wrapper. If this was a video then an additional classification of MA15+ physically restricts the publication to people 15+.

Now that graphic novels are a thing again, it is time to review the ratings system to give the Classification Board more options, especially for graphic novels like this.

In the case of Gender Queer, the publication does foster debate in a way that will help some kids, however the author chose to add a layer of explicit sex and sexual talk that weakens the use as a serious discussion starter.

The threat of a restrictive rating may encourage publications that are reasoned and responsible rather than cynical and exploitative.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here today. I think these questions will probably go to Mr Sharp. I will leave that to you, Ms Jolly. My questions reference the book entitled Gender Queer: A Memoir. Are you familiar with it?

Ms Jolly: Yes, indeed.

Senator Roberts: Amazon lists this book as suitable for people only 18 years of age and over. The Classification Board has reviewed the book and given it a rating of M, which is a recommendation only. It is not legally binding. According to your website, ‘M’ is, and I quote: Unrestricted classification, meaning any child of any age can access the book with a recommendation that it not be made available to under-15s.  Is that correct?

Ms Jolly: That’s correct.

Senator Roberts: The material in Gender Queer: A Memoir is what we would have called a cartoon book; it has a fancy name these days.

Ms Jolly: Graphic novel.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. This is very graphic. It has full oral sex depiction between two people. Is my accurate representation of the classification of Gender Queer: A Memoir correct?

Ms Jolly: It’s what the classification board gave, yes. It is an unrestricted publication with a rating of M and consumer advice that it is not suitable for readers under 15 years of age. Yes, that’s correct.

Senator Roberts: Queensland commonly has a child’s library card for under-12s. It is probable a child under 12 years could view this in a public library but not borrow it. New South Wales has no such children’s card, so a child of any age could borrow this book. If a child even under 10 years, for the sake of argument, were to borrow this book and check it out using the automated checkout, with no adult supervision required, would the library have broken an actual law?

Ms Jolly: I’m not in a position to answer that.

Senator Roberts: This book is commonly read to children as part of a Drag Queen Story Hour event. If a drag queen chose to read this book to an audience of children, would that person have broken any law?

Ms Jolly: I can’t answer that question.

Senator Roberts: Minister, this is a matter of policy. The next step up from ‘M’ in your classification system for written works is ‘R’, which is restricted to sale in a sealed wrapper. I note that you have more options for video material but only limited options for classifications in written work. Is there nothing in between that for kids having exposure to this book and books only able to be sold in a sealed wrapper? Are you coming up with another classification, or will you, to protect children?

Senator Carol Brown: The classifications are as you outlined, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: It allows graphic material through that is not suitable for young children. Will you protect those children?

Senator Carol Brown: The book that you referenced, Gender Queer: A Memoir has consumer advice for children. It is not recommended for children under 15 years.

Senator Roberts: But children under 15 years old can still access it.

Senator Carol Brown: I’m not sure what you are saying to me about access in Queensland.

Senator Roberts: I will make it clear, Senator Brown. My intention is not to get this book banned. Adults can have a look at it. Will you introduce a new classification for graphic novels, as for videos, of 15-plus?

Senator Carol Brown: Well, I can say to you that I think the classification system that we have is robust. The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review board. I don’t see any need to introduce another step or another level.

Senator Roberts: How can you say that when I have said that this is a graphic book? It is a well and truly graphic novel. It is available to children under 15. They can get hold of it in libraries just like the previous book.

Senator Carol Brown: The advice is that it’s not recommended for readers under 15 years old.

Senator Roberts: That is probably an enticement for a 10-year-old or a 12-year-old. Can’t something be done about this?

Senator Carol Brown: I have responded, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms Jolly: I will go back to your question, Senator, about breaking any laws. The ‘M’ unrestricted classification, as I think you are trying to allude to, is not a legally enforceable classification.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for that follow-up. I appreciate that, Ms Jolly.

/8 Comments/by

ABC cops a grilling at Senate Estimates – data shows conservative attack

,

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation receives over $1 billion a year from taxpayers. I don’t believe we’re getting value for money. It is just being used as a platform for the left to tear down conservatives.

Let me know what you thought of the fact that they covered negative conservative news over 130 times compared to just 20 when it was about the left.

Click Here for Transcript | Part 1

Senator Roberts: I’d like to [inaudible] for a third set of questions that I have, so I’ll do that now rather than wait for it. Thank you for appearing here today. You’re dealing with accusations and a perception of bias from substantial parts of the community. I know you strongly deny any bias and say that the ABC is impartial.  One of the claims of bias is that ABC gives leniency to what is commonly termed left-leaning politicians—which, to me, is the control side of politics—and is more critical of conservative politicians. You’d obviously be aware that even Media Watch slammed the ABC’s coverage of an incident involving Senator Thorpe outside of a strip club, calling the ABC’s lack of coverage ‘pathetic’. Are you aware of Media Watch’s own criticism?

Mr Anderson: Yes.

Senator Roberts: I’d like to compare that to some of your other coverage. When there was a story critical of the New South Wales One Nation leader, Mark Latham, over a tweet, ABC mentioned the story 131 times, yet you only mentioned the Senator Thorpe incident 21 times. Just for comparison, the Nine Network covered the same incidents, mentioning Mark Latham’s incident 80 and Senator Thorpe’s incident 90 times. That’s fairly balanced. Here we have a conservative politician and a politician on the left who were, I would argue, involved in incidents of similar significance, yet you’ve mentioned the negative story about the conservative 131 times and the story of the left-leaning politician only 21 times. How can you maintain that there is no bias in the ABC in the face of those statistics?

Mr Anderson: Firstly, I’d say that, in the complaints we receive and in the way they’re investigated, I don’t see evidence of systemic bias, which is what is levelled at us on a regular basis. I’ll defer to Mr Stevens when it comes to the coverage particularly about Lidia Thorpe and that incident.

Mr Stevens: Thanks for the question. I respectfully disagree; we are not biased. We take an impartial approach to any and all stories. But the bar is also high around the outsourcing of journalism and the accuracy of it. On that particular story which you’ve identified, regarding Senator Thorpe—and I note that Senator Thorpe is no longer in the committee room—the ABC did cover it, for starters. Secondly, the vision you refer to was not the ABC’s. Channel 7 had in possession the raw footage of Senator Thorpe, not the ABC. I back the editorial judgement of my editorial leaders to be very careful about not using video that we haven’t sourced ourselves, and we don’t know what comes before and after it, and not rush to report it.  The emphasis on rushing to reporting it is because we did report on it during the course of the week. Afternoon Briefing covered it on the Monday after, and on the Wednesday, when the Prime Minister made additional comments. When it went from being something that happened in the private sphere, outside of parliament, outside of the Senator’s time in Canberra, when the Prime Minister elevated it to the discussion being relevant to Canberra, we did cover it. 

If there is some implication from the question, and I might be mistaken, that we are not covering Senator Thorpe as forensically as we would others, I’d respectfully point out to Senator Roberts that it was the ABC which broke the story about Senator Thorpe, in October last year, regarding the questions around whether she had a conflict of interest by sitting on a particular committee. It was that story, broken by the ABC, which was referred to the privileges committee. I understand the privileges committee reported back in March, and the committee found that Senator Thorpe did not disclose any sensitive information to Dean Martin, for the record, and we reported that at the time. But it was the ABC that broke that story, in October, which should demonstrate that we do not shy away from investigative journalism regarding any politician of any political affiliation.

Senator Henderson: Chair, I’m sorry to interrupt. In light of these discussions, Senator Thorpe was previously here and I wonder whether someone should alert her to these discussions. She may or may not know, but, out of fairness, could someone let her know this discussion is taking place?

Senator Roberts: This is not about Senator Thorpe, it’s about the way the ABC treats her compared to others. Are we going to invite Mark Latham?

Senator Henderson: There are certain discussions being—I think, to be fair, we need to give her that opportunity, to let her know that this discussion is taking place.

Chair: Thank you, Senator Henderson. Senator Roberts, would you like to continue?

Senator Roberts: This is what Paul Barry from Media Watch said: ‘But it was a proper news story and the ABC should have covered it from the start.’ You said when the Prime Minister got involved it increased the importance of it. So you wouldn’t have covered it if the Prime Minister hadn’t got involved?

Mr Stevens: We covered it before the Prime Minister said anything.

Senator Roberts: In a very subdued way compared to what you did with Mark Latham.

Mr Stevens: I don’t have to hand our coverage of Mark Latham, and the fact that he’s in New South Wales politics these days I’m not sure what the New South Wales newsroom did with that. I’m happy to follow up and look at that.

Senator Roberts: If you live in a bubble, you won’t see what people in Australia are seeing. With topics like climate change the ABC is considered heavily biased. It doesn’t present the data. It doesn’t present the evidence. It just presents opinion. So let’s move on.

Mr Stevens: Sorry, just on that, I would respectfully disagree when it comes to that. We follow the weight of evidence when it comes to our coverage on climate and the weight of scientific evidence that sits with it.

Senator Roberts: Perhaps you could take on notice—

Mr Stevens: I can take it on notice and respond to you.

Senator Roberts: Take it on notice to provide me with the sources of your climate change evidence that—

Mr Stevens: Can you provide some examples, please, as to where we have not done fact-based reporting on climate change?

Senator Roberts: Sure.

Mr Stevens: Right now?

Senator Roberts: I can’t do it right now because I don’t have the data.

Chair: Thank you, Mr Stevens; that can be provided to you later.

Senator Roberts: Let’s go back to last Senate estimates. I asked the ABC about the presence of Bruce Pascoe and Dark Emu related material on the ABC education site and why it was there. We had a conversation about the fact that many of his claims about Indigenous history are highly contested, and some of them have been completely debunked. You answered me then that whatever was on the ABC website would be reflecting the national curriculum.  After you told me that, I asked the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority in a subsequent Senate estimates session: ‘What’s in the curriculum about this topic?’ I have to say that ACARA were pretty shocked, to put it mildly, that you had claimed that material was in the curriculum. Specifically, which part of the national curriculum are you claiming that material of Bruce Pascoe’s reflects? Keep in mind that I’m going to be asking ACARA about this too in a few days.

Mr Anderson: I will have to get back to you on notice with regard to that. Did we give you a response to that on notice after my appearance at estimates last time?

Senator Roberts: No.

Mr Anderson: We didn’t? We will as to why, and I apologise if that was the case. My knowledge of what we do for ABC education, the resources sit there. There are state and territory curriculums as well as what we have nationally and we do put assets there that do align to it. That said, I’ll respond to what you’ve just put to me on notice.

Senator Roberts: Can you please take it on notice, as you just agreed, to provide the specific part of the ACARA curriculum you claim to be reflecting.

Mr Anderson: Yes.

Click Here for Transcript | Part 2

Senator Roberts: Before I start my questions, I have an apology. I made an error, Mr Anderson. You did in fact reply to my question on notice last time about the curriculum, but you didn’t state specifically from where you got it in the curriculum. You’ve undertaken to come back with that this time.

Mr Anderson: I have, and I still will.

Senator Roberts: I tabled a screenshot of a tweet from the ABC Media Watch Twitter account. It was in response to a tweet I made about—

Chair: Sorry, just to clarify: that wasn’t tabled; it was circulated—just to be clear.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. It was made about a protest in front of Parliament House, the Let Women Speak movement. Do you know what happened to that tweet and why it was removed?

Mr Anderson: No, I do not.

Senator Roberts: It was deleted about a second after that screenshot was taken. Do you have any information on why it was deleted?

Mr Anderson: No, I don’t.

Senator Roberts: Could we have that information?

Mr Anderson: I will investigate and respond.

Senator Roberts: Do you keep logs of tweets and deleted tweets?

Mr Anderson: We don’t monitor people’s personal use of social media, because we don’t take legal or editorial responsibility for it. That was a change we made some time ago, which I’ve canvassed heavily here. No, we don’t keep a log of it. There are certainly records when things are raised to our attention, we investigate and disciplinary action is taken—yes, that is recorded.

Senator Roberts: This is not a personal account. It looks like it’s the media watch account, @ABCmediawatch.

Mr Anderson: Which, as an official ABC account, I will investigate.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. I’m concerned that the ABC is sending tweets which could be considered antagonistic to a sitting Senator and then deleting them like nothing happened. That doesn’t bode well for accountability. If that screenshot weren’t taken and I couldn’t table it, people would rightly question me for trying to talk about this with you now. Social media seems to be a real, ongoing problem for the ABC, not just from your journalists but even from your official accounts. What are you going to do to get this under control?

Mr Anderson: Again, the vast majority of staff do the right thing. We have been getting it under control. People have been disciplined for this. For those people who have gone against the code and been found to be in breach, they have had disciplinary action against them. We’re now up to individuals that have been terminated from the ABC as a result of their personal use of social media. That is personal use of social media.  This appears to be an official ABC social media account, subject to our ABC social media policy with regard to that. If it is, we do take editorial responsibility for it—for which we have very few problems, I will say. I will investigate it and come back to you.

Senator Roberts: It’s just that it’s been raised quite a bit on social media. Moving onto another issue: there have been reports that the ABC has never received more complaints about a show than you did for the King’s coronation coverage. Can you confirm that?

Mr Anderson: That is incorrect. We have received more complaints than that in the past. I wouldn’t hasten to give examples because they’re sometimes not great moments in ABC history as they go back some way. In recent times, it is one of the larger amount of complaints, yes.

Senator Roberts: What is the total number of complaints that you received on that?

Mr Anderson: I believe it’s around 1,800 at the moment, of which, I gave evidence earlier to say approximately 60 are editorial complaints being investigated by the ombudsman, some complaints are categorised in a different way and some of it is outright racism.

Senator Roberts: While I didn’t watch the coronation, I’m wondering why Australians who are interested in the coronation, interested in the pomp and ceremony—if that’s what they want—interested in who’s arriving and all of the proceedings et cetera—what a show it is—and who turned on the ABC to watch the coronation found, inserted into that live coverage, commentaries about Indigenous rights and the proposal for a Voice to parliament for Indigenous people. What was the aim and the thought process in structuring your coverage like that?

Mr Anderson: I’ll defer to Mr Stevens for his response.

Mr Stevens: I note you said that you didn’t see the coverage, so I’m happy to give you a bit more information about what it did cover. It was eight hours of coverage over the course of the evening, from 4 pm onwards. The official ceremony itself started at 8 pm Sydney time. We had four hours of coverage leading into the ceremony proper starting. We used the BBC commentary for the actual formal proceedings of the event itself from 8 pm onwards. That was a concerted decision because we knew that the BBC would have access to information that we weren’t privy to around the order of proceedings and the extra, additional historical details behind the order of proceedings. We obviously had a broad picture of what would happen, however not the level of detail that they had. Obviously, they’ve got knowledge of individuals in the abbey that we didn’t have. For the course of the four hours leading into it commencing, we, from time to time, showed vision of what was unfolding in the lead up.  Three to four hours out, can you believe, people were being led into the abbey, in terms of guests. We were showing that visually, and there was music as well. The presenters did a really good job of trying to navigate saying what was unfolding with that vision. That’s a key tenet of good TV—to say what is happening, but then to return to the discussions that we wanted to have three to four hours out of the ceremony starting.

Senator Roberts: I understand what you’re saying, and I thank you for the explanation. It makes perfect sense, and what you’re saying about making good TV makes perfect sense. But still some of the chatter around the presentation was dealing with things like Indigenous rights and the Voice proposal to parliament et cetera. Is that appropriate?

Mr Stevens: For a portion of the coverage, for about 40 minutes, we had a really important discussion about our history. We aired First Nations perspectives of that and colonisation; and their view and experience of the Crown in their lives. That was 40 minutes of eight hours of coverage. Actually, a really important part and remit of the ABC, as you know, is to have discussions which are in the national interest, that reflect on history, that are factually based on history. It’s very important in our coverage of the news and major events that, over the course of that coverage, we have a diversity of perspectives. That was a 40-minute discussion for which there has been a lot of attention; however, we had a multitude of guests over the eight hours and people speaking to the events itself.

Senator Roberts: Do you still think your coverage was impartial, that way?

Mr Stevens: Absolutely.

Senator Roberts: Okay. Before we finish, what was my commitment to you? To get you an understanding of why you’re biased on climate change, for example—is that what I undertook to do?

Mr Stevens: You did. You undertook to provide evidence of non fact-based reporting of climate change.

Senator Roberts: Sure. Thank you very much.

/10 Comments/by