How Many Foreign Buyers Are Really Snatching Up Australian Homes?

,

Since November, I have been trying to get a very simple answer out of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO): How many potential foreign buyers are they detecting?

The ATO runs a data matching program that checks the details of more than 2.4 million sellers and buyers to detect if they might be foreign.

The ATO claims only 1% of purchases are foreign, but they won’t tell me how many of those 2.4 million matches they get are flagged as potentially foreign. Watch as they again refuse to tell me how many foreigners they identify in the 2.4 million records.

They claim to have manually checked over 230,000 records every year that can’t be automatically matched to confirm whether they are Australian. With other evidence like the NAB property survey indicating up to 11% of new housing stock is purchased by foreigners, I believe the ATO figures are completely understating the level of foreign buying in the country.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight, and congratulations to you, Mr Heferen. I don’t think we’ve seen you since your appointment. My first question is about foreign buyers of real estate. Radio 2GB reported in April that foreign buyers accounted for 11 per cent of newly built homes in the final quarter of last year. This is a disaster for Australian homebuyers. Can you please provide that data for each quarter over the previous 12 months—the proportion of newly built homes bought by foreigners?

Mr Thompson: I think the 2GB article would have been using the National Australia Bank—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my understanding.

Mr Thompson: As I think I’ve talked about at the committee before, there are a number of differences between the National Australia Bank survey and our data. So the National Australia Bank’s data is from a survey,
so it asks real estate and other real estate professionals to estimate. I think the exact question in that survey is about overseas buyers. Our numbers are coming from state and territory land title offices, which are matched
against Home Affairs data and Australia Electoral Commission data. There is a very significant gap between the numbers that appear in that survey and the numbers that we get. Our numbers are based on the definition of a foreigner under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. I think last week we released the 2022-23 numbers, which would put the estimate at around one per cent.

Senator ROBERTS: Moving onto the first home super saver scheme, I’m quoting from the eligibility requirements in guidance note 2018/1: There is no requirement for you to be an Australian citizen, Australian resident or an Australian resident for taxation purposes. Why are we allowing foreigners—not even residents for taxation purposes—access to this scheme, which is meant to be for getting Australians into their first home?

Mr Heferen: That would be a policy question for our colleagues at the Treasury.

Ms Brown: It is a policy question for Treasury, but the appropriate group for it to be directed to is markets group. That is administered by our Retirement, Advice and Investment Division in markets group. We can take it on notice and have them provide a reply.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to come back to foreign ownership again. I refer to table 3 of the answer to question on notice SBE106 from the November estimates. Through the Department of Home Affairs visa data-
matching program, how many of the real property transfer report entities records that are automatically matched to ATO records are foreign?

Mr Thompson: As we’ve answered previously, we’re not able to—the question was, ‘How many do we automatically match?’ and ‘How many do we have to go away and do additional things to match?’

Senator ROBERTS: I’m coming to that.

Mr Thompson: If you think about it coming through the system: if it’s an exact match, that’s all automated. There would be a range of circumstances where we don’t get an automatic match. It could be that the date of
birth’s the wrong way. It could be a maiden name. In those circumstances, we have additional processes to match. We work down through every record. In the automatic matches, there will be some foreigners. In the ones we can’t automatically match, there will be some foreigners.

Senator ROBERTS: What percentage?

Mr Thompson: At that point—

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t tell us?

Mr Thompson: The numbers in that answer to the question on notice were addressing how many we automatically match versus how many we perform additional—

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. How many that were matched were foreigners?

Mr Thompson: If the question is about the compliance results that we get, they’re published—

Senator ROBERTS: My question is: what percentage of buyers are foreigners?

Mr Thompson: One per cent.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide to me on notice the numbers of foreign buyers for the last five years.

Mr Thompson: We publish that. I’ve got the latest public—

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, if you could take it on notice for the last five years.

Mr Thompson: I’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: From table 4, immediately below that from the same question on notice from November estimates, how many of the entity records that were not able to be automatically matched to ATO records remain unverified or unresolved?

Mr Thompson: None.

Senator ROBERTS: How many unmatched records from the data-matching program remain unresolved from 2018 to date?

Mr Thompson: I think that’s the same question.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to go right back to 2018.

Mr Thompson: I’ll take that one on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: How many residential properties in Australia are owned by foreigners today?

Mr Thompson: I think that is the question around the register.

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to know how many foreigners own real estate. We’ve got a housing crisis. We’ve got people in Brisbane and all up and down the east coast of Queensland in major provincial cities sleeping under bridges and in cars, taking families home.

Senator Gallagher: Yes, but I think it’s very simplistic to say that that housing shortage is a result of foreign investment in residential housing. We’ve had a number of hearings where you’ve been told how relatively low that level is in comparison to non-foreign owned.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like the exact numbers.

Senator Gallagher: And we’ll provide that number to you, but the link that you are saying—that foreign ownership of properties equals some of what you’ve been talking about and is a real issue in Brisbane—is not
right. The issue is supply. We’ve got to build more houses for people, not blame foreigners for it.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve never said it’s entirely due to foreigners, but that is one—

Senator Gallagher: We need to make sure that the rules are tight, that there are restrictions in place, which there are, so that that arrangement works properly. But it’s not fair to say that the housing crisis is because we’ve got some small foreign-owned investments.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. I said that’s one contributing factor.

CHAIR: I’ll just do some committee administration here. I’ll table three documents—the three articles referenced by Senator O’Neill earlier. The committee has agreed to a time management plan to conclude
questions, so last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to make the point that the witnesses have provided answers so late, in the past, that they’ve been distributed at 8 pm on the day before they appear in Senate estimates, 100 days after the last
hearing, and failing to raise any public interest immunity claims on answers they don’t give. That’s a clear frustration of the committee’s work.

Senator Gallagher: We will try and do better, Senator Roberts. We have had a long discussion about the number of questions on notice which are coming in and having to be managed by departments, but I agree: it’s an important accountability measure, and departments should work to meet the timeframes.

Senator ROBERTS: When it’s 100 days, it’s way late, and then it suddenly comes in at 8 pm on the night before.

Senator Gallagher: Yes. I understand your frustration.

Daily Telegraph Article: Foreigners buying homes at twice the rate claimed in official figures, according to real estate agents and state tax data

Foreigners buying homes at twice the rate claimed in official figures, say real estate agents and state tax data | Daily Telegraph

Answers to Previous Questions on Notice

SQ23-000665 SBE054 – ATO – Foreign buyer crackdownDownload

SQ23-000661 SBE106 – ATO – Data matching program for Title DeedsDownload
/7 Comments/by

Australia’s Fuel Stock Shortfall: Current Crude Oil Reserves at Just 53 Days

,

In the event a war breaks out or our shipping routes are blocked, Australia is screwed with practically all of our local refineries out of business.

At the May Senate Estimates, I asked the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) for a detailed breakdown of current fuel stocks, specifically how much is finished liquid fuel versus crude oil. Ms Svarcas indicated she will provide these figures on notice and at the same time, will clarify how crude oil is reported under the Minimum Stockholding Obligation (MSO).

I then inquired about the latest figure for Australia’s crude oil stock relative to the International Energy Agency (IEA) requirement of 90 days. Ms Svarcas confirmed that the current figure is 53 days and includes all fuels and refined products in Australian waters. This stock does not include the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) stock, avoiding double counting between IEA and MSO measures. Ms Svarcas noted that “consumption cover days” are reported monthly on their website and are publicly available. She added that these figures indicate how long the stock will last based on average consumption, giving a clear view of Australia’s fuel supply.

It was a big surprise to discover that Australia had sold its 1.7 million barrels of oil from the US strategic reserve. While it was never a good idea to have a national reserve held on the other side of the world, the secrecy with which the sale was done in response to Ukraine is concerning.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let’s move to fuel security. We covered the minimum stock holding obligations for petrol, diesel and jet fuel at some length last Senate estimates. You gave to me on notice, in SQ24000046, that the refineries may also report crude oil and unfinished stock as liquid fuel. Do you have a breakdown of how much of the reported stock holding is actually finished liquid fuel versus crude oil—not a projected conversion of existing crude into future petrol, diesel or jet fuel, but the actual quantities of the four measures, as it exists now? 

Mrs Svarcas:  Just so I’m really clear, for the MSO obligation, you’re asking how much of the crude oil do we count as petrol, jet fuel and diesel? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Can you also provide to me the actual amount, right now, of crude oil as it is, jet fuel as it is, petrol as it is and diesel as it is, and not projected conversions of crude oil into those things? 

Mrs Svarcas: I will have to take on notice the projected for crude oil into those things. The MSO does allow, under the reporting obligations, for an entity to effectively say they’ve got a bucket of crude oil, and they will be converting X amount of it through their normal operations—and how much of that is going to be diesel, how much of that is going to be jet fuel et cetera. I would have to take on notice how much of the crude is crude, if you will, and how much is fuel. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’d be good. You explained previously how there’s the domestic minimum stockholding obligation for petrol, diesel and jet fuel put in place by the government then there’s the International Energy Agency agreement for 90 days of crude oil. Last estimates, you told me we were at 55 International Energy Agency days of crude oil. What’s the latest figure for that, and is all of that stock in Australia’s exclusive economic zone here? 

Mrs Svarcas: The actual figure of that today—the last report was from March 2024—is 53 days and that figure captures all of the things. It might be helpful if I describe what’s captured in that. It’s crude oil as crude oil. It’s diesel, petrol and jet fuel. It also includes other refined products. For example, the oil that you would put into your car is included under the definition provided to us by the IEA. It’s those stocks that are on land in Australia and in our domestic waters. But, importantly, the difference between the IEA days and the MSO calculation is that it does not include the product that’s in our EEZ; it’s just the product that’s in Australian waters or physically in Australia. 

Senator ROBERTS: So is there any double counting then? 

Mrs Svarcas: No, there’s no double counting. There’s a difference between a vessel that is in Australian waters—how it’s included in the IEA days—and stock that is in the EEZ that is counted in the MSO days. It might also be useful, if you’ll indulge me, to explain the difference between the measures that we have in place so that you can get an idea of what we use it for. As I described, the IEA days are one single calculation of all of the fuel and fuel products as defined by the IEA. We also have our consumption cover days. They’re the days that we report every month publicly, and you’ll find those on our website. They are a measure of how long the stock will last. So they give us a really good indication of what we’ve got every month, and how long, based on average consumption, that will last. That’s all publicly available. Then we also have the MSO, which is slightly different, and the purpose of that measure is to set that minimum stockholding obligation to give us the insurance policy of making sure, from our perspective, how much fuel, liquid fuels and things we should have in Australia should there be a market disruption. So the purpose of each of those reportings is slightly different, which is why what goes into them—what we count and how we count them—is also slightly different, because they have different purposes. 

Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to the numbers that you’re going to give me. Our strategic reserve— 

CHAIR: If you’ve finished that line of questioning, we will need to rotate. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve just one more question on strategic reserve. You told me at last Senate estimates that Australia has sold all of the oil reserves in the United States’ strategic reserve? 

Mrs Svarcas: That is correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: That was 1.7 million barrels—nearly two years ago—in June 2022. That hasn’t been reported anywhere, as I understand it. 

Mrs Svarcas: No, I believe it was publicly reported. I’ll be happy to table that report. 

Senator ROBERTS: Did anyone at the department announce that the 1.7 million barrels had been sold? 

Mrs Svarcas: Like I said, I believe it was. I’m happy to be corrected if my evidence is wrong but I do believe it was made public at the time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/3 Comments/by

Telcos Let Off ‘Scot-Free’ on 3G Shutdown

Telstra and Optus’ two-month delay on the 3G mobile network shutdown is a failure of the Communications Minister Michelle Rowland and defies recommendations from a Senate inquiry.

A two-month delay is nowhere near enough time to fix the million mobile and non-mobile devices the shutdown is still estimated to seriously affect. The telco companies have been let off scot-free.

There will be no consequences if Telstra and Optus flick the switch and leave hundreds of thousands of Australians in danger.

The 3G shutdown is only being done to boost the profits of Telstra and Optus at the expense of Australians living through a cost-of-living crisis.

READ my media release in full here:

Media ReleaseDownload
/2 Comments/by

Government’s Net-Zero Push Threatens Economy

,

The government wants to drive us off a cliff as we speed towards Net-Zero dictates from the un-elected United Nations and World Economic Forum.

None of it is based on proper data and all the evidence we have is that it will destroy our energy grid and our economy.

With inflation re-emerging, we have to put a stop to the billions being poured into climate policy making Australians pay more.

Transcript

Every time you see a wind turbine or an industrial solar complex, think one thing: your energy prices are going to increase. That’s what those things mean. We’ve been promised that energy prices will decrease, but wind turbines and industrial solar complexes mean higher prices for people, for families, for small businesses, for larger corporations and employers, for the whole community. And they mean trillions of dollars in waste in our economy. In every country around the world, as the percentage of solar and wind has increased, the cost of electricity has increased. That’s a fact—everywhere, consistent. And now, after nearly 30 years of pushing solar and wind, which started with John Howard’s renewable energy target, we see the ridiculous situation of the Labor government offering energy price relief. Why? Because they’re driving up the cost of energy to make it unaffordable; that’s why. So let’s have a look at why. Let’s see why killing the environment in the name of supposedly saving it is costing us so much. Let’s turn to the terms of the motion for an inquiry. So many people want us to have an inquiry, not just rural people but urban people, because they’re worried about the cost. This is what the inquiry is looking into: 

… the importance of ensuring that the National Electricity Grid has the capacity to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy to Australians as the economy transitions to new and more dispersed— 

and we’ll talk about that— 

methods of generations and storage, and acknowledging that transition will necessarily transgress on agricultural, Indigenous and environmental lands and marine environments … 

The environment and our productive capacity are suffering. 

I’ll cover some key concerns that are key to the inquiry because the uniparty has not thought about this—from when John Howard, the Liberal Prime Minister, started the renewable energy target to this ridiculous situation we’re in now. By the way, John Howard started that and did three other things, which we might have time to discuss, that laid the foundation for the crippling of our energy supply in this country. Six years after he was booted from office, he admitted that, on the matter of climate science, he is agnostic. He didn’t have the science. This whole thing is based not on science; it’s based on contradictions of science. 

Let’s start with solar and wind. The amount of steel needed per megawatt of electricity from a coal-fired power station is 35 tons. For wind turbines it’s 542 tons of steel. That’s 15 times as much. Straightaway, wind is suffering a cost penalty. It’s a huge cost burden. Then, when you look at the energy density of coal, it’s very high. It’s not as high as uranium, but it’s very high. For solar and wind, it’s very low. 

Secondly I see the government throwing barbs at the coalition, and well it should over aspects of its nuclear policy, but the government is accusing the opposition of uncosted policy. Where are your costs, government? Where are your costs on solar and wind? Where are your costs on solar and wind, Greens? We even see some solar and wind complexes, massive complexes in the Kennedy electorate in Queensland and in western Victoria, not connected to the grid. They have been built but not connected. That’s how much thought has gone into this. It’s bloody ridiculous. 

Solar and wind have an inherently high capital cost plus a low energy density, which means low energy production and very high cost per unit of electricity. Plus the amount of land needed for solar and wind is enormous. And then we see that the average capacity utilisation of solar and wind is 23 per cent. That’s less than a quarter of what the nameplate capacity is. Now we see the latest figures just released on wind, which show that it’s 21 per cent. That’s one-fifth of the capacity. What does that tell you? For a given capacity of a coal-fired power station, you’ll need a certain capacity of solar and wind. Multiply that by four, because you’re getting less than 25 per cent. Multiply it by five in the case of wind. Five times makes it prohibitive. Four times makes it prohibitive. Then think about this: at peak hour, when we need maximum electricity, the average utilisation and the average capacity is 10 per cent, which means that, to get the equivalent of that coal-fired power station, we need 10 times the solar and wind capacity—10 times. Then, for sizeable periods, we have the sun not shining brightly because of clouds or we have the wind drought. That means we need a further multiplication to make sure we can store up enough in energy and batteries. But the batteries to store that amount of wind and solar energy have never been thought of, never been considered and never been developed. It’s impossible. The cost if we don’t have them will be blackouts and outages in hospitals, businesses and family homes. 

Plus there are the transmission costs. Transmission costs, many years ago, used to be 49 per cent of the cost of the electricity bill. I don’t know what it is now, but it’s certainly substantial. Solar and wind have to be located a long way from the major metropolitan areas, which means straightaway that transmission costs are even higher than for a coal-fired power station, which can be located close to the metropolitan areas. Then, because of the dispersed nature of solar and wind, we have even more transmission lines. Then, because of the capacity factor that I just mentioned, we have even more transmission lines. This makes it prohibitive, not just in terms of the installation of solar and wind but also in terms of transmission lines. Plus, the transmission lines will barely be used because of the capacity of solar and wind not being utilised. And then we have the 15-to 20-year life, at best—12 to 15 years more likely—of solar and wind industrial complexes. That means that over the life of a coal-fired power station or a nuclear power station, they have to be replaced four times, so multiply the cost again by four. What have we multiplied it by so far? We’ve multiplied the cost by five, then by 10 and now by another four. Yet the CSIRO considers not one piece of that puzzle—not one piece. They say that it’s all sunk cost; just ignore it. 

That’s why solar and wind can compete. And they still need subsidies. Then you’ve got to add batteries and pumped hydro. Pumped hydro itself is an admission of failure. You cannot have pumped hydro without a disparity between peak hour prices and off-peak prices, and that’s due to the failure of the grid and solar and wind. And then we need firming, another cost, because coal, nuclear and hydro are stable, synchronous power supplies. Solar and wind are asynchronous—unstable—so they need firming. And they need backup gas or backup coal because solar and wind are unreliable. There’s a doubling. Look at the multiplication that we have got there. 

None of this is included in the GenCost report from the CSIRO. It assumes no transmission cost because they’ve already been built. That’s rubbish. We need far more new transmission lines. We have an inherently higher cost from solar and wind, plus low capacity, plus regional, plus dispersal, plus backup, plus stabilisation. Think about this: for a business, you need a stable, reliable, low-variation input. When variation occurs, it costs enormous amounts of money. At industrial and manufacturing plants, farmers are using backup, so they have to pay twice for their electricity. We also have a huge footprint in terms of land. Solar complexes and wind turbines use far more land and are far more scattered than a concentrated coal-fired power station or a nuclear power station. They’re taking up huge quantities of resources. The resource footprint of solar and wind is enormous.  

We have agricultural land being sterilised. We have poisons and toxins potentially going into the Brisbane water supply, into their drinking water—lead, cadmium—which feeds Brisbane, Beaudesert, Gold Coast, potentially Toowoomba, Ipswich, Logan and other areas in the south-east of Queensland. We also have the future cost yet to be added—Snowy 2.0.  By the way, when they first did the costings of Snowy 2.0, thanks to Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership and poor leadership, they forgot about the transmission lines. They forgot to add the transmission lines. Whoops! We better add a few more billion to that. Now look at it. It was originally slated for $2 billion. We could see this, and I’m not an energy expert. We could see it when Malcolm Turnbull first released it. We told them, and no-one took any notice. Now they’re putting in all these additional costs, and Snowy 2.0 is heading for $14 billion and perhaps $20 billion—if it moves! This is not about having an alternative energy supply; it’s about less energy and control of energy. 

We also have Mr Albanese and Mr Bowen, ‘Blackout Bowen’, talking about us being a renewable superpower. It means economic and environmental suicide, resource sterilisation, and displacement of Indigenous. No costings—a huge catastrophe! We’re talking about billions of dollars and impacts worth trillions of dollars. We must have this inquiry. They’re building in a high-cost overhead and a huge environmental legacy. When some of those farmers who are looking at the money now—some aren’t selling out, but some are selling out because of the money coming in—think about the environmental legacy. No bonds. The energy company owning the wind turbines and the solar complexes can just walk off and leave it. There’s no requirement to fix it. Farmers will pay for that. They’re already paying in many cases, as are rural towns, with the slow thrum, thrum, thrum of infrasound, which is proven harmful to humans. So they’re killing the environment to save it. We’re seeing human progress being reversed. 

The No. 1 message from the last 170 years since the industrial revolution started was that we have a higher standard of living and all the benefits that brings because of a relentless reduction in energy prices. What we’ve seen since John Howard come to power is a reversal of that. As energy prices increase, productivity falls, wealth falls and prosperity falls. We see a reversal of human progress. So what if we spend billions on solar and wind, what if it costs our economy trillions of dollars—and it will—and what if China does not? What happens then? Now do you get what’s going on? Now do you see it? 

I want to turn to two other points. As I said, John Howard introduced all the problems we’re seeing now: the Renewable Energy Target; the stealing of farmers’ property rights to comply with the UN Kyoto protocol; and the National Electricity Market, which is really a national electricity racket. He also introduced an emissions trading scheme as policy—not as fact, but as policy. That’s a carbon tax. He was the first major leader of a major party to have that. The CSIRO has never provided any empirical scientific data and logical scientific points that prove the need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity. The CSIRO admitted that to me when I held them accountable, and they gave me three presentations, each 2½ hours long. In the first presentation they admitted that they had never given the advice and had never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and needs to be cut. In the second presentation they gave me, they admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented; they’ve happened before—many, many times. In fact, the scientific term for periods of high temperature is ‘climate optimum’, because they’re beneficial for humanity, for civilisation and for the environment. The temperatures are not unprecedented. 

The second point is that I’ve asked many government departments in this federal government for their basis of policy. To have a basis of policy you need to have the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on some climate factor. No-one has given us that. We have amassed 24,000 datasets on climate and energy from around the world, from legally scraped websites and research institutions like the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, and we’ve never found any change in any climate factors at all, so there’s no basis for policy. You need that quantitative impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on a climate factor so that you can then study the alternatives, if you want to get rid of the carbon dioxide production. You’ve got to have that to track progress, but there’s none of that. There’s no basis for policy. We are flying blind. We’re heading for a cliff. 

Then we see there’s no environmental impact statement for the use of solar and wind—none at all. What impact is the energy we’re taking out of the wind going to have on our climate? What impact is it going to have on the natural environment? Yet they say that 0.03 per cent of the carbon dioxide is coming from humans, and 1.2 per cent of that from Australians. No impact quantified—the absurdity is enormous. And who will pay for all this mess? We, the people. You are foisting this on the people. We need an inquiry now. (Time expired) 

/6 Comments/by

Government Crack Down on Petrol and Diesel Cars

, ,

If you enjoy your petrol or diesel car, the government is trying to make sure you won’t be enjoying it for long.

Looking through this word salad I got from the Department, the reality is the government is placing fines on manufacturers who sell too many petrol and diesel cars. Australians prefer cars that are useful for a weekend of camping, spacious enough to fit the whole family, and capable of doing long road trips without frequent refuelling or needing to stop to recharge.

The government thinks you’re enjoying your cars too much and is going to forces manufacturers to progressively phase them out, leaving only useless electric vehicles available.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Can I turn to cars and utes, as mentioned by Senator O’Sullivan. Car makers must comply with regulations that you are about to introduce. They must also comply with customers’ needs. My understanding is that the demand for sedans—for example, a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Civic—is decreasing, and the demand for the corresponding SUV—which in the case of Toyota would be a RAV4 or a Honda Civic—is increasing dramatically. The SUVs are heavier, they’re more utilitarian, but they’re preferred. But they chew more fuel and they produce more carbon dioxide—which to me is not a problem, but anyway. How does that affect the manufacturer? On the one hand they have a government that says, ‘Decrease the size of the car, the weight and the fuel efficiency.’ But customers say, ‘No, do the opposite.’ The customers don’t think in terms of carbon dioxide because they know it’s crap.  

Ms Purvis-Smith: As I mentioned in a previous answer, manufacturers are able to make commercial decisions as to what their fleet looks like. The standard looks at their whole fleet. There are a range of ways that manufacturers can meet the standard. I think Mr Kathage went through this before. I’m not sure if you were here. He could go through that again. If they get credits in one year they can hold them over to meet debits they may get in a following year. They can also trade credits. They can look at the fleet, change the fleet and make commercial decisions about what they import into the country and offer consumers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Before Mr Kathage does that, perhaps you could tell me: if customers want SUVs over sedans, will that company be penalised? 

Mr Kathage: I can point you to appendix A of our impact analysis, where we set out the sales volumes of various types of vehicles. Your question is actually quite difficult because, as Ms Purvis-Smith mentioned, there’s actually quite a lot of things that vehicle suppliers can do to improve the efficiency of the vehicles they sell and their fleet overall. The first thing I’ll mention is that there are changes to the vehicles themselves that they can make—improving the aerodynamics, changing the drive train— 

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. But an SUV compared to a sedan—they can make improvements on both but the SUV will chew more fuel and is heavier—full stop, end of story.  

Mr Kathage: That’s right. So one of the features of the policy is to include a few flexibility mechanisms. The first one is to include two targets. One target is for passenger vehicles and a higher target for light commercial vehicles. The second flexibility mechanism in the scheme is to adjust the limit by weight. So you might have a Toyota Kluger, for example, which will have a particular mass in running order. Therefore, the target for that vehicle or the fleet of vehicles—that weight—will be adjusted. The third thing is that in any given year a vehicle supplier might bring in too many vehicles that are too polluting. They’ve got two years after that point to bring what’s called their ‘initial emissions value’ down to zero. So they do have some time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Looking at electric vehicles, for example, this policy, these regulations, are to make petrol and diesel vehicles less attractive and to make electric vehicles more attractive. That’s clearly what’s going on. But the efficiency of resources in electric vehicles is quite low, because the vehicles are inherently heavier, as Senator O’Sullivan said—needing heavier brakes, more resources; heavier suspension, more resources; heavier components all through, more resources. So we’re actually driving an economy to use less efficient vehicles and less efficient use of resources. That doesn’t make sense to me.  

Mr Kathage: I’m sorry; what was the question? 

Senator ROBERTS: The question is: are you aware that that’s happening? 

Mr Kathage: I’d probably say the purpose of the new vehicle efficiency standard is to improve the efficiency of new vehicles. It’s not to drive a particular type of vehicle or particular type of outcome, except for reduced emissions. That’s the purpose of the policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: You talked about reducing emissions. Have you done any work on the life cycle production of carbon dioxide from a diesel and a petrol vehicle, compared to the electric vehicle— 

Mr Kathage: We have— 

Senator ROBERTS: Particularly right through the mining sector as well, because there are extra resources that need to be mined for an EV. 

Mr Kathage: Yes, we have. We included some evidence in our impact analysis, which is now published on the Office of Impact Analysis website. Section 4.2.1 sets out a range of different estimates that have been made. The first one is from our own Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics, which finds that while manufacturing an EV may produce more GHG emissions than an internal combustion engine, that is more than offset after about one year if the vehicle is charged from renewably sourced electricity—that is, home solar—and two years if charged from the grid using a mix of electricity generation sources. In that section—I won’t read it all out—we do have, I think, four other sources that support the same contention.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s an assumption there that they’ll be using renewables—solar and wind. That’s a big assumption. Thank you, Chair. 

/5 Comments/by

One Nation’s Policies Can Fix Australia’s Inflation Crisis

,

Australia’s real wages have collapsed to levels not seen since before 2010, wiping out 15 years of hard-earned pay rises. Both the Labor and Liberal governments have fueled this crisis.

While the government wastes billions on net zero projects and supports foreign companies, inflation continues to rise.

The solutions are simple: cut subsidies to foreign-owned, net zero parasites and use Australia’s oil, coal and gas for our benefit. Let farmers freely use their land to grow affordable food and adopt One Nation’s housing policies to get Australians into houses. Only One Nation is putting Australia first and has the policies to bring inflation under control.

It’s time for the government to stop looking after their mates and start putting the country first.

Transcript

If you feel like you’re going backwards, you are. Inflation is running out of control and way too high. Wages haven’t caught up to cost-of-living increases. When adjusted for inflation, Australia’s real wages have collapsed to a level not seen since before 2010. That means that government caused inflation has wiped out 15 years of hard-earned pay rises. The government has its foot on the accelerator now, making it worse, while the Reserve Bank is stomping on the brake for mortgage holders. This coalition motion claims $315 billion of Labor government spending is unhelpful in the inflation fight. The coalition’s $508 billion spend on its mismanaged COVID response was just as unhelpful. That created the inflation that Labor is now prolonging. The Liberal-Labor uniparty cannot fix the cost-of-living crisis when both are committed to net zero insanity, making inflation worse. While government subsidises foreign-owned, Chinese-dominated companies to put up environment-destroying wind and solar complexes, inflation will continue. While farmers are restricted from using their land to grow fresh food, inflation will continue. While government crushes small business and lets multinational companies get away with economic murder, inflation will continue. While 40 per cent of the cost of building a new house continues to be taxed, inflation will continue. 

The solutions are simple: cut the subsidies to the foreign-owned, net zero parasites, and use Australia’s abundant oil, coal and gas reserves right here for the benefit of the people in this country. Let farmers be free to use their land to cheaply grow the world’s best food so Australians can afford to eat. Finally, adopt One Nation’s housing policies that will get Australians into affordable houses. Only One Nation policies will put Australia first and bring inflation under control. To the Labor-Liberal uniparty, stop looking after your mates and start putting the country first. Adopt One Nation’s policies on housing and immigration. 

/by

Digital ID, Independent Media and the Future of Conservatism in Australia

,

I recently joined Melinda Richards on TNT Radio to discuss pressing issues facing Australia today. I emphasised the importance of independent media.

Our conversation turned to the Digital ID bill, which echoes the Australia Card proposal from the 1980’s—a proposal Australians firmly rejected.

We also discussed the erosion of conservative values within the Liberal Party and the urgent need for strong leadership to uphold these conservative principles.

Transcript

Melinda Richards: I’m joined by Senator Malcolm Roberts, one of the few politicians in Australia standing up for Australians and puts Australians first and his country first.  Thank you again, Senator Roberts for joining me today.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re welcome and thank you for doing what you do on TNT because we need an independent news media.  Part of the problem is that the governments are owned by major corporations who are in the media and that the messaging is false.

Melinda Richards: Yeah, it’s interesting.  I just spoke about that this week that the government has now invested nearly $33 million into Channel 10 and had a little bit of a rant about that.  And having government owned media is the worst idea that could possibly be put forward to a supposed free society.  Senator Roberts, I wanted to talk to you about also the Australia card.  You’re of the age, and I’m of the age, where we can remember the Australia card being proposed by Bob Hawke back in 1985 and he was intent on doing what the digital ID is going to do now.  Of course, the digital ID would be 1000 times worse because we have the technology now, but back in the 80s, Australians said a resounding no to the Australia card and then they talked about it again a couple more times and Australians said a resounding no each time it came up.  So of course, Australians probably would say a very loud, resounding no to the digital ID.  Should this have gone to a referendum to the people?  Because of course, this is going to be the biggest change that society’s going to have in the next coming decades.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, that’s one way certainly of doing it.  We’ve got a One Nation policy – Citizens Initiated Referendum, which means that the people – it operates in some countries, Switzerland for example, and it brings accountability to the federal parliament.  That’s where a citizen can say I don’t like a bill, he or she can make a petition, get sufficient signatures.  Then the bill is put to, even if it’s been passed by the parliament, is put to the people and the people can say go to hell, remove the bill. 
They can also hold politicians accountable and say we don’t like what you’re doing, Melinda, you’re out.  You know that’s what we need, accountability.  So yes, it should be put to the people.  But the Australia card is a really important lesson because I didn’t pay much attention to it at the time.  But as I understand it, Melinda, that was about making sure that people receiving welfare payments from the government, which is really from the taxpayer, were accountable and there’d be no cheating.  And we see a lot of cheating on welfare these days.  So that’s the intent.  But even with that intent, the taxpayers say no, I’d rather lose my money than have the government watching over us.

Melinda Richards: We’d rather have people cheat then have people track US, have people follow, follow the ID number, have our ID number continuing to go through different aspects and parts of our society.  The people of Australia at the time understood the implications.  Are we a little bit more apathetic now or is it just that we are not really understanding what is being passed through parliament because it’s not being talked about much in the mainstream media?

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve, you’ve nailed it.  The mouthpiece media, the legacy media, the Big Brother media, whatever you want to call it, do not talk about it because their masters are wanting this Digital ID to go through because they’ll be part of the corporations that it’ll be widened up to in the future.

Melinda Richards: I mean, we’re still looking at the money train then.  We’re still looking at the people that are going to profit from this by controlling us and then pushing through different things and different subsidies and different parts of bills and ideas and things that we won’t even have a say in either.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct.  Remember the three words, two points – control and wealth transfer.  This is what it’s about.  We’ve got the identity verification, which is a bill that went through earlier, a couple of months before, or a few months before the digital ID bill – that was about enabling biometric data to be used. Digital ID bill came up.  The Misinformation-Disinformation bill was introduced by the Morrison Government, and it has been retracted or withdrawn – paused in its process through this parliament.  So that’s coming up as well.  That’s where they will control what you say and what you then do.  So, this is all heading for control and enabling wealth transfer.  Because we also know, thanks to my questioning at Senate estimates, that the Reserve Bank of Australia has been working on a digital currency and has been tying that up to work overseas on a global digital currency.  I mean the Reserve Bank admitted it.  So, this is putting everything in place for social credit score.  And there were several amendments considered in the – it wasn’t a debate – in the passage of the bill through – the hijacking of the bill through the parliament.  And not one word of debate was allowed on any of those amendments.

Melinda Richards: That’s incredible.

Senator ROBERTS: Yeah.  And then the media doesn’t even report this going on.  But this is typical of what the UNI party is doing.  It’s not just the Labour Party.  All of these bills, including the Digital ID bill, were introduced by the LNP, the Liberal National Party government.

Melinda Richards: I mean, do you think this is a really big problem for the conservative movement in Australia?  I just had Andrew Cooper on earlier today talking about CPAC, talking about where the conservative movements going in Australia, particularly in light of what’s just happened in the UK election.  I mean, the digital ID has got to be something, hasn’t it, that that the politicians, the conservative politicians in Australia and the conservative citizens of Australia should now be rallying behind almost as strongly as they did with the Voice referendum.  I mean we know with the positive outcome that happened there that when we do rally, when we do understand things, when we look a little deeper into what’s going on, we can actually get a great result.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re absolutely correct.  And there are a few conservatives, true conservatives in the Liberal Party, but most of them are in One Nation and Libertarians these days.

Melinda Richards: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Alex Antic, for example, he drafted a bill that’s called, I think the Repeal Digital ID Bill.  He invited genuine conservatives to cosign it and co-sponsor it.  So, he invited me, Pauline Hanson, Ralph Babet, Gerard Rennick and Matt Canavan.  And so, the six of us are all co-sponsors of the bill.  And the bill’s very simple.  It just says repeal the Digital ID bill – that’s it.  And then there’s the consequential amendments, which is repealing any changes of the digital ID caused in other legislation.  So, it can be done.  You look at the Liberal National Party, Gerard Rennick is one of the best senators and he’s been put in an unwinnable position pre-selection.  You look at the true conservatives, Kevin Andrews from Victoria – gone, not pre-selected.  You look at the senators they’ve appointed recently, they’ve been from the left wing of the Liberal Party.  You see Connie Fierravanti-Wells, Eric Abetz – genuine conservatives sidelined and taken out of federal politics.  So, what we see now is a Liberal Party that is a clone of the worst parts of the Labor Party.  You’ve got factions now within the Liberal Party, you’ve got very, very few Conservatives and so what we’ve got now is a Uni-Party and we know that every major energy bill, for example, climate and energy policy was introduced by the Liberal National Party, not the Labor Party.  The Labor Party came in and ramped it up and that’s what they’ve done across the board.

Melinda Richards: Yeah, that’s right.  And it’s been a shocking revelation for a lot of conservatives over the last probably 15 years or so that the conservative movement is not being represented by the Liberal Party, the Liberal National Party and this has been a bit of a wake up call for the conservative movement in Australia and certainly in the UK – they’ve woken up. It took them 3 elections.  I think we need a strong conservative leader in this country to bring us back to some of our core values.  And there are things that the conservative movement is going to have to, as I said earlier, grab a hold of and fight back pretty strongly.  And the group of politicians you mentioned, Senator Roberts, you are the true heroes of our political movement at the moment in Australia because you are putting Australians first.

Thank you so much for joining me today, Senator Roberts.  I certainly hope we can talk again very soon.  You’re listening to Melinda Richards on TNT.

/by

Radio Interview: Defence Honours and Awards System Senate Inquiry

,

Thank you to Ben Fordham of 2GB for inviting me to discuss this inquiry. The inquiry aims to look at potentially illegal medals being awarded to senior defence officers, hear from ADF personnel and explore possible improvements to the Defence Awards and Honours system.

If we want people to serve this country, we have to back them and hold their leadership accountable. 

Transcript

Ben Fordham: Well, Australia has a new chief of defence, Admiral David Johnston is in and General Angus Campbell is out. He’s officially stepped down from the role after a rocky six year term. And during that time, General Angus Campbell quickly became one of the most divisive figures in the military. He didn’t do himself any favors when he tried to strip war medals from all troops who served in Afghanistan because a handful were accused of war crimes.

The then defense minister, Peter Dutton, was forced to intervene and he reversed that controversial decision. But now a medal on General Campbell’s chest is being put under the microscope at a new Senate inquiry. He was recommended for the Distinguished Service Cross back in 2011. That’s Australia’s third highest military decoration. The DSC is awarded for distinguished command and leadership in action as commander of forces in Afghanistan.

At the time, the criteria for someone to receive the award required them to be in action, meaning to be under direct fire of an adversary. But out of nowhere, three months after General Campbell was recommended to receive the award, the rules were changed. The criteria of being in action was changed to in warlike operations. Senator Malcolm Roberts, who will lead the inquiry, says senior officers have abused the defence honours and awards system. Meanwhile, enlisted personnel have to fight for recognition and higher ups downgrade their medals. Malcolm Roberts The senator from Queensland, with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is on the line right now. Senator, good morning to you.

Senator ROBERTS: Good morning, Ben. What a fabulous summary spot on mate, accurate.

Ben Fordham: So what are you suggesting is going on here?

Senator ROBERTS: What I’m suggesting is that these senior officers -the top brass of our Australian Defence Force are looking at medals as a way of rewarding each other, they just seem to think it’s an entitlement that comes with their salary package. But what we’re really looking for is some integrity with regard to the way that the rank and file the serving enlisted soldiers are treated because they’re not getting their medals. And by the way, Ben, I want to thank all ADF people for their service. And I also want to appreciate especially the serving members and veterans who have been working with us to restore accountability over many months in this Australian Defence Force. The pride and respect …

Ben Fordham: I’ll just jump in for a moment and ask you just about General Angus Campbell, because that’s going to be the key thing that people will focus on in this inquiry. As I said, when he was recommended, it was for, well, at the time they said the person who was receiving the award was required to be in action.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, “two way rifle range”. thinking.

Ben Fordham: Well, hang on a moment. Was he in action? Well, yes, he was over there. He was obviously playing a critical role. But the criteria also said you had to be “under direct fire of an adversary”. And that raised a few flags, didn’t it, that people in the military thinking, well, does General Campbell fall into that category?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, no, he doesn’t. He was away from the action. He was in an air conditioned office several hundred kilometers away and quite safe. What’s really galling people is that the same man refuses to remove his own medal after he tried to strip 3000 people who served in Special operations task force of their Meritorious Unit citation because of the Brereton inquiry. So if he was in action and he was commanding them, then he should have stripped his own medal. But he kept his medal and tried to strip it from the from the soldiers who are actually in direct action.

Ben Fordham: Okay. I just want to stick with this criteria for a moment and can you just confirm this? So originally it said that you had to be under direct fire.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct

Ben Fordham: And that’s when red flags were raised and people were thinking, does he really fall into that category? You say he does not. Then three months after he was recommended to receive the award, the rules were changed and the criteria changed from inaction to in warlike operations. Is that right?

Senator ROBERTS: That is correct Ben. You’ve said it so well, as I said before, you’ve said it so well today. It’s perfect.

Ben Fordham: Okay. So was he in warlike operations?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, he was in the Middle East. He was in near Afghanistan, near the theater of war. But he wasn’t actually actively involved in the war.

Ben Fordham: Why did they change the criteria?

Senator ROBERTS: Probably to justify his medal because he was awarded the medal incorrectly, is my belief.

Ben Fordham: Okay. I want you to elaborate on that. You believe that the criteria changed to suit General Angus Campbell?

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what it looks like Ben. And that’s what a lot of troops are saying. And they’re saying that the top brass are getting medals, not justified, and they’re missing out themselves down the lower ranks.

Ben Fordham: And there had been requests, people had asked questions when the criteria was in action, people actually requested some details to say, okay, can General Angus Campbell give us some answers on when he was in action and there were no answers forthcoming, right?

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. He was mute. There was nothing coming.

Ben Fordham: All right. So will he appear before this inquiry?

Senator ROBERTS: That’s up to the Senate inquiry to justify. I won’t be leading the inquiry. I will be a participating member on it. But it’s a standing inquiry. Standing committee that’s already got six members appointed, but I’ll be participating in it as an additional participatory member. But that’s up to the inquiry and the Senate inquiry if they want to call General Campbell, they can force him to come. They can subpoena him if necessary. So the powers are there.

Ben Fordham: So how do you sum up his time leading the defence force?

Senator ROBERTS: A shambles, mess. The rank and file – the morale in the Australian Defence Forces is atrocious. Where we’ve seen some pride and respect for the Australian Defence Force. We need that to be restored and the troops who are talking to us and there are many saying we’re absolutely correct and that the morale is low, the turnover is high, the recruitment is falling. We have more people leaving than coming to the Australian Defence Force at the moment. We’re going backwards in numbers and so this is a security matter. It’s an essential security matter, a national security matter, Ben.

Ben Fordham: He really lost the dressing room, didn’t he, Malcolm Roberts, when he decided to strip war medals from everyone who served in Afghanistan because a handful were accused of war crimes.

Senator ROBERTS: Exactly. And the Yamamoto principle from second World War says that if a crime is committed in the theater of war by a soldier, then everyone up the line is accountable and responsible. What he did was he stripped medals from – he tried to strip medals from the 3000 and yet hung onto his own. Yet he was commanding the troops he was stripping medals from.

Ben Fordham: And if it wasn’t for Peter Dutton, who was the minister at the time, they would have lost those medals. Thankfully, he stepped in and I’m going to be really keen to see what comes out of this inquiry. So thank you so much for joining us.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re welcome. Ben. Thank you.

Ben Fordham: Malcolm Roberts, the Senator for Queensland with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.

/by

Angry Veterans Demand Revocation of Angus Campbell’s Medal

,

There is no specific evidence that Angus Campbell was “in action” which is the criteria required for his medal at the time of his nomination.

The honours and awards system has been abused, with senior officers and generals giving medals to each other, while frontline soldiers who faced direct enemy fire must fight yet again, this time for the recognition they rightfully deserve.

This issue goes far deeper than General Campbell. It’s time to clean out all the rot at the highest levels of the Defence Force.

Read article here: Angry vets plea for Labor to revoke Angus Campbell’s Afghanistan medal, saying he did not see enough action | The Nightly

/by

Australians Deserve Their Own Home

,

Australians are sleeping on the street and the Government doesn’t care.

Hundreds of thousands of arrivals are flowing into the country while we don’t have houses for the Australians that are here. 

Rent prices are up 40% and house prices are 10x the average income, completely out of reach for most of Australians. We need to cut immigration, ban foreign ownership, give Australians more savings, introduce some competition to the banking cartel and open up construction as well. 

Australians deserve their own home, One Nation will make sure they get one.

Transcript

The housing and rent crisis is a national tragedy. In Australia, one of the richest countries in the world for resources, we have working families homeless, sleeping in their cars or under bridges. In August 2020, the national average rent was $437 a week. It’s now $627, an increase of 40 per cent in just a few years. The national rental vacancy rate is just one per cent—actually slightly under that—far below the three per cent rate that’s considered a healthy market. House prices are out of control. In 1987, the average house cost 2.8 times the average income.

Today, a house costs 9.7 times the average income. This is why there are hardworking Australians sleeping on the street—families on the street. People under 30 have given up hope of ever owning a home, yet we oldies are meant to hand our young people a better life than we had. 

One Nation promises to fix this housing crisis for all Australians. We will make the tough decisions that the Liberal and Labor uniparty won’t. Two point eight million temporary visa holders are in the country today, up from 2.3 million pre COVID. That’s an additional 200,000 homes needed for these new arrivals. While Australians can’t afford roofs over their heads, we need some of these people on visas to leave. An Australian can’t buy a house in China, yet foreign investors can buy both new and existing houses here.

One Nation would ban all foreign ownership of residential housing. Australians must come first. We would allow people to use some superannuation to invest in their homes. After all, it’s your money. We will ditch Labor’s facade, its pathetic, bureaucratic Housing Australia programs. Instead, we’ll use the same funds to create cheap 30-year mortgages fixed at five per cent interest to get Australians into homes. 

/by