Underpaid Coal Miners: FWO’s Investigation

,

I congratulate the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for at last taking the many complaints from underpaid coal miners seriously and treating them professionally. It’s only taken me five and a half years of persistent questioning to reach this point.

I was informed that preliminary results of the FWO’s investigation would be available around mid-2025. The six-year time limit that applies for enforcement under Section 544 of the Fair Work Act does not prevent investigations from extending beyond that period.

Determining the legality of Enterprise Agreements (EAs) is outside the scope of the FWO. If the Fair Work Commission (FWC) approved an EA, the FWO would consider it legal until a court rules otherwise.

The Senate passed my amendment to a recent Labor bill. That amendment requires the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to investigate this wage theft. Minister Watt agreed to provide me with updates and mentioned that the investigation might take up to 18 months to complete. We will persist in holding the Minister accountable in increasingly detailed ways as to progress in his investigation.

After five and a half years of holding government departments and agencies accountable, and doing our own research we continue to pursue Australia’s largest case of wage theft. More than one BILLION dollars of underpayments involving as many as 5,000 workers. Our research has led to miners recently submitting complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman -. i.e. a miner has been underpaid $211,000 and some miners have had at least $41,000 stolen per year of employment.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. I want to congratulate and thank the Fair Work Ombudsman for responding to the Independent Workers Union of Australia request for underpayment assessment on behalf of IWUA casual miner members. I hear that the Fair Work Ombudsman is treating these requests with seriousness and professionalism and that you’ve set up a specific process for handling the claims. Given that the underpayment claims involve detailed investigation of documents relating to each miners’ annual income, their pay rates and so on, going back as far as 2013, I appreciate that the investigations may take some time. Does the Fair Work Ombudsman have any idea of the timelines involved? I’m not urging or wanting a fast outcome. Rather than a rushed job, I’d prefer a thorough high-quality investigation.

Ms Booth: Thank you for the question and the compliment. I’ll ask Mr Campbell to commence, but Mr Ronson has direct knowledge of that investigation, I believe.

Mr Campbell: I don’t know that we’ve got a timeframe at this point, but I’ll ask Mr Ronson to assist with an answer, given his immersion in the subject.

Mr Ronson: We’ve put together an overarching project plan in response to the requests to investigate the sector. In terms of preliminary findings—this is a guide, not so much necessarily for each request for assistance or each employee—we’re looking at preliminary findings by at least the middle of next year. The challenges we face, of course, as we go back to 2013, are those records, available witnesses and so forth.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; that’s good. When you said ‘next year’, I suddenly realised we’re nearly at the end of the year. I understand that the Fair Work Ombudsman’s investigation is subject to a six-year time limitation. Can you advise of the specific legislation, regulation or policy that creates that six-year time limitation?

Mr Ronson: That’s section 544 of the Fair Work Act. But there’s an important distinction to make, and this is one that we’ve put into our plan. That provision relates to enforceability. If I can just take you back—if someone puts in, as we’ve received, claims that go back to 2013, that does not prohibit us from investigating back to that period. However, if we were to find underpayment and request an employer or previous employer to compensate the employee for their underpayment, we would be restricted or limited by the impact of section 544. What that really means is: say we had to take someone to court. It would mean that at the time we file proceedings—I’m happy for chief counsel to help me here—we’d only be able to enforce an underpayment that goes back six years.

Senator ROBERTS: To 2018. Thank you; that’s pretty clear.

Mr Ronson: That doesn’t preclude us investigating historic underpayment.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s even more encouraging. Thank you so much. My next question is: is the Fair Work Ombudsman able to investigate back beyond—yes, you’ve said that. The One Nation report detailed coalminers’ wage theft and detailed the way casual coalminers’ underpayments have been justified by the people involved. The report identified what was called legal trickery that argued that, because the black coalmining industry award does not allow for casuals, a comparison to what would ordinarily be a casual rate under the award could be ignored in assessing the claimed underpayments of the national Independent Workers Union of Australia member coalminers. What is the approach of the Fair Work Ombudsman to this legal argument that claims to justify underpayments? What bearing does or would this argument have on the Fair Work Ombudsman’s investigations?

Mr Ronson: In terms of the requests for assistance that have come from workers who are being assisted by the Independent Workers Union of Australia, their argument is that the enterprise agreements are unlawful. There are various reasons they have put forward, probably in line with the report you just held. The question of whether those agreements are unlawful is outside our scope. The chief counsel, I think, on previous occasions gave evidence to this committee as to why we don’t go to second question. Nor can we guess the enterprise agreement approval process. What is in scope—what is in jurisdiction for us—is whether there was any coercion or any breach of general protections in the making of the agreement. As to the foundation or the status of the enterprise agreement, if it’s been approved by the Fair Work Commission, we take it as approved. There are a whole range of questions that flow from that, but that’s it in summary.

Senator ROBERTS: So, it’s not necessarily compliant with the law just because the Fair Work Commission approves it, but it has been approved.

Ms Volzke: Senator Roberts, I think we’ve traversed these issues before. It’s the Fair Work Commission that approves agreements, and it’s our job to apply the law to any particular case. As Mr Ronson said, that is exactly what we’re going to do with all of those requests for assistance that have been made. Certainly, there have been issues of legal complexity which still haven’t been authoritatively determined: what actually is the effect of the black coalmining award not providing for casual employment in operational roles. Certainly, there’s been some commentary around that, but it hasn’t been formally determined.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In undertaking the investigations, will the Fair Work Ombudsman report to the Senate on the progress of the investigations, findings and follow-up, obviously within the bounds of required confidentiality in relation to each miner?

Mr Ronson: We’re very happy to, at these appearances, provide updates, if you like, without jeopardising the integrity of any particular investigations. So it’d be at a fairly high level, but we’re more than happy to provide updates.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have questions to Minister Watt. Minister, when will you start your investigation that the Senate ordered on 16 May by passing my successful second reading amendment to the government’s recent so-called closing-the-loopholes Fair Work Amendment Bill?

Senator Watt: I would have to go back and take a look at that, Senator Roberts. I must admit I—

Senator ROBERTS: It was at the time Minister Burke was in the chair.

Senator Watt: Okay, that’s probably why I’m not familiar with it. Let me take that on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m surprised that you’re not aware of it. No-one in the handover made you aware of it?

Senator Watt: I don’t remember anything like that in the terms you’ve described, but Ms Volzke might know.

Ms Volzke: Yes, certainly. Minister Watt wrote to us—I think it was in August, so a couple of months ago— in relation to tasking us to effectively look at investigations of underpayments in black coal mining.

Senator Watt: Yes, I do remember that now. Sorry, I forgot.

Senator ROBERTS: So you are interested in workers?

Senator Watt: I think my record shows I am pretty interested in workers, including coalmining workers, Senator Roberts. I sign a lot of letters, but I do remember that one now.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I can understand. What’s your planned format, in terms of reference and scope, for the investigation?

Senator Watt: That’s probably a question for the—

Mr Ronson: That’s what I’m working on, and that’s where we’re developing what we’re calling an overarching project plan. What we’ve got at the moment is around 20 workers who have already approached the Fair Work Ombudsman, and obviously each of those persons will be very helpful to our investigation, because we’ll be able to talk to them about the sector. I can just give you a couple of key features of the project plan. One is to map out and identify who are the key players, the key influences. Senator, you’re on the record, for example, as saying that there are five labour hire entities of significance that you claim warrant attention.

Senator ROBERTS: We think there are more, but we’ve only investigated five.

Mr Ronson: Yes. Labour hire entities will obviously be a sharp focus for this plan.

Senator ROBERTS: Good.

Mr Ronson: Just in the nature of the industry, there are tensions, which we’ve already talked about before, between entitlements that are owed under the award and those under the enterprise agreement, so that’s in scope. We’ll also be working and talking with other regulators—for example, the coal long service leave board—where there are entities of mutual interest. We might be able to collaborate with that agency to enhance our capability and capacity.

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s broad, and—

Mr Ronson: Yes. There’s an overarching plan that will take us around the next 18 months to deliver, but within that we’ve already set up, for example, a dedicated email address for anyone in the sector to approach us. We’re in communications with the Independent Workers Union. They’ve already started using the dedicated email address. We’re active and open for business now, but there’ll be other initiatives and steps we take to enhance awareness of this investigation.

Senator ROBERTS: I might come up with some more questions, but I’ll put them on notice. You’ve told us it will be about 18 months?

Mr Ronson: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, I refer to the letter from the Independent Workers Union of Australia to the CFMEU administrator in relation to the Independent Workers Union of Australia’s application to the Fair Work Ombudsman for investigation—you and I were copied, as was Senator Cash—and the activities of the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to those underpayments. The IWUA sent you a copy. Have you made yourself, or do you intend to make yourself, cognisant of the Fair Work Ombudsman’s reviews of the underpayment assessments.

Senator Watt: Certainly I will no doubt be informed of the result of the work that the Fair Work Ombudsman is doing.

Senator ROBERTS: Before the 18 months for the overarching inquiry.

Senator Watt: I’m sure the ombudsman will keep me informed of that, as they do on a range of matters.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Have you made yourself, or do you intend to make yourself, cognisant of the One Nation report on this matter, specifically with a view to understanding the CFMEU’s role?

Senator Watt: I haven’t read the report, but you and I have talked about this many, many times at estimates, so I think I’ve got a bit of an understanding of the issues that you’ve raised.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve always been sceptical, but I encourage you to read the report.

Senator Watt: I’m sure it’s top-quality work, coming from you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, we commissioned it. I didn’t do it.

Senator Watt: Oh, okay.

Senator ROBERTS: I just informed some parts of it.

Senator Watt: I’m sure it would have been better if you’d written it yourself.

Senator ROBERTS:Have you investigated, or do you intend to investigate, the historical activities of the CFMEU where the CFMEU either negotiated, oversaw, were aware of, approved, endorsed or were a party to the agreements that are in discussion?

Senator Watt: My recollection is that those complaints that have been made have been investigated previously and, in some cases, are still being looked at. I’ve got full confidence in the authorities that are looking into those matters.

Senator ROBERTS: They haven’t been investigated yet.

Senator Watt: I think there has been some work looking at the veracity of those allegations. From what I’ve seen, there’s a different view compared to what has been put forward by that group of people. I respect the fact that you believe in and support the people who’ve made those complaints. I guess there’s a different point of view.

Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could I have copies of that advice, please.

Senator Watt: I’ll get you anything that we’ve got, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you investigated or do you intend to investigate whether officers of the CFMEU or persons associated with the CFMEU engaged in any collusive activity such as conspiring with other people or entities to enable the underpayment of casual labour hire coalminers?

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, we should make the point that when you’re talking about the CFMEU you’re talking about what was the mining and energy division of the CFMEU. It’s now a separate union.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s the Mining and Energy Union now.

Senator Watt: There’s been a lot of discussion about the CFMEU today, and we’re not talking about the construction division. Again, my understanding is that a number of those matters have been looked at already— or, at least, you’ve had them referred to authorities. I’d be relying on the work that’s already happened there.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you, on notice, give us copies of what you’re relying on.

Senator Watt: Sure. I thought, Senator Roberts, that you had actually referred some of these matters to authorities for investigation already. If I’m right in thinking that, I’ll come back to you on what’s happened. If I’m not right about that, then I’d encourage you to refer those, whether it be to the Fair Work Ombudsman or to other groups.

Senator ROBERTS: I think the correct avenue is now being followed by the miners.

Senator Watt: Exactly, so we’ll wait and see the outcome of that.

Senator ROBERTS: If you have anything on what the department has done with it, I’d like to see that.

Senator Watt: Sure.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Given the alleged extensive criminal activity within the CFMEU—I know that was a different division, but the divisions do talk—have you investigated or do you intend to investigate whether any criminal activities, such as bribes or other things, could have resulted from or were a feature of the CFMEU’s involvement with the enterprise agreements, resulting in a shameful massive underpayment of casual coalminers? It seems it could not have happened without this.

Senator Watt: I don’t think anyone has ever produced any evidence of bribes or corruption involving the Mining and Energy Union or, previously, the mining division of the CFMEU. If you’ve got evidence of that, then I would strongly encourage you to refer that to the police for investigation, but I’m not aware of any evidence.

Senator ROBERTS: I believe that two miners that I accompanied, along with a barrister in my office, gave evidence to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and to the former minister’s staff—Minister Burke.

Senator Watt: Okay. I’ll take a look at what happened with that. As I say, if you’ve got evidence of someone taking a bribe or engaging in corrupt activity, then I’d strongly encourage you to take that to the police. They’re the authority who can lay charges.

Senator ROBERTS: Do they involve the Fair Work Ombudsman as well? They’d be interested in the motive, wouldn’t they?

Senator Watt: I think what would typically happen, if you’re talking about bribery, corruption or criminal offences—if they came to the attention of the Fair Work Ombudsman, the ombudsman would refer them to the relevant police. The Fair Work Ombudsman has responsibility for enforcing workplace laws, so offences against the Fair Work Act, but criminal offences, whether it be bribery or any other criminal offence, are a police matter.

Senator ROBERTS: To remind you, Minister Watt, this is Australia’s largest wage theft case. It’s outside the legislation that’s been passed since you came to office, and it’s not due to a loophole. Fixing the wage theft and preventing recurrence simply require compliance with the Black Coal Mining Industry Award. Did the government introduce the so-called closing loopholes bill to hide and bury Australia’s largest wage theft case?

Senator Watt: No.

Senator ROBERTS: There were no loopholes that enabled this. It was just straight-out noncompliance with the award.

Senator Watt: No, that’s not why we introduced the law.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.

Senator Watt: We introduced the closing loopholes laws to, among other things, fix the labour hire rort that was being used by some employers.

Senator ROBERTS: This is the rort, Minister Watt.

Senator Watt: What I’m saying is that the purpose of our introducing the legislation was, among other things, same job, same pay. As I’ve pointed out to you before, Senator Roberts, you didn’t support that law.

Senator ROBERTS: Because there was no loophole. This is the cause of the underpayment. This is the cause of Australia’s largest wage theft case.

Senator Watt: If you didn’t think there was a loophole with coalmining labour hire workers getting underpaid, then I don’t agree with you. I think that was a massive loophole that was being exploited.

Senator ROBERTS: It was just noncompliance with the award. Given the extreme wealth of the CFMEU, have you or do you intend to investigate and consider whether you have, at minimum, a moral obligation to cause the CFMEU to financially contribute to compensation to affected coalminers who have been underpaid? Can you do that?

Senator Watt: I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Can the CFMEU administrator do that?

Senator Watt: No, because—I wouldn’t think so, because the CFMEU administrator is responsible for the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU not the Mining and Energy Union, which is a standalone union these days.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you legislate to force those responsible for Australia’s largest wage theft case to pay the miners what they’re owed, if the findings show that?

Senator Watt: I guess, theoretically, governments can legislate on anything, as long as they’ve got a constitutional basis for that legislation.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m pleased to hear that.

Senator Watt: You could bring in a private senator’s bill. I probably shouldn’t have suggested that, should I?

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister Watt. Thank you, Chair.

Senator Watt: Can I say this really quickly. Senator Roberts, we’ve had a bit of a joke as we’ve gone along, but we take any report about wage theft seriously. All I can do is keep encouraging people like yourself, if you’ve got evidence of things—there are bodies whose role it is to investigate these things, and I’d encourage you to take them forward.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. The Independent Workers Union of Australia is showing its mettle.

Senator Watt: They can make complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand they have.

Senator Watt: We’ll wait and see how that goes.

/0 Comments/by

Concerns Raised Over Smart Meter Practices

,

I raised concerns about the use of smart meters, highlighting that they are being used by some companies to gouge customers without informed consent. Customers are often switched to punitive plans and charged excessively based on their peak usage, even if it occurs infrequently.

Ms. Savage clarified the distinction between network and retail tariffs and explained that the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) is proposing new rules to protect consumers. These rules would require customers to opt into time-of-use tariffs and provide a three-year period during which they cannot be automatically switched to such tariffs.

I asked what were the tangible benefits of smart meters for consumers and was told smart meters help manage peak demand and reduce the need for network investment, ultimately benefiting consumers by keeping bills down. That seems to be a hollow promise given power bills have only gone up for many people who have had smart meters installed.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. We’ve discussed at length—I think it was with you, Ms Savage—smart meters. You’ve regularly touted that they are a good thing, and you’ve spoken about the Australian Energy Regulator’s need to have them rolled out as widely as possible as quickly as possible. 

Ms Savage: That’s not us. That would be the Australian Energy Market Commission who’s talked about that. 

Senator ROBERTS: What’s actually happening is that smart meters are being used to gouge customers. Many companies are not getting informed consent from consumers before changing customers over to incredibly punitive plans. Then those smart meters are being used to pinpoint the exact time someone is using their maximum amount of power, and the companies are charging the customer as if they’re doing that the entire period. What we’ve heard of is, for example, a family might be away on holiday for a couple of weeks. They come back near the end of the month, and they throw everything in the dryer and the washing machine. Their demand goes way up, and they’re charged at that rate for the whole month. That’s clearly gouging them. Are there no protections for the consumer who wants to have their smart meter removed, and what are you doing to crack down on those predatory power companies? 

Ms Savage: Thank you for the question. I think there’s just a distinction I’d like to make between a network tariff and a retail tariff. The electricity rules require network tariffs to become increasingly cost reflective, but a retailer’s job is to manage the risk on behalf of customers. As you can imagine, the price of power in the wholesale market fluctuates every day between minus $1,000 and $17,000. 

Senator ROBERTS: It does these days, yes. 

Ms Savage: It always has, actually. The cap has been different, but it’s always been highly volatile in the NEM. A retailer’s job is to package up a product for a customer that manages that risk for them. Networks have a set of cost-reflective tariffs that they show to retailers as well because of the way in which the cost of a network is really about the maximum use of the network. If all of us in this room decided to turn everything on at exactly the same time, the network has to be built big enough to accommodate that. I’m sure you can appreciate that. What the network is doing is giving to the retailer a signal about when they’ve got more or less capacity available in their network, and then retailers package up that network signal and that wholesale signal and give it to a retailer. The Australian Energy Market Commission has recognised that, with the rollout of smart meters, more and more customers are being put on to tariffs that they may not understand, the sort of tariff you just described, so they’ve actually got a draft report out at the moment which is suggesting that there should be a longer period of time for customers. Three years I think is what they’ve proposed, and Mr Duggan might want to talk a little bit more about this, given it’s not my agency, but they’re giving customers a three-year window where retailers can’t put them on to a time-of-use tariff. Even if they get a smart meter, they couldn’t go automatically on to one of those time-of-use tariffs. Did you want to add to that? 

Mr Duggan: Just two additional things. It must be an opt in. Under what’s being proposed by the AEMC, you must opt into a time-of-use tariff, not be forced on a time-of-use tariff. The other element is, if you choose not to opt in, then you continue to face the flat tariff you would’ve before—building in additional consumer protections. 

Ms Savage: For the three years. 

Mr Duggan: For the three years. 

Senator ROBERTS: What protections are available in the National Electricity Rules for consumers against power companies that are using the smart meters you’re encouraging to be installed to gouge people? 

Ms Savage: This rule change that Simon has just referred to I’ve referred to will put that protection in place. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that what’s it’s designed to do? Is that why you’re bringing it in? 

Ms Savage: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: What tangible benefit are consumers supposedly getting out of smart meters? 

Ms Savage: It’s a really great question. I’m going to give you a bit of a techie answer, but in Victoria, where we’ve had smart meters for some time, when we look at the rate of asset utilisation and the distribution system and compare to jurisdictions that don’t have smart meters, there is actually much higher utilisation. We see utilisation rates in the high 70s, whereas the average utilisation rate across the National Electricity Market is more like 43 per cent. Part of that is because the smart— 

Senator ROBERTS: How do you measure utilisation? 

Ms Savage: How much network is built to meet peak demand versus how much latent for the rest of the day. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is the idea to try and decrease the amount of peak network capacity? 

Ms Savage: It’s to try to ensure that, basically, we ‘ve got loads filling up the holes in the day so we’re not building too much network, that’s right. What you see in Victoria is the level of utilisation is much greater, so the overall network cost is much smaller. Customers are really benefitting from the reduced need to invest in networks, because of improved utilisation, so that’s one benefit. We also— 

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Ms Savage. Is that because consumers know when to utilise the network? 

Ms Savage: That’s part of it, and it can be the visibility the network has over some of these assets as well. I know you and I have talked before about some of the different types of tariffs that exist in Queensland, like controlled load tariffs et cetera, particularly with pool pumps and things like that. Being able to move these types of discretionary loads—not heating, cooling, dishwashers or lights, but some of those moveable loads through the day—can actually avoid investment in the network, which is a great thing for consumers in keeping bills down. 

Senator ROBERTS: Last question related to smart meters. I raised at a previous session the issue of air conditioners being throttled by power companies. You seemed unaware of that issue when I raised it. Have you had time to review the article I supplied confirming that actually did happen at an alarming frequency? I think it was six times in a matter of months. 

Ms Savage: I think that was a question about the PeakSmart device. You gave it to us on notice, and we’ve responded on notice. Is that correct, Steph? Yes. 

/0 Comments/by

‘Help to Buy’ Bill Fails to Address Australia’s Housing Crisis

,

Australia has a housing crisis fueled by excessive immigration and a shortage of skilled tradespeople. The Help to Buy Bill 2023 is fundamentally flawed and unlikely to offer real solutions.

Why are we importing millions of migrants when Australians are sleeping on the streets?

The major parties talk about the housing crisis but fail to make a real impact.

One Nation is the only party that can be trusted to put Australians first.

Transcript

We have a housing catastrophe due to rampant immigration—excessive, reckless, record immigration. We also have a housing crisis because we don’t have enough tradies to build the houses that we need. The Help to Buy Bill 2023 is a bill that won’t help anyone. Right now, Queenslanders, in what should be the richest state in the world, are sleeping under bridges and on riverbanks. In one of the world’s richest states, working families with children are living in cars, coming home at night to wonder if their kids are still there. Where do they toilet? Where do they shower? It’s plain inhuman. Rents are skyrocketing—if a rental can be found. House prices are reaching record highs. This is a housing crisis, one of the worst we’ve faced. It’s an inhuman catastrophe. 

Last year, the federal government under Anthony Albanese brought in 517,000 net migrants. This year, after being promised that we would have lower immigration, we are tracking to have another new record—one above last year’s. How can you bring in more than a million people in two years? That’s hundreds of thousands of houses. How can you build them? We aren’t catering for the people already here, and now we’re bringing in record numbers—a million in two years. That’s 400,000 new houses needed, in addition to the already high demand and the people living homeless at the moment. 

The Albanese government, though, wants to look like it’s doing something—not do something but look like. Enter this Help to Buy plan. Under this plan, the government wants to own a significant part of your house. If it’s an existing place, the government wants to own 30 per cent, and, if it’s a new place, 40 per cent, with the government paying for part of it with low-income earners. While a 40 per cent subsidy might sound attractive, it’s fatally flawed. If the government just borrows more money for this plan, then one thing is going to happen. When you give 40 per cent more money to people to buy a house, house prices are going to go up. House prices will go up. The bill’s core concept and premise is flawed and possibly a lie. We can’t subsidise our way out of a house price problem. Subsidies always increase prices and have throughout history. Looking at the bill’s details, or lack of details, the problem is worse. I’ll look at some of the criteria in a minute. 

Thirdly, let’s look at the constitutional basis. This bill is completely outside the federal government’s powers. It’s highly complex. The government has tabled a late amendment to the bill, attempting to clarify a set of constitutional issues—too complex. 

I’ll go back to the immigration. In addition to rampant immigration of people coming into the country, prior to COVID, the number of temporary visa holders in the country was around 2.3 million people. As of the end of 24 July, that number is now 2.8 million—more than 10 per cent of our population—all needing a roof and all needing a bed. These are hard numbers and facts. This is what’s causing the housing catastrophe. These are the hard numbers and facts, as I said, yet the government has continued to lie, claiming, ‘We’re just catching up with immigration.’ Really? We haven’t just caught up; we’ve blown the record out of the water, not only for people on resident visas but also for new immigrants coming in. We’re nearly half a million people above the record for resident visas. Using the average household size of 2½ people per household implies the need for more than 200,000 houses just to cater for new arrivals. It’s actually 400,000. This is what we’re seeing in our country. 

Then there are the details. For an Australian who enters into a Help to Buy arrangement, where the government owns part of their home, what happens if they renovate their home at their own expense, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours swinging hammers and pulling up carpet, and, as a result of their renovations, their $500,000 home increases in value to $600,000? I wonder whether the minister knows how much of that Australian’s renovation profit the government will take for doing nothing. I wonder whether the minister knows that the income thresholds are set nationally—$90,000 for singles and $120,000 for couples—despite the average house price varying from $504,000 in Darwin to $1.2 million in Sydney. I wonder why the government is not adjusting the income threshold from state to state. What are the price thresholds for houses eligible under this bill, and why haven’t these been set in the legislation? Why are we bringing yoga teachers into the country, through immigration, when we need tradies? Yoga teachers are wonderful, but we need tradies to get on with the job here. 

The government has appointed three sets of bureaucrats as part of its solution to the housing crisis. That’s just adding to the complexity and inefficiency. It’s adding to the catastrophe. We need tradies to come into this country. We need people to be vetted properly, to bring in their skills and to contribute. We have so many people in this country out of work, living on welfare, and not contributing. We have an abundance of people with good qualifications who want to come into this country. We can put them to work and fix the housing crisis quickly. These are just some of the issues that I’ll be exploring more in the committee stage. I want to put those comments back on the record. 

/0 Comments/by

Urgent Reforms Are Needed to Address NDIS Fraud and Inefficiencies

,

During the November Senate Estimates, I raised significant concerns about the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Since its inception, the NDIS has faced numerous challenges, including ineffective costing and planning, resulting in unmet needs for vulnerable individuals. The program is plagued by massive fraud and a forecasted budget cost of $90 to $100 billion.

I questioned why many direct care providers remain unpaid while fraudsters exploit the system for millions. Despite the scheme’s noble intentions, it is clear that implementation issues need urgent attention. I emphasised the need for effective measures to address these problems and ensure that every dollar benefits those who need it most.

The NDIS agency acknowledged the challenges and highlighted initiatives like the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, which aims to crack down on unscrupulous providers. I stressed the importance of fixing these systemic issues to restore public trust and ensure the scheme’s integrity.

I remain committed to advocating for a well-implemented NDIS that truly serves the needs of Australians with disabilities.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing today. The NDIS has been a problematic program since inception. That doesn’t reflect on you guys. It is not effectively costed or thought through. At the
time, it seemed to be a headline looking for a preselection buzz for the Labor Party under Julia Gillard. The program is failing on multiple levels resulting in the needs of vulnerable people remaining unmet and other
stakeholders being ignored. There is massive fraud plus a forecast budget cost of around $90 billion to $100 billion. That is what people are telling us. Why is it that many direct care providers remain unpaid while at the same time many rorters and unscrupulous fraudsters are able to rip off the system to the tune of millions of dollars? It seems to be systematic, rife, organised ripping off. The public is being taken for a ride for billions of dollars yet some agencies pay the bare minimum to untrained carers. Some carers are not paid at all. Why is that?

Senator Ayres: I suppose, Senator Roberts, the first thing to do is to respond to the initial set of assertions. Of course, you will be unsurprised to learn that’s not the government’s view at all about the value of the scheme for Australians. There are many families in Queensland who rely upon—

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, that’s not what my questions—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. Senator Ayres, continue your answer. I will listen carefully if there is a point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: I did not say the scheme was not worthy.

Senator Ayres: They rely upon the scheme and whose lives have been changed fundamentally by the scheme. The government supports the scheme. We support it because it improves the lives of people who have a disability, particularly children who have a disability. It improves the lives of families of people who look after those people. It has a demonstrably positive effect in communities. It is often not just families who look after and support people with a disability; it’s communities. We want to see workers in the disability sector paid more, paid fairly and firms engage on an ethical basis in the activities around the scheme. Almost all of them are. We want to see productivity in a real sense—that is, more and better quality services offered to Australians who are participants in the scheme. We have committed to the scheme growing, in cooperation with the state and territory governments, at eight per cent per year. That is more than the increases in inflation. We anticipate—we traversed some of these issues in the committee—that there are other sources of growth beyond just what happens in terms of the broader inflationary impact. So that is an eight per cent commitment to growth of the scheme. It is completely legitimate for government and, indeed, members of this committee to be focused upon value for money questions, compliance questions and constantly improving the focus of the governance of the scheme to deliver better outcomes. You are right to point to some of the compliance challenges that the scheme and the government must deal with. That is very much the focus of the minister. I just doesn’t think it’s fair to denigrate the overall scheme or its value for Australians. What you do is a matter for you. It is certainly the government’s position that this is a scheme that is in the interests of Australians, in the interests of disabled Australians and in the national interest.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that, Senator Ayres. The NDIS is a scheme that is needed. It’s very badly implemented. I am asking the people at the table what they are doing to fix it, because I believe they can fix it. I deny your assertions that I am against it. I wonder why you need to make assertions like that, because it just detracts from my answering time.

Senator Ayres: You were the one who started with the preamble, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I will ask the question: why is it that many direct care providers remain unpaid while at the same time many rorters and unscrupulous fraudsters are able to rip off the system to the tune of billions of
dollars? What is the core problem?

Mr McNaughton: We agree that what we would like to see—we see it in the majority of cases—is very good support providers providing the necessary disability supports to people who need those supports. That’s what makes this scheme such a very important scheme in the landscape of the country. I will ask Ms McKay in a moment to talk through some of the work that government has invested into the Fraud Fusion Taskforce and the crackdown on fraud. We know that there is—

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. Is that one of your big initiatives?

Mr McNaughton: It is a big initiative.

Senator ROBERTS: That is pretty important in the scheme of things?

Mr McNaughton: It is very important. I will hand over to Ms McKay to talk that through. That is around cracking down on those unscrupulous providers who are doing the wrong thing by participants. We want to
eradicate that from the scheme because we want to make sure that every dollar is going to a person with disability who requires it. I will hand to Ms McKay, who will talk through those initiatives.

Ms McKay: I want to talk about the Fraud Fusion Taskforce as well as other initiatives that the agency is undertaking to ensure, first and foremost, the safety and continuity of services for participants and to ensure that
the integrity of this scheme remains as strong and robust as we can ensure it can be.

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Ms McKay. The integrity of the scheme would be essential for the other prerequisites—the safety and continuity of services—right?

Ms McKay: Absolutely.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m with you.

Ms McKay: I will talk firstly about the Fraud Fusion Taskforce. The Fraud Fusion Taskforce was established in November 2022 with an initial investment of $126.3 million over four years. An additional investment was made for Services Australia of $26.5 million, which brings the total investment to $152.8 million. The Fraud Fusion Taskforce is co-led by the NDIA and Services Australia. It has 19 other members, which are other government bodies. The Fraud Fusion Taskforce is focused on—

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. Does it have any law enforcement agencies as member?

Mr McNaughton: The Australian Federal Police are on it.

Ms McKay: I apologise. I am using the captions. Sometimes I am a bit delayed in my response or understanding of your questions. As Scott mentioned, enforcement agencies are part of the process. There are 95
active fraud operations being led. We’ve got over 500 active investigations currently underway with many cases there. That is one tranche of what the agency is doing. It is working across government to ensure that fraud and organised crime are dealt with in an absolute way that shows no tolerance for those behaviours within the scheme. The second tranche of initiatives that we’re doing is uplifting our system capability through a crackdown on a fraud systems uplift approach. The government has invested $83.9 million for the 2024 calendar year to focus on that work. That work absolutely complements the work of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce by ensuring that we can implement new systems that have the uplift capability we need to make sure that it’s easier to get things right and harder to get things wrong. The types of programs that we have been investing in include identity proofing systems; improving systems that check payment claims; making sure that our new IT systems are connected; and making sure that we have a fraud case management approach. I have a whole program of work that is being undertaken as part of that process. We’re also ensuring that the work we do in relation to this is co-designed and discussed with participants as well as with the sector more generally. This is so that, as we make changes to our systems, participants can have confidence that they’ve been consulted on the changes and they are going to have their safety first and foremost and continuity of care always as principles that will govern those changes that we introduce.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. That was clear and succinct.

Ms Glanville: We are also a member of the taskforce. I can perhaps give you a sense of the regulatory actions that connect to that. That would be quite useful. I will quote from our 2023-24 end of financial year figures. This is in the context of there being terrific providers out there doing great work with people with disabilities and supporting them to live the ordinary lives that they require, as recognised in the Every Australian Counts
campaign from all those years ago.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s important. The good ones at the moment are being drowned out by a focus on the unscrupulous ones.

Ms Glanville: There are many good providers out there, so I agree with you that it is important to recognise them. I will give you some quick figures. The regulatory chill is that we have banning orders. There were 142 in the 2023-24 financial year. Civil penalties—

Senator ROBERTS: What is a banning order?

Ms Glanville: When someone is not allowed to provide services into the future. Civil penalties proceedings might be before courts. There were three of them. There are, of course, some other matters that I can’t talk about here but which are before the Federal Court in terms of practices and behaviours that we would find unacceptable.

Senator ROBERTS: Criminal activities?

Ms Glanville: Sometimes these can involve criminal activities, yes. There were 52 compliance notices. That is where a provider is asked to comply in certain ways with certain code of conduct or other matters. That is a significant power we have. Of course, education remains very important. We did over 21,985 sessions that relate to that. There were five enforceable undertakings and 147 infringement notices. The number refused
registration—I think this goes to the core of some of the issues are you raising—is 11,952.

Senator ROBERTS: So 11,952 registrations were refused?

Ms Glanville: Where there was a refusal of registration, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that for providers or agencies?

Ms Glanville: That’s for providers, people providing services.

Senator ROBERTS: What about agencies? How many of them have been prohibited?

Ms Glanville: I can’t make that distinction, but I’m happy to take that away and see if we can get any information for you on that.

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.

Ms Glanville: Revocation of registration was 192. Suspended registration was 12. Warning letters was 3½ thousand-odd. That gives you a sense of about 38,000 different types of enforcement actions that we took and the outcomes of those. This is in the service of trying to lift the quality overall to ensure that people with disability have the opportunity to make good choices in terms of who provides services to them. It also ensures that we have a strong regulator where the sorts of concerns that you are raising in some of your questioning can be addressed very thoroughly by the commission and others.

Senator ROBERTS: I would like to know on notice the agencies that you have taken on. I understand that there are some very good providers and there are some unscrupulous providers. There are some very good
agencies and there are some unscrupulous agencies. The agencies that are unscrupulous magnify the problem because there is not just one or two people in those agencies. There are sometimes many people in those agencies.

Ms Glanville: We’ll certainly take that on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: I will cede the call there because I’ve had my 10 minutes. I would like to come back and drill into some of the details.

CHAIR: I will put you on the list, Senator Roberts, for a crossbench rotation.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you

/4 Comments/by

Oakey Meat Works Pollution

,

The Oakey meat works is 100% owned by NH Foods of Japan. Between mid-March and mid-June 2022, NH Foods released 175 megalitres (175,000,000 litres) of heavily contaminated abattoir runoff into Oakey Creek, which flows into the Condamine Balonne river system, part of the Murray Darling Basin. From there, the contamination makes its way down the Darling and Murray Rivers into the Lower Lakes in South Australia.

The contamination was horrific: 460,000 MPN/100ml (milliliters) for E.coli, 151 mg/litre of ammonia nitrate, and phosphorus at 29 mg/litre.

The Queensland Government investigated and agreed with the facts but only fined the meat works $13,000 when they could have been fined $1.3 million per day. This might have something to do with the close links between the meat works and the union movement. I pointed out that charging a foreign meat works $13,000 to dispose of such a large amount of heavily polluted water under cover of heavy rain is a scandal. Why would Oakey meat works or any other company bother to dispose of waste properly when they can just dump it into the Murray Darling system and pay a token fine for doing so?

I first asked the Inspector-General of Water Compliance if he would investigate, and he refused. This is despite the Act, which established his agency, specifically outlines his duties to include intervening when a State Government fails to do their job, which Queensland has in this case. After that hand-washing, I asked the Murray Darling Basin Authority if they were concerned about such a large source of toxic pollution, which may have led to the famous blue-green algae outbreak and fish kill near Menindee. The answer was more deflection, with the matter ending at the Queensland Government’s door.

If this was a farmer, they would be all over it, and indeed are all over farm runoff. But abattoir runoff? Apparently not.

I am sick of the rules not applying equally. I hope raising this matter will at least focus the attention of relevant authorities on the Oakey meat works to ensure this never happens again.

Transcript | Session 1

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask the questions that I started asking of the inspector-general; I was advised that they were more appropriate for the Murray-Darling Basin. The Oakey meatworks is 100 per cent owned by NH
Foods of Japan. Between mid-March and mid-June 2022, NH Foods released 175 megalitres of highly contaminated abattoir run-off into Oakey Creek, which flows into the Condamine-Balonne system. The water
released was 175 megalitres—massive. It was a large body of water, which was contaminated with ammonium nitrate at 102 milligrams per litre and E. coli at 14,000 MPN per 100 millilitres. I am sure you know that 100 MPN per 100 millilitres is considered a high-risk concentration. The source of the water was a holding pond, which was contaminated at the level of 460,000 MPN per 100 millilitres—an astronomical number for E. coli—151 milligrams per litre of ammonium nitrate and phosphorus at 29 milligrams per litre. The volume and the high concentration toxicity taken together are likely to cause a particularly large toxic blue-green algae outbreak, which was observed at the site prior to the release. The release occurred during heavy rain, which is why the concentration in the waterway was lower than in the dam. The timing of the release coincides with a blue-green algae outbreak in the Darling in July of 2023. My question is: are you aware of these facts already?

Mr McConville: Environmental regulation in Queensland is the responsibility of its Department of Environment, Science and Innovation. The MDBA doesn’t have any compliance or regulatory functions with
regard to the issues that you’ve raised. In respect of the issues regarding water quality in the Darling, yes, Dr Banks and I can talk in more detail to some of those issues, but not in relation to this.

Senator ROBERTS: So did the Queensland EPA investigate.

Mr McConville: I am not in a position to comment.

Senator ROBERTS: That wasn’t a question, Mr McConville. The Queensland EPA investigated, concluded that a breach of Queensland environmental laws had occurred and a fine was issued. The maximum fine for this offence is $1.3 million per offence. The Queensland government chose to fine the facility $13,500: one per cent of the maximum. Local residents tell me that the abattoir, which has a long history of industrial accidents and fines, has a habit of building up pollutants in their holding dam and then releasing it under cover of heavy rain. Has either the Murray-Darling Basin Authority or the department investigated the Oakey meat processing plant sending pollutants into the Murray-Darling Basin?

Mr McConville: Once again, I state that the MDBA doesn’t have any compliance, regulatory or investigative responsibilities. Those responsibilities would sit with regulatory agencies in Queensland.

Senator ROBERTS: Am I to interpret, Mr McConville, that you’re saying, ‘Nothing to look at here’, or do you raise it and deal with it in another way? Did you know about it and what’s your response?

Mr McConville: No, Senator, I didn’t know about this specific instance. We continue to engage on an ongoing basis with Queensland, and indeed all other states, on issues of water quality. We have been very engaged with WaterNSW in relation to the issues of water quality in the Lower Darling in particular. But no, I have not been engaged on that issue in Queensland.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s your level of engagement with the Queensland government and the Queensland EPA in particular?

Mr McConville: We don’t engage directly. There isn’t an EPA in Queensland; it’s the Department of Environment, Science & Innovation. We don’t engage directly with them. We do engage on a very continuous and
ongoing basis with the water agencies in Queensland as we look at all of the issues that relate to their responsibilities in implementing the basin plan.

Senator ROBERTS: Given your concern about the water quality of the Darling River, will you be engaging with the Queensland water authorities now on this specifically?

Mr McConville: I am happy to have a conversation with them. I would reinforce that we don’t have any compliance or regulatory functions in relation to environmental incident management in Queensland.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you raise this with them as a concern?

Mr McConville: I am happy to have a conversation with them, as I do on an ongoing basis.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you let us know when you do?

Mr McConville: Certainly, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, does $13,500 seem a fair fine for a foreign multinational food company? This is 175 megalitres of heavily contaminated water disposed of into the connected basin for just $13,500. That’s a very cheap way of getting rid of pollution. That’s a bargain! Why do anything legally when you can just dump dangerous levels of pollution into the basin? Any thoughts on that?

Senator McAllister: The officials have explained to you that the Murray-Darling Basin arrangements respect the role of the states and territories in managing certain functions in terms of environmental management, but require coordination on other questions. The official has said to you that this is a question for the Queensland government. The fines that they levy and the approach they take to compliance and enforcement really is a job for which they are responsible. We don’t seek to take on every responsibility that exists for a state and territory. We respect the role of states and territories in managing their own affairs.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s pleasing to hear, in a way, because as you know I believe in competitive federalism and as much power to the states as possible and limited central power. But who is concerned? It doesn’t seem like anyone is concerned about the health of the Darling River?

Senator McAllister: Everybody is interested in the health of the Murray-Darling Basin.

Senator ROBERTS: Queensland is not.

Senator McAllister: Senator, I invite you to take that up with the Queensland government.

Senator ROBERTS: Who’s interested in the health of the Darling River?

Senator McAllister: You can ask any number of the officials here, who spent a lot of time thinking about the health of the Darling, about the steps that are in place under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to improve the health of the river systems within the basin.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that what is done is done. The purpose of sharing this is to bring it to your attention and hopefully to procure an undertaking that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority or the Department of
the Environment, Science and Innovation will monitor run-off from the Oakey meatworks in a heavy-rain event to prevent them from doing this again. Is that something that is reasonable?

Mr McConville: We don’t have a compliance or regulatory function, so it’s not our task to monitor run-off from any particular site or facility. That would sit with the Queensland state department. As I have said, I am very happy to engage with Queensland and to make inquiries in that regard; again, that function sits with the state environmental regulatory agencies.

Senator ROBERTS: Will your inquiries include any request or suggestion that they actively monitor water releases from this abattoir?

Mr McConville: Again, that is for the state authorities to determine how they would do that.

Senator ROBERTS: But would you hint to it or request it? They can tell you to ‘go to hell’.

Mr McConville: I need to be very mindful of where my remit exists and where it doesn’t. I am very happy to engage with departmental officials in Queensland in relation to water quality generally. The specific response, again, would sit with the state departments.

Senator ROBERTS: There are two points that I would like to raise. The second is the most important. The first one I just mention for completeness. The Queensland branch of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees
Union has made multiple donations to the Queensland ALP, totalling $66,000 across the period the abattoir has been a really bad corporate citizen. Maybe it’s something to do with the uncertain future of that meatworks and a factor in imposing such a small fine. The second point is directly to a federal responsibility. The uncertainty of that meatworks has been increased dramatically by the PFAS contamination in the groundwater off the Oakey air base. What is the government doing to manage and treat that PFAS contamination and prevent it growing?

Senator McAllister: There are a couple of things. First, as you have had explained to you on a number of occasions, we are not responsible for the Queensland government. We can’t in this forum answer questions about the way in which the Queensland government executes its responsibilities. Clearly, this is the Australian Senate. Senators are here for the purpose of interrogating the expenditure of public money in this portfolio. We are simply not in a position to answer questions about the Queensland administrative arrangements. Secondly, you asked me about the adequacy of penalties. I will say that a bill is in the Senate now to increase penalties from around $15 million in the Commonwealth’s environmental legislation to $780 million. That is legislation that you may vote for. I understand it is not your intention to do so, but we are trying to increase penalties in relation to offences that are relevant for the Australian government. Thirdly, in relation to PFAS, I can tell you generally that Australian government agencies, particularly in Defence, are very engaged with this where there is a relationship with the use of PFAS in defence sites. The officials at this table aren’t involved in those processes, but they may be able to assist you about any particular Murray-Darling Basin related matters. You may have needed to ask that in another committee.

CHAIR: We will now break for morning tea.

Transcript | Session 2

Senator ROBERTS: I will cover a number of issues. In the last 12 months, how many overseas trips have been taken by Murray-Darling Basin Authority members?

Mr McConville: In the last 12 months—I may have to double-check—two trips, one by me. I travelled to France for the International Network of Basin Organisations triennial general assembly. Tim Goodes, Executive
Director, Basin Plan, recently travelled to the United States to attend the Colorado River Basin and a series of other meetings and attended a course at Harvard University. I believe they are the only two.

Senator ROBERTS: Colorado River Basin would be pretty significant.

Mr McConville: Indeed.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you please provide details, including cost.

Mr McConville: I will have to take that on notice. I am happy to.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. My staff would like to compliment your new system view page—very well done.

Mr McConville: Thank you.

Senator ROBERTS: They think it is excellent. When will you be likely to add a page on the measurement of to-sea flow from the barrages?

Mr McConville: I don’t know. Again, I am happy to take that on notice, if I may.

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. South Australia’s water data export for water over the barrages, which is, I believe, the sea flow, totalled around 2,200 gigalitres to the sea in the last 12 months. Does that seem about right?

Mr McConville: Again, I couldn’t speculate. I am happy to come back to you on data flows and information.

Senator ROBERTS: This is your data, apparently. It is laid out for many pages and totals 2,201 gigalitres, which is a lot of water.

Mr McConville: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: From your new and excellent system view page, the value of the flow to South Australia over the last 12 months is 3,707 gigalitres. That’s from your data total there. Is that correct?

Mr McConville: I wouldn’t know, off the top of my head. I am happy to confirm that.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the figure for South Australian flow to guarantee the health of the Murray River through South Australia, and how much must the to-sea flow be to carry out the salt and pollutants to keep the river healthy?

Mr McConville: I might ask Jacqui Hickey, our director of river operations, to come up and address those questions in relation to the flows and the barrages.

Ms Hickey: Can you repeat your question for me.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the figure for the South Australian flow to guarantee the health of the Murray River through South Australia? How much must the to-sea flow be to carry out the salt and pollutants to keep the river healthy? We are after flow into South Australia and flow into the sea.

Ms Hickey: Chapter 8 of the Basin Plan sets out what we think the flow should be over the barrages, if we can achieve that. On a three-year rolling average, for 95 per cent of the time, that number is about 2,000 gigalitres over the barrages, with a minimum—

Senator ROBERTS: It is 2,200 gigalitres.

Ms Hickey: Per year, on a three-year rolling average, for 95 per cent of the time over the long term. That is set out in the Basin Plan.

Senator ROBERTS: Where is it?

Ms Hickey: That is in chapter 8, section 8.13. Regarding your questions on flows recently to South Australia, in the 2023-24 water year, the total flow across the SA border was 7,780 gigalitres. Of that, 5,470 gigalitres went across the barrages.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s over what period?

Ms Hickey: The 2023-24 water year.

Senator ROBERTS: One year of floods.

Ms Hickey: Coming off some wet periods.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that, during the last drought, in the debate about the water flows around 2019, the figure as to how much is needed to go out to sea to discharge pollutants and salt was about 800 to 1,000 gigalitres. Is that roughly correct?

Ms Hickey: I’d have to take that one on notice. I don’t have with me the long-term figures for barrage releases.

Senator ROBERTS: The target for over-the-border flows is about 4,000 gigalitres. That’s the top end. Is that about right?

Ms Hickey: It varies from year to year. The flow to South Australia, as you know, is made up of the SA entitlement flow, which is the consumptive entitlement and the dilution and loss. That’s what we have to provide
each—

Senator ROBERTS: That is domestic and irrigators?

Ms Hickey: It is. It is South Australia’s state entitlement. That includes some water for local environmental uses. We also provide environmental water that has been delivered through the system. When additional dilution flows are triggered, that is also provided, if that is not already met through unregulated flows. Any trade to or from South Australia provides a net adjustment of the total flow across the SA border.

Senator ROBERTS: The message I get from you is that it’s not simple. It’s complex. There are other factors. I am trying to simplify it. I don’t want to mislead anyone; I don’t want to put words in your mouth. My
understanding is that the annual inflow to the Murray-Darling Basin is about 12,000 gigalitres and South Australia gets about a third of that, which is about 4,000 gigalitres.

Ms Hickey: I can’t answer those numbers. I don’t have the analysis in front of me.

Senator ROBERTS: South Australia is only one-quarter of the basin. It seems to me that South Australia is getting plenty of water.

CHAIR: Said the Queenslander!

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that, during the last drought, as I said, around 2019, the debate was about a need in South Australia to discharge to the sea 800 to 1,000 gigalitres. We’re sending down 2,201
gigalitres to the sea. Why are we wasting water—and now the government wants another 450 gigalitres—when you have more than enough, Minister?

Senator McAllister: I think your question misunderstands quite a lot about the way the water arrangements work in the basin. The goal of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is to generate a healthy working river and to
support farming activities, communities and the natural environment within the basin area. Your approach looks at a single metric: the amount of water flowing over the barrages. It makes an assumption that water flowing at the end of the system represents a waste. That’s not the way that the scientists tell us we should manage water in the system. We’ve got broader goals. We want to see healthy rivers right across the basin, including in the north of the basin. We want to make sure that the systems aren’t overallocated, so that irrigators and water users have certainty about what they can use each year. We also want to make sure that we’re not extracting more water out of those systems than can be sustained in the long term from an environmental perspective. The truth is that communities and agriculturalists and environmentalists all need us to return to some kind of sustainable take out of that system.

Senator ROBERTS: Just looking at the figures that I shared with Mr McConville, from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s own data, the flow into South Australia in the last 12 months was 3,777 gigalitres. The flow out from South Australia into the sea was 2,200 gigalitres. That is about 1,600 gigalitres consumed in South Australia. Town water and irrigation are about 400. That leaves about 1,200 for river seepage and evaporation of the lower lakes. That seems like a lot.

Ms Hickey: Maybe we can issue you with some updated numbers. What happens is that, when we get the information from our flow recording sites across the basin, every now and again we do hydrometric updates and
we do find that there are some adjustments to those figures. You are talking about the 2023-24 water year?

Senator ROBERTS: I am talking about the last 12 months.

Ms Hickey: I have only got it per water year. There is the flow into South Australia, minus the amount that’s used for irrigation purposes, aligned with South Australia’s allocation. Then there are additional inflows that come into the lower part of the River Murray from other small tributary inflows as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that from the south-east?

Ms Hickey: No. That is from the Mount Lofty Ranges and other local catchment areas. Obviously, when the lakes are higher, there is more evaporation loss, but wind and temperature do play a big factor in evaporation
losses at the lakes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That is the end of my questions.

/2 Comments/by

Australia Must Boost Gold Reserves Amid BRICS Gold Rush

,

It’s no secret that BRICS countries are buying gold at unprecedented rates, which is the main reason gold is appreciating in value so quickly. Speculation suggests BRICS is planning a gold-backed exchange currency to facilitate further movement away from the US dollar as the default currency for settling international trade.

I have asked the Reserve Bank about this on several occasions, highlighting Australia’s puny gold reserves as compared to Russia (a similarly sized economy) and China. Once again, the answer I received indicates the Reserve Bank has its head in the sand on this issue.

Our economy is so closely tied to the United States that a new exchange currency will “free up” a huge amount of US dollars, which will have significant consequences not just for the USA but for major trading partners such as Australia.

Australia must respond to the threat of a new exchange currency by expanding our gold holdings as a hedge against an upheaval in the currency market. One Nation will expand our gold reserves and reduce our exposure to the US dollar—both currency and treasuries.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on to gold. Your most recent balance sheet shows gold and foreign exchange assets at $105 billion. How much of that is in gold, and how much has our gold holding changed? Could you provide the tonnes of gold and the value?

Dr Kent: Our long-term gold holdings are still 80 tonnes, which is around 6,430 bars.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s 6,430 bars.

Dr Kent: Yes. That has not changed since 1997. The value as at September was around $9.7 billion.

Senator ROBERTS: Where is that gold physically located, and has the holding been audited since the 2022 audit?

Dr Kent: I don’t believe it has. Another audit is coming due; I would have to take on notice exactly when. It is almost all held in the facility at the Bank of England.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much; I like your precise answers. Saudi Arabia has just been detected as buying 160 tonnes of gold, and the People’s Bank of China bought 1,600 tonnes of gold over the last three
years. China now holds more than 2,000 tonnes. Russia now holds 2,300 tonnes. This is a large element of the demand inflation in the gold price. Are you concerned that BRICS is up to something that needs gold? Should we be increasing our holdings as a precaution?

Dr Kent: I have no intimate knowledge as to why they are purchasing that gold. I don’t think it has implications for us.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not concerned?

Dr Kent: No.

Senator ROBERTS: BRICS have the capacity to pull the rug out from underneath the dollar, and, in my opinion, Australia should mind that risk. What are our current holding of US Treasury notes and currency?

Dr Kent: I will have to get back to you with the precise figure, but it’s an important part of our foreign exchange reserves.

/3 Comments/by

Urgent Need for Fire Safety Inspector Training in Australia

,

I was contacted by a constituent who is a qualified fire inspector, who obtained his qualification from Queensland TAFE many years ago. He informed me that no TAFE in Australia currently offers a course that would qualify a person to become a building fire safety inspector. This seems like a significant problem in a country that will need one million new homes to house those who are here now.

I asked the Australian Skills Quality Authority, the closest agency to the topic, about this matter. It was taken on notice.  I look forward to a prompt answer.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing tonight. These very brief questions are from a constituent. Can you tell me what course a person looking to qualify as a fire systems inspector would do? 

Ms Rice: I’d have to check the details for that particular occupation as to what would be the required qualification. 

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t expect you to know everything! Take that on notice, please. 

Ms Rice: Certainly. 

Senator ROBERTS: I would also like you to identify which locations in Australia are teaching those courses currently. 

Ms Rice: Again, I’m happy to take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Fire safety is an essential inspection, Minister, for every new building constructed—and we need a lot of new buildings with massive immigration. Ms Rice, are you aware of whether your agency or any other is doing the planning for how many fire inspectors we will need in the near future and where those will be trained? 

Senator Watt: I’m not. Ordinarily, that kind of work around projecting future workforce needs would probably be a Jobs and Skills Australia role. I think they were to give evidence but were released, but we could take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing tonight. These very brief questions are from a constituent. Can you tell me what course a person looking to qualify as a fire systems inspector would do? 

Ms Rice: I’d have to check the details for that particular occupation as to what would be the required qualification. 

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t expect you to know everything! Take that on notice, please. 

Ms Rice: Certainly. 

Senator ROBERTS: I would also like you to identify which locations in Australia are teaching those courses currently. 

Ms Rice: Again, I’m happy to take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Fire safety is an essential inspection, Minister, for every new building constructed—and we need a lot of new buildings with massive immigration. Ms Rice, are you aware of whether your agency or any other is doing the planning for how many fire inspectors we will need in the near future and where those will be trained? 

Senator Watt: I’m not. Ordinarily, that kind of work around projecting future workforce needs would probably be a Jobs and Skills Australia role. I think they were to give evidence but were released, but we could take that on notice. 

/0 Comments/by

Labor is Hiding Australia’s Largest Wage Theft

,

After five and a half years of holding government departments and agencies accountable, and doing our own research, we continue to pursue Australia’s largest case of wage theft. More than one BILLION dollars of underpayments involving as many as 5,000 workers. Our research has led to miners submitting complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO). For example, a miner has been underpaid $211,000 and some miners have had at least $41,000 stolen per year of employment.

In this session with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), I asked Mr Furlong, General Manager of FWC, how many applications for regulated Labour Hire Agreements were currently under the Commission’s consideration. He stated that 55 applications had been submitted, with 11 Orders made—9 in the mining industry and 2 in the meat processing industry.

I then asked a series of questions about the relationships between Awards, Regulated Labour Hire Agreements, and Enterprise Agreements. Mr Furlong confirmed that, under the Labor government’s recent legislation, it’s standard for casual workers performing the same job as full-time workers under a Regulated Labour Hire Agreement to receive an additional 25% in pay as compensation for entitlements they do not receive. Mr Furlong agreed to look into which Awards would have applied in the absence of Labour Hire Agreement Orders and provide that information on notice.

I’ve raised this issue at every senate estimates hearing since late 2019 and finally the Fair Work Commission and Minister seem to be taking this issue seriously. Until recently, bureaucrats and Ministers have been in denial of what has been happening right under their noses and that raises questions of integrity.

Australia’s largest wage theft case has been possible only with the participation of the relevant union bosses in the CFMEU/MEU, labour-hire firms, mine owners and the FWC’s approval.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’m interested in exploring the nature of labour hire arrangements and their relationship with associated awards, and also partly the CFMEU administrator. What’s the total number of labour hire arrangements currently before the commission to date? 

Mr Furlong: I might start here and then ask Ms Scarlett to assist. My understanding is that to 30 September we’ve received 55 applications for regulated labour hire authorisation orders. And of that— 

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘regulated’? 

Mr Furlong: Of that number? 

Senator ROBERTS: No, what does the term ‘regulated’ refer to? 

Mr Furlong: That’s the term— 

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Come before you guys’? 

Mr Furlong: given under the loopholes mark 1 changes. In terms of the number of orders that have been made, there are 11. Nine of them, I understand, are in the mining industry and two are in the meat-processing industry. Ms Scarlett, is there anything you’d like to add? 

Senator ROBERTS: That number was how many? 

Ms Scarlett: It was 55. As Mr Furlong has said, 11 labour hire arrangement orders have been issued since the commencement of the provisions. 

Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of orders? 

Ms Scarlett: Regulated labour hire arrangement orders. Of the 55 applications, 11 orders have been made, a number of applications have been withdrawn and the remaining matters remain before the commission. 

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the breakdown of these labour hire arrangement orders for each award that would otherwise have covered the employees? You might have to take that on notice. 

Ms Scarlett: Yes. I’m not sure that we can go to the award. The regulated labour hire arrangement orders apply where there is a covered employment instrument such as an enterprise agreement in place. So it’s not necessarily an assessment of the award which applies, rather whether an enterprise agreement is in place that would cover the work of the labour hire employees if they were working in the business. 

Senator ROBERTS: The enterprise agreement would be in an industry or work site that is covered by an award, but the enterprise agreement supersedes the award; is that right? 

Ms Scarlett: That’s correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: So would there be any such sites that only have an enterprise agreement and no back-up award? 

Ms Scarlett: I don’t believe there would be, but I’d need to take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please do. I’d like to know the connection to the award, or to the award that would be in place if the enterprise agreement wasn’t there? 

Ms Scarlett: I understand. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can you advice whether there would be a general expectation that anyone working as a casual should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? 

Ms Scarlett: The regulated labour hire arrangement order provisions provide for a 25 per cent casual loading for regulated labour hire employees. 

Senator ROBERTS: Casuals. 

Ms Scarlett: Casuals. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can you advice if there is specific legislation, regulation or policy that requires that a casual employee should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? I know that it’s a community expectation and it’s a right almost, but is it enshrined in law, statute or policy? 

Ms Scarlett: I’m not aware of a specific provision in legislation that requires a 25 per cent loading. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you able to check that? 

Ms Scarlett: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: You’ll take on notice to check it? It is fairly normal that awards require casual employees to receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? Can you point to any award that does not require a casual employee to be paid 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? 

Mr Furlong: I can’t point to an award, but I’ll happily take it on notice. There are 155 modern awards, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, so I’d like to know if that’s normal. 

Mr Furlong: Can I clarify the question so we make sure that we provide you with the information that you require? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, sure. Is it fairly normal that awards require casual employees to receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? That’s the first part. 

Mr Furlong: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: The second part is: can you point to any award that does not require a casual employee to be paid 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? 

Mr Furlong: We’ll take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Furlong. In applying the better off overall test, the BOOT, to enterprise agreement applications, would it be the normal expectation of the Fair Work Commission, having regard to pay rates of casual workers, that casual employees should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? 

Mr Furlong: I will ask Mr Corcoran to assist you, Senator. 

Mr Corcoran: Each application is considered on its own merits by the member. They take into account the circumstances in their entirety. It’s not a line-by-line assessment that the member will make; the better off overall test is a global assessment. 

Senator ROBERTS: A global assessment. If an award did not allow for casual employment, would this create the circumstance in which casual employees working under enterprise agreements subject to the set award would be paid less than full-time employees and/or be paid a rate that would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent? 

Mr Corcoran: A casual employee wouldn’t be paid less than a full-time employee, I wouldn’t have thought, in normal circumstances. 

Senator ROBERTS: A casual employee would be paid less than a full-time— 

Mr Corcoran: I thought they would not have been paid less. 

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry. And they’d be paid full time plus 25 per cent? 

Mr Furlong: With some of these questions, I return to the correspondence I provided you on 11 January this year regarding information published on your website but also relating to the better off overall test and the Chandler Macleod Northern District of NSW Black Coal Mining Agreement 2015. I’m not too sure if you still have access to that correspondence. 

Senator ROBERTS: I do. It’s sitting on my desk—with an intent to reply. 

Mr Furlong: This series of questions has been covered in that correspondence. I’m happy to table it, if that would assist. 

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s fine; I know exactly where it is on my desk. Can you envisage a circumstance in which, if a union objected to an enterprise agreement because the pay rate of casuals would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent, the Fair Work Commission would ignore the objections of the union and endorse the agreement despite the union’s objections? 

Mr Furlong: As we’ve discussed several times, the better off overall test, as Mr Corcoran said, is a global assessment to ensure the employees are better off overall. It is always determined by a member of the commission. Members, as you’re aware, are independent statutory office holders who are required to ensure that, in their decisions, they are satisfying the obligation, functions and prescribed content of the enterprise agreements before they can be satisfied and then ultimately approve the decision to make the agreement operational. If a party to that agreement or someone who has a valid interest in that agreement is unsatisfied, is concerned with that agreement application, they can seek to have the agreement overturned through the mechanism of an appeal; that is their right. The other thing I’d like to add here— 

Senator ROBERTS: Just on the answer to that question: would the commission ignore the objections in assessing the enterprise agreement? Would the commission ignore the objections of the union as part of that? I’m not talking about passing it and then objecting to it; I’m talking about objecting as they’re processing it. 

Mr Furlong: Prior to the application being made? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Mr Furlong: It would be the subject of deliberation of a member before the tribunal. 

Senator ROBERTS: It’d be pretty unlikely, though, wouldn’t it? 

Mr Furlong: I can’t speak on behalf of our members and their independent decision-making. 

Senator ROBERTS: Have you ever seen a member overturn a union objection? 

Mr Furlong: As we’ve discussed, my role is to provide administrative support to the president of the commission to ensure— 

Senator ROBERTS: It’d be pretty unlikely, wouldn’t it? 

Mr Furlong: I can’t answer that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Alright. I cut you off there. 

Mr Furlong: I was just going to say that if an agreement has reached or passed its normal expiry date, then a party to that agreement can seek to have the agreement unilaterally terminated. They will then fall back to the underpinning award—or they can have the right to negotiate a new enterprise agreement. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the extra detail; it goes outside what I’m looking for. In the process of getting approval for an enterprise agreement from the Fair Work Commission, if a union objected to an enterprise agreement because the pay rate of casuals would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent, the Fair Work Commission would hardly ignore the objections of the union and endorse the agreement despite the union’s objections. 

Mr Furlong: It’s a case-by-case basis, on the information provided to the members in the consideration of whether or not— 

Senator ROBERTS: What would be the likelihood? Have you heard of any? 

Mr Furlong: As I said, it’s not my role to comment on cases determined by members of the commission. It’s my responsibility to provide the president with administrative support, as the general manager, to ensure the commission can operate effectively. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you for your opinion. 

Mr Furlong: I can’t comment on cases that come before the commission. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to. I’m not asking for your opinion on the member making the decision. I’m asking: would it happen, and has it happened? 

Mr Furlong: I don’t have any oversight of particular cases that move through the tribunal side of the commission. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would anyone else care to comment? It seems to me to be almost impossible; I won’t say it is impossible! 

Mr Corcoran: I would say a member would always consider the views of the parties, but ultimately the member must be satisfied that the requirements of the act have been met. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have some questions for the minister; I think most of them will be pretty simple, Minister. I table this letter from the Independent Workers Union of Australia; it’s the letter that was sent to the CFMEU administrator, copied to you, me and Senator Cash. I think these questions will be fairly simple, given your background, Minister. Why is the CFMEU administrator not here at Senate estimates? 

Senator Watt: They’re not a public official. I think pretty much every person who attends estimates is either a minister or a public servant. The administrator is not a public servant. There are probably other reasons but that would be one of them. 

Senator ROBERTS: Who pays his salary? 

Senator Watt: He’s being paid by the CFMEU in the same way that officials of the union have traditionally been paid. 

Senator ROBERTS: That explains that. What responsibilities does the CFMEU administrator have with or to the Fair Work Commission? I imagine he’d have to deal with them a fair bit. 

Senator Watt: Mr Furlong might be better placed. 

Mr Furlong: Under the registered organisations act, I am the regulator of registered organisations. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re overseeing it? 

Mr Furlong: I oversee all the registered organisations, employer and employee alike. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could the CFMEU administrator authorise payment of the underpaid miners from the CFMEU mining division using CFMEU funds? 

Mr Furlong: I can’t speak on behalf of the administrator. I don’t think you were here for this section of my evidence: the administrator operates independent of government. He will make decisions on behalf of the union as he sees fit. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can he investigate wage theft from casual miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley? 

Mr Furlong: In representing the interests of his members, he can look into the underpayments. It’s a core function of trade unions to do that. 

Senator Watt: Noting that the administrator is the administrator of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU. To use the colloquial, his members are members of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU, not, for example, members of the maritime division and certainly not people who are now members of the Mining and Energy Union. His only responsibility is for the Construction and General Division, and its members. 

Senator ROBERTS: The government said it needed the parliament to create the CFMEU administrator to deal with alleged CFMEU illegality and criminality, didn’t it—amongst other things? 

Senator Watt: I might look back at what we said. We had a debate this morning about it. It’s not possible for me to go into the intention of the administration because of the High Court litigation. I’m sure you can look back at what was said in the second reading speech. 

Senator ROBERTS: That was my impression, so correct me if I’m wrong. Now, management of this is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. You said it would be a matter of immense public importance. 

Senator Watt: I think there has been a lot of public interest in this issue. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes—so wouldn’t it be better to have him subject to parliamentary scrutiny and Senate estimates? 

Senator Watt: I’m looking around at our lawyers. I might get Ms Godden, the departmental chief counsel, back up, if that’s okay. I know departmental people don’t normally appear at the table for this. Senator Roberts, I don’t know if you were here this morning but we had a discussion about issues that we could answer questions on and issues that we couldn’t because they might involve the High Court case. I don’t want to say anything which will interfere with that, and I know you don’t want me to either. Could you ask the question again, so I can get some advice on whether I can answer that. 

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is the government said it needed parliament to create the CFMEU administrator to deal with the alleged CFMEU illegality and criminality. Now the oversight of the CFMEU administrator is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and yet it was said to be a matter of immense public importance. 

Senator Watt: I have no doubt it’s a matter of great public interest. I was saying before to Senator Payman that either the legislation or the scheme of administration requires the administrator to provide a report to me every six months, which I’m required to table in the parliament, so there is a form of parliamentary accountability through that. That was considered to be the appropriate amount of reporting for a role that is completely independent of government. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I know you’ve been very patient during the day, but this is— 

Senator ROBERTS: Given a report in the media on 12 April this year—I mentioned this in a speech in the Senate, but there was no answer to it—is the real reason for the CFMEU being placed in administration to stop John Setka taking over Labor in Victoria, as he reported? And why wouldn’t constituents be suspicious of the arrangement? 

Senator Watt: As I said in response to an earlier question, I’d really like to be able to answer that question but it’s probably not wise that I do given the High Court litigation. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

Senator Watt: But I’m told you might want to have a look at paragraph 11 of the revised explanatory memorandum, which provides some reasoning for the legislation. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

Renewable Energy: Land Use and Cost Concerns

,

Coal-fired power stations and nuclear power stations each have about 40 hectares of footprint, with a very narrow target transmission lines straight to the cities. In contrast, solar and wind installations are scattered and located away from the main cities, taking up enormous amounts of space. Their energy density is very low, requiring a vast amount of land to produce the same power, and they aren’t on consistently. This increases transmission costs and the amount of land that regions must devote to solar, wind, and now batteries, causing significant angst.

Around the world, every country that has increased the proportion of solar and wind has also increased the cost of electricity for consumers and destroyed their manufacturing base. For example, look at Germany.

A surface coalmine must pay a bond for every hectare uncovered each year, and if it is rehabilitated properly to a superior standard than it was originally, they get their money back. However, there is no such bond for solar and wind companies to set aside funds for decommissioning their complexes at the end of their life. This needs to change!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Your predecessor said, ‘Australia’s random renewable energy push needs to be overhauled and a nationwide stocktake is required to determine what should be built and where it should go.’ Are you committed to that overall overhaul?

Mr Sheldon: That is an observation or recommendation made by Mr Dyer, and I think that’s been built into the review that Mr Duggan has just been talking about. So all those action plans and so on are designed to
ensure—

Senator ROBERTS: When’s that coming out? I’m sorry, I missed it.

Mr Duggan: The action plan has been agreed by the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council, so that’s now a public document. So we’re in the process now of implementing. The full response to the review was
published on 19 July.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So that’s been included in their recommendations?

Mr Duggan: Yes, that’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Dyer also said, ‘The sort of granular planning required for a once in a generation transformation to secure the nation’s energy supply still had not happened.’ Is that now in the report as well—
granular planning?

Mr Duggan: Yes, this was a recommendation to governments. As you would know, a lot of the detail, the specific planning around land use and specific locations of related transmission, sits with the state governments
and involves a very big input from the local governments. So a lot of the argumentation around that recommendation was to point to some of the best practice that already exists and to encourage that to be taken up
by the other states and territories.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s a lot of pain in the regions now, because they’re bearing the brunt of solar and wind disturbances.

Mr Duggan: What the report highlighted was that, certainly where best practice is not happening, there was an opportunity to improve the way projects are being delivered to the betterment of communities. That’s
absolutely correct.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems like it’s hell for leather, just do whatever you want. And there’s a lot of cash flying around, which is inducing councils to bypass some of their own ordinances, as we understand it.

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, the government inherited the last government’s framework and commissioned Mr Dyer to do this report because it’s in the interests of rural and regional communities and of an
effective rollout of generation and transmission capability that we improve the governance and consultation processes and all of the things that are included in Mr Dyer’s report. That’s what’s motivated the government to commission this report. On those nine recommendations, I think Mr Duggan said three of them are directed towards the Commonwealth, because there are multiple participants in this process, but they have, essentially, all been adopted. It’s our job now to operationalise that effectively in a way that addresses, I think, many of the issues that you raise.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that, Minister. Are you aware that a coal-fired power station and a nuclear power station have about 40 hectares of footprint, and that’s it, and a very narrow target transmission
corridor straight to the main users, which are the cities and the provincial cities? Solar and wind are scattered and away from the main cities and they take up enormous room. Their energy density is very low, which means that you need an enormous amount of land to produce the same power. And even then you can’t produce it regularly. So that increases transmission costs, and the amount of land the regions are devoting to solar, wind and transmission, and also now to batteries. It’s causing a lot of angst. Are you aware of that?

Senator Ayres: I’m certainly aware, on one hand, that, with the processes for approval and consultation with these projects, we were operating with the last government’s processes, and we are working to improve those. I’m also aware that you’re trying to make a broader point, I guess, about the merit or otherwise of the approach that is being taken by the government and the states and Commonwealth in terms of building an energy system for the future. I appreciate that you’re not one of the coalition MPs here, but I think it’s hard to make an argument about community consultation on one hand, and then do a press release that says: ‘We’re going to turn up with seven nuclear reactors in your neighbourhood, whether you like it or not. We’re not going to tell you how much they cost, or how many of them we’re going to build—but, Muswellbrook, here you go, whether you like it or not, a nuclear reactor’—

Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you. A coal-fired power station would be fine—

Senator Ayres: That will be very expensive. What we know, and I think the evidence that you’ve heard today shows—and I understand you don’t agree with it; I think you’ve demonstrated over time that you are impervious to the facts and evidence that are provided by the agencies—

Senator ROBERTS: I do the contrary, Minister. I love evidence.

Senator Ayres: That’s your right, I understand that. But the shift to the cheapest form of energy is what the government is interested in here. Claims are made—some of them very wild claims, and some of them
somewhere between misinformation and disinformation—about the scale of land that is required for these projects. I understand that people make those claims and some people retweet them and repost them—pretty
irresponsible in my view. But we have commissioned the Dyer report for a reason; that is, to improve the processes. The minister believes, and the government believes, that adopting those, together with the appointment of Mr Mahar and other steps that the government is undertaking, will improve the effectiveness of the consultation process as we get on with one of the most important nation building things that government can do, and that is to deliver the lowest cost, most reliable energy system as we upgrade our energy system so that we can have manufacturing jobs and low cost, reliable, renewable energy and storage for households and business into the future. It’s a decades-long pathway and we’re determined to do it in the most efficient way possible for the Australian people.

Senator ROBERTS: There are two things I would remind you of, Minister. One is that the energy density drives the cost, and physics does not change the very low energy density of solar and wind, whereas coal and
especially nuclear are very high energy density. The second thing is that, everywhere around the world, every country that has increased the proportion of solar wind, has increased the cost of electricity for consumers and destroyed their manufacturing base. Have a look at Germany. Something that Mr Dyer was very passionate about was rehabilitation bonds, so that these wind and solar companies have put money away for decommissioning the complexes at the end of life. A surface coalmine has to pay a bond for every hectare uncovered each year, and then, at the end of the life of the mine, if it’s rehabilitated properly, to a superior standard than it was originally, they get their money back. There is no bond for solar and wind. What work have you done on putting reforms to government that would ensure there is money put away to clean up the environment, not just leave a toxic wasteland? Specifically, what have you done with the government?

Mr Sheldon: Can I just clarify that question? Is it: what work has the AEIC done to raise that issue with government?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Sheldon: I think Mr Dyer raised that. It was in his annual report in 2022 that he raised this issue about performance bonds in relation to wind farms in particular.

Senator ROBERTS: And what work has been done in following up?

Mr Sheldon: It’s certainly one of those issues that does get raised with us. It’s not in the top 10 or so issues that are raised with us in the complaints that we receive. We’re like a small ombudsman. We receive complaints. It’s an issue that does get raised. During the time that I’ve been in the role, from 2 April this year, it has been raised a few times, but it’s certainly not the top issue. In terms of what is happening, I think since 2022, when Mr Dyer raised the issue, what I’ve observed in the time that I’ve been in the role is that, in different jurisdictions, there’s certainly work done to increase transparency. One of our roles, I guess, in the AEIC is to promote more transparency around these projects.

Senator ROBERTS: What, specifically, have you done?

Mr Sheldon: It’s not our role to implement policy. We’ve identified issues and we certainly monitor them. New South Wales, for example, has recently worked on its renewable energy plan, which includes standard
clauses and so on around the landholders in relation to this sort of issue. We’re monitoring that, but we don’t have responsibility for implementing it, as a complaint handling body. If we identify good examples, we’ll identify them as part of our role.

Senator ROBERTS: So what are you doing, specifically, to make sure that the bonds come into place?

Mr Sheldon: We don’t have a role to implement putting that in place. It’s certainly something we can raise as an issue. We have a range of mechanisms to do that. One of them is the annual report, which, obviously, comes out every year, on a calendar year basis. And part of what’s always been appended to that annual report is a series of observations that have really been built on the observations of the commissioner over many years—which is where the observation was made in 2022. That’s a place where we can raise that with officials that do have policy responsibility for these sorts of matters. That’s generally how we do it. We also have a website where we would raise things. We have reporting obligations to the minister. So, if we identify an issue, we obviously include that in our observations or reports.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, can I ask if you have much more to go? We’re running terribly behind.

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to make a comment to the minister. Minister, this is a comment, but there’s no reflection on the people at the table with you right now, because they’re interim—well, you’re not in interim,
but Mr Dyer was a thorough professional—

Senator Ayres: We’re all interim in one sense or another, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Dyer was a thorough professional, who did his job extremely well. We happily endorsed him in Senate estimates. He was effectively an ombudsman, and a very good one.

/0 Comments/by

Clean Energy Regulation: Questions on Costs and Market Impact

,

The Clean Energy Regulator is a $115 million dollar agency dedicated to implementing the UN’s Net Zero plans on Australia. I pressed for transparency regarding executive salaries and the total cost to taxpayers, expressing surprise at the reluctance to readily provide this information.

I also challenged the effectiveness and necessity of the carbon market, describing it as a concocted market driven by regulations rather than genuine demand. It’s essentially a made up cost inflicted on Australia. These are the kind of agencies we could simply get rid of and Australian’s lives would get better.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. A similar question to the others in the alphabet soup of climate change and energy agencies: as simply and specifically as possible, what does the Clean Energy Regulator do? Could you tell me the basic accountabilities and the uniqueness of those accountabilities?

Mr Binning: As I stated previously, we’re an economic regulator for the purpose of accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. We do this by administering a range of schemes on behalf of the Australian government.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you say you were an accelerator or a regulator?

Mr Binning: A regulator. We have two outcomes currently within our corporate objectives. The first is to contribute to a reduction in Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions, including through the administration of market based mechanisms that incentivise reduction in emissions and the promotion of additional renewable electricity generation. The second is to contribute to the sustainable management of Australia’s biodiversity through the administration of market based mechanisms.

Senator ROBERTS: Is your uniqueness the latter?

Mr Binning: Our uniqueness is that we manage or administer the various government schemes, particularly where they involve the formation of a market.

Senator ROBERTS: The carbon dioxide market or carbon market?

Mr Binning: Yes, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: How many employees do you have?

Mr Binning: We have around 400.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the breakdown of permanent and employees and contractors?

CHAIR: Are we going to the annual report again?

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know. We’ll find out.

Mr Binning: A lot of that information will be contained in our annual report. Our chief operating officer will just come up. Perhaps if we move to the next question, then she can follow up.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all employees, including casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Ms Pegorer will be able to help you out with that detail.

Ms Pegorer: Can I just confirm your question was with regard to the number or the breakdown of our staff?

Senator ROBERTS: Permanent, casual and contractors, please.

Ms Pegorer: I don’t have that level of detail with me, unfortunately. I do have the number of contracting staff that we’ve had from January this year until October and the number of FTE, but I don’t have the number of casuals or non-ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get them on notice, please?

Mr Binning: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all of those people: permanents, casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Again, we don’t carry that data in that form with us, so it’s best we take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total budget for the Clean Energy Regulator, including any grants or programs you administer?

Mr Binning: Our departmental funding is around $115 million. Our administered revenue associated with the programs that we run is in the order of $37 million. However, I would just note for the record that where we have our greatest impact is actually in the issuance of certificates that then carry value in a marketplace, so both with renewable energy and with the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme we issue certificates that are of material value and which are then financial instruments managed through our registries.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s fair to say, isn’t it, that this is not a market meeting people’s needs; this is a market to meet regulations and global regulations as well—concocted needs, if you like. I’m not diminishing your work.

Mr Binning: No, I probably wouldn’t quite characterise it in that way. We administer schemes that are made by government, so if you take, for example, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme acting in conjunction with the safeguard mechanism, it then forms both the supply and demand side. Safeguard mechanisms are required through the regulations to manage their emissions within their baseline or source unit certificates. Then the ACCU generates a supply of Australian carbon credit units, and they facilitate trade in order to meet their obligations.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no open market as such. There’s no clamouring of citizens for carbon dioxide credits. They’re a concoction of Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt in 2015, just before Christmas, and bolstered by Chris Bowen in September of 2022 with the extension of the safeguard mechanism.

Senator Ayres: I think you are asking the official for, at best, an opinion.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s your opinion?

Senator Ayres: The truth is that these schemes are administered by this agency in the best interests of keeping costs down for Australian electricity consumers and efficiently managing the process of reducing emissions across sectors, and it’s judged by successive governments that, to be in the interests of doing that in the most efficient way possible, that kind of capability is retained in the agency who’s in front of you today.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand that. We’ve got a scheme that’s been concocted that’ll add more cost to energy—

Senator Ayres: It wasn’t concocted.

Senator ROBERTS: Hang on. It’ll add more cost, and now we’ve got a market in place due to regulations to try to bring it down.

Senator Ayres: No, I don’t agree with that.

Senator ROBERTS: Last question, then. No-one can identify a fundamental need of people. There’s no market other than the concocted market, the fabricated market.

Mr Binning: The only thing I would note in addition to the requirement for people to comply with the various government regulatory structures is that there has over recent years been a reasonably strong emergence of a voluntary market both for Australian carbon credit units and for renewable energy certificates. On the Australian carbon credit side we see in the order of a million units surrendered per annum, and on the electricity side we see very significant surrenders of certificates in the order of 10 million over and above the 33 million that is the regulated target. A lot of what has driven that are the various objectives, particularly across corporate Australia, for voluntary emissions reduction and meeting their own targets and the desire to source credible renewable energy of high integrity to do that, so the market is both performing its regulatory functions and facilitating voluntary participation.

Senator ROBERTS: I notice peppered through your statement there—and I thank you for the statement—are the words ‘regulated’, ‘comply’ and ‘carbon credits’—I call them ‘carbon dioxide credits’. These are all to make the best of a concocted market that’s only there because of regulations. It’s only there because nowhere in the world, as I understand it, has carbon dioxide been designated a pollutant. I just make that point. Final question: what is the total salary package of everyone here at the desk, particularly executive level—what band?

Mr Binning: As I think other agencies have done, our executive remuneration is in our annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the complete cost including on-costs?

Mr Binning: That’s the salaries associated with those. If you are seeking other information related to our salaries, we will take it on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: I want the total cost that the taxpayer pays for you, for example, not just what you get in the hand but everything as part of the package.

CHAIR: Again, I would suggest that you have a look at the annual report and, if it doesn’t give you sufficient detail, that you then place a question on notice for further detail from the officials.

Senator ROBERTS: Just one final question, building on the last one: why is there so much reluctance to share the salaries? Surely you would know what you cost.

Mr Binning: We report executive remuneration as part of our annual reporting cycle. That’s the data that I bring to these committee meetings. If there is other information that you’re seeking and it’s information that’s
generally publicly available, we would be delighted to supply it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: But you would know your total costs to the taxpayers?

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, it’s a pretty unfair line of questioning. The official has said—

Senator ROBERTS: What’s unfair about it?

Senator Ayres: The official has said the remuneration details. It’s pretty unfair to characterise it as the official not answering your question, is what I mean.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t characterise it that way. You’re fabricating now, Senator Ayres.

Senator Ayres: What he has said is that information is now publicly available in their report, which you could have read on the way here. In addition to that, if there is more information that he can provide, he will provide it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Senator Ayres: You can’t ask for more than that.

Senator ROBERTS: No, and I made the observation that I’m surprised that people don’t know this or can’t readily divulge it. That’s all. Thank you, Chair.

/0 Comments/by