Submissions to the inquiry looking at Defence Medals, including diggers getting screwed over and Angus Campbell’s DSC, are closing soon [30 August 2024].
Submissions can be made here: Defence honours and awards system – Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)
Let me know in the comments which town you’d like a public hearing to be held in. Should we bring the inquiry to Townsville?
Greedy telco companies are still pushing ahead with their plans to shutdown the 3G network. This is despite a million devices due to be affected include hundreds of thousands of 4G mobiles.
Pacemakers, medical alarms, EFTPOS machines and emergency phones in elevators are just the tip of the iceberg.
The Government must set minimum criteria and guarantees before allowing the shutdown to go ahead. Anything else prioritises telco profits above the lives of Australians.
I move: That the Senate take note of the interim report.
The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee’s inquiry into the 3G mobile network shutdown can claim a small victory, yet there will be no champagne corks popped. Telstra and Optus announced they will delay their 3G shutdown for two months. I called for a delay in March. I called for the 3G shutdown to be delayed until Australia was ready for the transition.
The committee has been running an inquiry into the Telstra and Optus proposal that was established on my motion here in the Senate. That inquiry has revealed Australia is nowhere near ready to flick the switch on 3G, and there’s no hope that it can be fixed in just two months. It’s ridiculous. This short delay is nowhere near good enough. Before we can even consider going ahead with the 3G shutdown, the Minister for Communications, Minister Rowland, must intervene and set guarantees of minimum service thresholds on the telcos. It’s time to put Australian people above the telcos short-term company profits.
The inquiry is ongoing, and given the shutdown deadline was rapidly approaching, the committee commendably issued this interim report. This inquiry discovered a tidal wave of disaster coming for business and Australians. The shutdown won’t just affect 3G mobiles, of which there are still hundreds of thousands in operation; it will affect 4G mobiles, even though many of those owners think they’re safe.
As the committee notes:
Furthermore, there are close to half a million non-mobile devices that will not function once the 3G network is shutdown. As an example, these include water and electricity meters, farming monitoring and diagnostic equipment, medical devices, emergency phones in elevators, in addition to safety and asset tracking devices.
It goes on to say there are:
… serious, and in some cases life threatening, impacts on people and organisations if these devices do not work after the shutdown.
Telstra and Optus were at pains to point out how much money and time they had put into making customers aware. Despite these apparently huge efforts—highly ineffective efforts—the total number of mobile and non-mobile devices that the shutdown will affect is close to one million. The telco companies say they’re working on getting all of the 4G coverage up to the same level as 3G. They will not guarantee it will be done as guaranteeing the coverage might cost them money. Once the 3G network is shutdown though, it will be too late. If the communications minister doesn’t intervene, she’ll be giving the telco companies free rein to screw over Australians for short-term profits.
It’s been clear since the inquiry’s public hearings in July that this shutdown must be postponed indefinitely. The telco companies have made it clear they don’t care about the consequences. Telstra and Optus have confirmed they’ll charge ahead with the shutdown. The telcos are more interested in their short-term profits than the safety and lives of Australians.
Let me be clear: this shutdown will put the lives of Australians at risk, and Telstra and Optus are going to do it anyway. The Minister for Communications must intervene, yet so far all we have heard is crickets. We still have no statement from the minister that she will impose even one condition on Telstra and Optus—not one. We haven’t even seen a response from the minister to this interim report, despite the fact it was delivered nearly two weeks ago and the shutdown was due to happen just two weeks from now.
I wish to thank the rural and regional affairs and transport committee for their fantastic work, especially the secretariat, in collating the numerous submissions and organising days of important public hearings, and Senator Canavan, the chair. The Senate successfully supported my motion yesterday ordering the government to respond to this inquiry, with Monday as the deadline. If the minister fails to respond or fails to provide a plan to intervene, we will be pushing this further.
I take this opportunity to express appreciation for Mr James Parker’s comprehensive and insightful submission to the 3G inquiry and his powerful and clear witness testimony. In particular, I note that he revealed arguably the inquiry’s most significant discovery: the complete lack of compatibility of and standardisation across telco and phone manufacturers. It’s time to put the Australian people above the short-term profits of Telstra and Optus. The communications minister must intervene and set minimum service thresholds and other guarantees for the telcos to fulfil before we can even consider shutting down the network. I want to point out that France has delayed their shutdown until at least 2028 because they found out about the problems with the lack of standardisation and the lack of compatibility amongst phones. Britain is still on 2G and 3G and has now delayed their shutdown until late this decade. The minister must address the compatibility and standardisation issues that are costing 4G users needless expense and denying market competition. The people who are suffering are Australian consumers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
The Government has exhausted its ideas for implementing the Murray Darling Basin Plan. The Albanese Labor Government has been in office for over two years now and implementing the MDB Plan was one of their key election promises. This implies that they should have had a clear strategy in place even before coming into government. Fast forward two years, Parliament provides the legislative framework to complete the plan—legislation that should have reflected their intended program.
Yet that’s not what happened. When I inquired about the lack of specifics in the government’s “Restoring our Rivers” draft framework, the response made it clear that no real thought had gone into the plan or the legislation they introduced. After reading the “framework” and hearing the Department’s explanations, my belief is reinforced that the government has no real plan, other than to buy back large amounts of water from farmers. It seems they are deliberately delaying any announcement of buybacks until after the election.
Towards the end of this session, I inquired about the socio-economic test that had previously been applied to all water projects to ensure they did not adversely affect rural communities. This test was abolished under the Plibersek legislation and replaced with a meaningless statement. Their response made it clear that the test would no longer prevent bad projects. Instead, it was substituted with lip service and a small allocation of funds for minor community projects, which falls far short of addressing the real socio-economic damage caused by water purchases.
Senator ROBERTS: How much has been spent on the Restoring Our Rivers draft framework so far? After two years in office, I expected a more detailed and transparent document than this.
Ms O’Connell: The Restoring Our Rivers framework followed the amendments to the basin plan and Water Act at the very end of last calendar year. That’s a framework released on 29 January, earlier this year, to go through and explain how we’re proposing to deliver the 450 gigalitres. It was released with a range of principles and programs around the delivery of the 450, and released for consultation. With the new legislation there’s an expanded time frame to the end of 2027 to deliver the 450. This is an important consultation document that was released early to seek views and public consultations on how we’re going to go about delivering that 450 gigalitres. We had over 100 submissions. We had lots of consultations with representative groups. At the same time as releasing that framework for consultation we did open one of the programs. That program is our water recovery infrastructure program, which is state led. It was launched on 29 January, and that’s an opportunity for basin states to bring forward water-saving infrastructure projects. So, that’s actual projects to be delivered. Those projects would include off-farm projects, on the property and non-farm projects. That’s a program that opened on 29 January.
Senator ROBERTS: This document came out in January this year; that’s what you’re saying?
Ms O’Connell: The Restoring Our Rivers draft framework document?
Senator ROBERTS: That’s it.
Ms O’Connell: It followed the changes to the legislation. That’s the important thing. The legislation changed at the end of November. The legislation passed parliament at the end of November and commenced on 7 December.
Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought there would have been a lot of work put into that legislation. I’m assuming there was, but I’m amazed at the lack of any real data in this plan or draft framework. It suggests to me that the department is flat out of ideas. It’s like nobody cares anymore. Just buy what we need in water buybacks and destroy the bush and call the job done. Minister, are you stalling for an election rather than upsetting people now with buybacks?
Ms O’Connell: When that framework was released, we also opened a program—not something for consultation, an actual program—for state-led infrastructure projects to come forward to be proposed. The framework is, as it says, a framing document. It articulates three proposed programs. The first program that Ms O’Connell refers to, the Resilient Rivers Water Infrastructure Program, is supported by a range of extensive guideline documents, which are available on our website. There are discussions going on with states about getting access to what I think is almost half a billion dollars worth of funding. We have been consulting extensively in relation to another proposed program under the framework, which is a sustainable communities program. Once the results of consultation have been taken on board and that program commences, additional information and guidance around that program will also be published on the website. The third proposed program is in relation to a proposed voluntary water purchase, and the same thing will occur there. It’s a framing document to articulate a range of proposed programs across a variety of recovery tools.
Senator ROBERTS: It just seems that it’s lacking in data and detail. It just seems light on. But thank you for your answers. Minister, the draft plan actually proposes on page 16 to count the water overpurchases towards the 450 gigalitres. Minister, will you give an undertaking to do exactly that?
Senator McAllister: I think it is dependent on understanding what any overrecovery might have involved and officials can give you an update on how the system works to produce an evaluation of the state of play, for want of a better term.
Ms Connell: Currently, there are approximately 78 gigalitres of overcovered water across the northern and southern basins. In terms of being able to count that amount of water towards the 450 gigalitre target, some of those catchments are in New South Wales and they’re in catchments for which water resource plans are yet to be accredited. To be able to determine what the final overrecovery amount is requires the water resource plan to be accredited and for the MDBA to have assessed and verified the modelling so we can have the assurance of exactly where the overrecovered amount falls. We expect to be in a situation across all of the relevant catchments—and I think there are about seven or eight where there are overrecoveries—where work is completed by the MDBA by about June next year.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re waiting on some of the New South Wales valleys, I understand?
Ms Connell: That’s correct. In earlier evidence today, there are six remaining water resource plans to be accredited out of the 20 for New South Wales. There is a dependence there, as my colleague outlined.
Senator ROBERTS: I can understand you’re not making a commitment without those plans, but assuming the plans are in place then overrecovery will be counted as part of the 450?
Ms Connell: The draft framework contemplates that exact situation, and we’re in the process of assessing. We got over 100 submissions and they’re of a really high detailed quality. We recently released a report which digests all of that consultation feedback. That’s been now put on the public record. The next step is to publish the final framework. The final framework will set out the government’s proposed approach in relation to overrecoveries.
Senator ROBERTS: How is the government implementing the Productivity Commission’s recommendations on a new approach to water recovery while also meeting the legislated requirements to consider the socioeconomic impacts on river communities?
Ms Connell: As you refer to, the Productivity Commission released its, I think, second implementation inquiry into the basin plan, which was published this year. It had a range of recommendations and many of those recommendations have actually been implemented or acted upon in terms of securing the Our Rivers legislation. Then there are a range of other initiatives that the government is undertaking to implement those recommendations. There’s quite a number of them. If there’s a specific recommendation you’re interested in, I’m happy to give you an answer about that one.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an overview of how the government is implementing the Productivity Commission’s recommendations?
Ms Connell: The first key critical step to deal with the range of issues the Productivity Commission raised was actually the passage of the Restoring Our Rivers legislation. The Productivity Commission released its interim report while the legislation was in parliament and progressing through parliament. A lot of the amendments moved in the House of Representatives and in the Senate went to addressing issues in the Productivity Commission report. Time Frame extensions were a key issue the Productivity Commission raised. They called out, as many reports have over the last couple of years in terms of basin plan progress, that more time was required. That was a key component of the legislation. They called out the fact that the 450 gigalitre target would require water purchase. Voluntary water purchase is one of the pathways for recovery. They noted that was more cost-effective relative to infrastructure projects. One of the key elements of the Restoring Our Rivers Act was to make water purchase a feasible pathway.
Senator ROBERTS: What about in relation to meeting the legislated requirement to consider the socioeconomic impacts on river communities?
Ms Connell: The legislation included several reforms in relation to that proposal. Firstly, there’s a requirement for a third independent review of the WESA. Unlike the first two reviews, the third review has to actually look at socioeconomic impacts on basin communities. The minister is now also required to consider the social and economic impacts on basin communities of a proposed water purchase program before she launches a water purchase program. There is quite a range of initiatives in relation to socioeconomic impacts.
Significantly, more broadly, there are three principles that guide overall water recovery. The first of those is enhanced environmental outcomes. The second is minimising socioeconomic impacts, and the third is achieving value for money. So, there’s an overall set of principles.
I will just note one of the key recommendations of the commission—I think it’s recommendation 2.4—was that in terms of water recovery the government should take a staged and gradual approach and it should provide adjustment assistance to communities to deal with proposed water purchase. As Ms O’Connell said, that’s at the core of the draft framework. One of the three pillars, if you like, is looking at socioeconomic impacts, and one of the responses to that is the establishment of a sustainable communities program. The purpose of that program will be to provide adjustment assistance to communities.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that later. Why has the government not released the Water Recovery Strategy foreshadowed by the Productivity Commission? Six months after the passage of the restoring our rivers bill, why do we only have a draft framework lacking in detail?
Ms Connell: As I said earlier, the draft framework foreshadows three programs. One of those programs is a water purchase program. When the government moves to commence water purchase, it will release the document that the Productivity Commission refers to. The legislation passed at the end of November. The framework was released at the end of January, so not long after. It’s important that we go out and consult on these matters. There’s a huge amount of interest. That’s what we were doing, consulting.
Senator ROBERTS: When will the feedback on the government’s draft framework on recovering the additional 450 gigs be made available?
Ms O’Connell: That I think was actually published on our website yesterday. I’m happy to table a copy—
Senator ROBERTS: Yesterday? That’s a funny thing. Pardon me for being a bit—what’s the word?
Senator Payman: Cynical.
Senator ROBERTS: No, not quite ‘cynical’. Sceptical maybe. A number of things were published right before the day of standard estimates scheduled hearings. Anyway, that’s good. Thank you.
Senator McAllister: I suppose the counterfactual is that if it’s not published then you don’t have the opportunity to examine it. You’re very welcome to ask questions about the material that’s in the public domain.
Ms O’Connell: If it’s useful, we can table the link so that you can go to it, but it is on our website.
CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts, before we rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the department met with industry groups collectively regarding feedback on this draft framework for the additional 450 gigalitres, and where will it come from?
Ms O’Connell: Yes, there’s been extensive consultation as part of the framework being out there—as I said, over 100 submissions. But we can also go through and talk to you about the discussions with groups that we’ve had, the consultations that we’ve done and webinars that we’ve had. The nature of the consultation and the groups we consulted with are set out in the document we’ve published. We’ve held many workshops over the last six months with industry groups and peak stakeholder groups, and we’ve met quite a few times with the basin community committee. We’ve had discussions with particular sectors within industry—the rice sector and the dairy sector.
Senator ROBERTS: Are those workshops online?
Ms Connell: Predominantly, but we’ve also had face-to-face meetings and meetings out in the basin. So, through a range of different consultation mechanisms and including public webinars.
Senator ROBERTS: How many online and how many—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re now going to have to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: If I could just follow up on that. How many face-to-face workshops and how many online?
Ms Connell: I’d have to take that on notice—
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.
Ms Connell: to give you that answer.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms O’Connell or Ms Connell—
Ms O’Connell: I know—they’re very similar names.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, for the one with the ‘O’ or the one without the ‘O’, you said the plan water numbers were online. My office is pretty good at surfing the internet, but they clicked right through the website and couldn’t find it. Could you send that link, please, that you offered?
Ms O’Connell: Yes. Just to be clear, that’s the link on the report on the 450 gigalitre framework consultation?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and the water quantities.
Ms Connell: The overrecoveries?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Ms Connell: We can provide you with that information.
Senator ROBERTS: How is the government implementing the Productivity Commission’s recommendation on transparency and accountability for basin plan decisions? We’ve got a few here about the ACT. What information has the government released about the Australian Capital Territory Bridging the Gap project announced on 3 April?
Ms O’Connell: There was a press release on the ACT Bridging the Gap. The date of that release was 3 April 2024. There was a joint media release on ACT fulfilling its water recovery commitments under the MurrayDarling Basin Plan Bridging the Gap.
Senator ROBERTS: Has there been any more information?
Ms O’Connell: We’re happy to provide you with more information.
Mr Southwell: The FFA, the Federation Funding Agreement, that relates to that matter has been published on the Department of Treasury’s website.
Senator ROBERTS: The Department of Treasury?
Mr Southwell: It’s a website for federal financial relations and FFA is there.
Senator ROBERTS: There are so many bureaucracies and so many departments. That’s fine.
Mr Southwell: That’s where all of the FFAs have to be published. That relates to the minister’s press release. The FFA itself was executed on 14 March when the ACT signed it, and that provided the $58 million for the 6.36 gigalitres of water that the arrangement related to.
Senator ROBERTS: So, 6.3 gigalitres, did you say?
Mr Southwell: 6.36 gigalitres.
Senator ROBERTS: That was to be my next question. Now my next question instead is: how much per megalitre was paid to the ACT, including previous payments?
Mr Southwell: This FFA is $58.83 million for the 6.36 gigalitres, and that works out at $9,250 a megalitre.
Senator ROBERTS: What part of the ACT is the water being recovered from?
Mr Southwell: The FFA itself doesn’t require specific components from the ACT. The ACT has said that they will use the money received to implement long-term water management changes, including water sensitive urban design activities, incentivising community change to reduce water use and water quality improvement activities.
Senator ROBERTS: So, no specific water was released?
Mr Southwell: I think it’s called the Halls Gap site—the Lower Molonglo.
Senator DAVEY: Only state—
Mr Southwell: No. The transfer of entitlements has occurred. It is with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. The Commonwealth received a licence of 6.36 gigalitres. That comprised 4.9 towards Bridging the Gap, and an additional 1.46 gigalitres of water towards broader basin plan outcomes. That water has since been specified by Minister Plibersek as being held environmental water to contribute towards the 450 gigalitre target.
Senator ROBERTS: The water is no longer going to the ACT?
Mr Southwell: That water is now held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, that entitlement.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it water that’s actually being held or is it water that will be held due to savings in the future? I didn’t quite understand.
Mr Southwell: The entitlement has been transferred now.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay.
Mr Southwell: It’s with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. Dr Banks: I can confirm that water entitlement was registered on 18 April to the Commonwealth’s environmental water holdings.
Senator ROBERTS: So, part of that was part of the efficiency measures towards the additional 450 gig?
Mr Southwell: 1.46 gigalitres. ACT identified that they could deliver 6.36. Their gap that was remaining for Bridging the Gap—4.9. That’s been met in full. So, the ACT no longer has a gap. With the additional 1.46, that has now been determined as contributing towards the 450 gigalitres, which means 1.46 gigalitres less that has to be recovered elsewhere.
Senator ROBERTS: When or how did officials agree to this socioeconomic criteria for the funding?
Mr Southwell: The department evaluated the offer that was made from the ACT. We provided advice to the minister, a comprehensive assessment around the water and the value that it represented and its contribution towards the basin plan, and provided advice to the minister accordingly.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your answers being so direct and clear. Is that publicly available, that information?
Mr Southwell: The evaluation?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Southwell: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Can we get a copy of it on notice.
Mr Southwell: On notice.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re six months out from the passage of the restoring our rivers bill. Have any new SDLAM projects been started? Mr Ward: No new projects have been started. But as I mentioned earlier in the day, we’re working very closely with our basin state colleagues on identifying ideas and progressing them forward. There were seven that were shortlisted by the basin officials committee earlier this year for the states to undertake further development of those, and the information on that is published on our department website. Have any decisions been made on new SDLAM projects?
Ms O’Connell: Not by basin officials committees yet. There are prospective projects being worked on. We anticipate—and I gave this evidence earlier today—that New South Wales will be bringing forward a new project soon. They have advised us they intend bringing forward a new project soon and then basin officials will have a look at that.
Senator ROBERTS: What timeline is likely for new SDLAM projects?
Ms O’Connell: It really depends on the project in terms of how long it takes to deliver the project. The delivery timeframe for all SDLAM projects, which applies to new ones, is— Mr Ward: There are three key dates. New projects have to be notified by basin officials by 30 June 2025. States then have until 30 June 2026 to either amend or withdraw projects, and then all projects must be in operation on 31 December 2026.
Senator ROBERTS: I take it it’s too early to determine what the likely volumetric outcome is, much too early?
Ms O’Connell: Correct. It is a tight timeframe, as my colleague outlined.
Mr McConville: If I may add, the reconciliation process will occur, in terms of your question around volumes, after December 2026. The MDBA will be required to do a reconciliation after that.
Senator ROBERTS: Socioeconomic considerations—how is the government intending to meet the requirements to consider socioeconomic impacts of buybacks when it has such an unrealistic target, in my opinion, of recovery of 100 gigalitres per annum?
Ms Connell: As the draft framework makes clear, considering socioeconomic impacts needs to be a key consideration in each water recovery pathway. It really depends on the option being pursued, whether it’s infrastructure, rules based or voluntary water purchase. But I can talk in more detail about the work that we’re doing and the investigations we’re undertaking in relation to potential water purchase. We’re undertaking a range of work. There was a quite significant investigation into socioeconomic impacts of the basin plan quite a few years ago chaired by Robbie Sefton. She chaired a panel. The advice of the Sefton report was, given that there are really quite complex drivers of socioeconomic impacts in the basin—climate, drought, technology, labour inputs, energy inputs—it’s important to look at multiple lines of inquiry to develop the evidence base. So we’re doing a couple of things. We’re looking back. We’ve got the benefit of a range of reports that have been undertaken looking at socioeconomic impacts of water recovery options over the last couple of years. AITHER has done some work for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which has been a key reference point for us. Marsden Jacobs Associates, another firm, did quite detailed investigations for the Sefton review, and New South Wales has recently published a report which we’ve had reference to as well. I guess the other key significant thing that we’re doing is most of those reports find that it’s quite hard to actually pull apart what impacts water recovery has on regional communities, and it’s important to have a discussion with communities to involve them in those issues. One of the key elements of the consultation we did around the draft framework was to seek very specific feedback about past experience of water recovery programs, past experience of community adjustment programs, and we’re pulling that all together. We’ll also be drawing on advice from ABARES.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it used to be the requirement that we must have a socioeconomic benefit. Now it comes down to, at the top of page 18 of your draft framework report, the ‘Sustainable Communities program will seek to mitigate unavoidable socioeconomic impacts’.
Ms Connell: That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s change the target.
Ms Connell: Our first order approach is to prioritise a non-water purchase option. We’ve talked quite a bit today about the fact that the infrastructure program opened in January and then the other kind of core program under the framework is the Sustainable Communities program. We’ve been working really quite intensively with stakeholders to get feedback on a draft of principles to guide how funding for community adjustment should be directed. So, we’ve received really quite extensive and clear feedback. There are seven principles that will form the foundation of the community adjustment program. The feedback largely supported each of those principles. Many of them were very strongly supported. There was a strong emphasis from local councils in particular. They’ve been closely engaged in the design of any community adjustment principles. So, that is something we will be definitely taking on board. We’re currently working with basin states to look at getting funding arrangements in place so that funding can flow in the new financial year.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: The draft framework for delivering the additional 450 gigalitres per year outlined in the restoring our rivers bill provided more funding towards finalising the basin plan, but the budget indicated this funding was not for publication. How much funding is required?
Ms O’Connell: As you mentioned, the budget papers say that it is not for publication, and the reason for that is there will be potential for competitive tendering. You wouldn’t normally publish the figures prior to going to a tender.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I accept that.
Ms O’Connell: So it’s not for publication.
Senator ROBERTS: What provision will be made to support the river communities that will be impacted by water recovery?
Ms Connell: We spoke about that a bit earlier this afternoon. The framework describes a Sustainable Communities program that’s for community adjustment. The funding will go through states under federal financial agreements. The proposal is for a specific standalone program focused on supporting communities that need support to adjust, and for that funding to be provided through states who are best placed to work with local communities to build on their existing regional stakeholder engagement networks, and also to build on existing funding that’s going into those particular communities that need to be the focus.
Senator ROBERTS: So federal funding through the states?
Ms Connell: Funding under FFAs, federal funding agreements.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this seems to be a continuation of the undeclared war on farmers. I’ve been to Dirranbandi in Southern Queensland, the border community there, and the same applies to Northern New South Wales. Senator Davey, I’m sure, will be concerned as well. Who gets the land after you drive farmers off? A lot of farmers have been driven off in Dirranbandi and other places. Who is going to use this land once you get rid of the farmers? For what purpose will they use it?
Senator McAllister: I don’t accept the scenarios that you set out in your question. Nor do I accept your characterisation of our posture towards Australian agricultural communities. Our view is that a sustainable basin, a healthy working river, is essential to underwrite the future of food and fibre production in this country, to underwrite the future of regional towns that depend, as has been discussed earlier today, on adequate supplies of clean drinking water, and also to protect our environmental assets in the basin. We think those three things are compatible with one another and, in fact, interdependent. The approach we’re taking is working through a difficult and challenging reform. It now looks like it will be a multidecade reform. It’s one that’s been going on for many years. It requires cooperation between the states and the territories and the Commonwealth. It has been bipartisan. Regrettably, not very much progress was made in the decade that the coalition was in office. But in the two years we’ve been in government we have set about looking at the progress that’s been made so far, what more needs to be done and putting in place the legislative arrangements, the financial arrangements and the implementation arrangements, to implement the basin plan in full.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you heard of the rewilding plan that’s part of the United Nations Agenda 2030 as it is now? It was exposed in the United States. There are similar concepts here.
Senator McAllister: You’ll have to table the United Nations documentation. I haven’t seen that documentation.
Senator ROBERTS: What about hollowing out the bush? I’ve been to Moulamein in southern New South Wales and northern Victoria. What about compensation to supermarkets, small businesses in the areas who will all lose business with the water that’s going to be taken, and with that lose the critical mass necessary to keep these towns going? Football teams are dying; sporting clubs are dying. What about the compensation for the people who are not on the land but who depend upon the people on the land?
Senator McAllister: Over the course of today we’ve had a few discussions about socioeconomic impacts, some of them in response to questions from yourself. I think you heard Ms Connor speak earlier about some of the research that’s occurred already about the multiple drivers of change in Australian rural communities. You’ve also heard Ms O’Connell and Ms Connor speak about the approach to socioeconomic assessment in terms of any decisions that might be taken. You have, thirdly, heard just now a description of the approach that’s proposed in terms of working with the states and territories to provide support for communities. I’m not sure how further to respond to your questions, but I do think a lot of information has been provided over the course of the day about the way we’re thinking about these challenges in implementing the plan in full—something I believe continues to have bipartisan support, as confirmed by Senators Davey and Ruston earlier.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the total cost estimate to complete the basin plan?
Mr Dadswell: Current public commitments to the basin plan are around $13 billion. That’s over the life of the plan, over the last 12 years. There’s about—
Senator ROBERTS: So that includes past—
Mr Dadswell: Yes, past programs and existing, and including the ones from the 2024-25 budget. There’s around $3 billion in publicly stated funding that remains against that $13 billion to be spent.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
I joined Andrew Gray on his Podcast – Healthy Leadership Mentor where we discuss many topics including the many ways the Australian people are being deceived.
👉 Subscribe to his Newsletter: https://andrew-gray.ck.page/profile
🎙️ Subscribe to his Podcast: https://healthyleadershipmentor.buzzs…
I support referring the native title system to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee because it’s hurting mainland Aboriginals. The current system is racist and is locking up land, preventing Aboriginals, especially in remote areas, from benefiting. Since the Native Title Act of 1993, 54% of Australia’s land has come under determinations of the Native Title Tribunal, yet Native Title offers no practical benefits to Aboriginal people. Instead, it empowers a few wealthy community barons – both Aboriginal and non Aboriginal (the Aboriginal Industry) and fails to meet the needs of individuals like Bruce Gibson, an Aboriginal leader who cannot own land in his community or use it to advance his business. Aboriginal people cannot use the land to build homes or support businesses, unlike non-Aboriginal Australians.
The Mabo decision, which was originally about land rights on Murray Island in the Torres Strait, recognised a system of land title that was passed down through generations, effectively preventing those without title from claiming the land. This system existed in the Torres Strait but did not exist on the mainland. The Mabo decision should not have been extended beyond this context, however it wasn’t the High Court that extended it; it was the Labor Party under Paul Keating that did so, creating something that was not grounded in reality.
We need to review the Native Title Act, introduce sunset clauses, and stop closing landmarks based on obsolete practices. It’s time to rethink the native title regime for the benefit of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, AND all Australians. This system is failing them, just like the Closing the Gap program.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (18:36): I support the referral of the native title system to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee because the native title system is currently hurting mainland
Aboriginals. In practice, native title is racist against Aboriginal people. I also support the reference because I support Australia and all Australians—one united nation, one nation.
Since the introduction of the Native Title Act into Australian law in 1993, more than 50 per cent of the Australian land mass has come under determinations of the Native Title Tribunal—54 per cent, to be precise. The legislation, though, is not a true reflection of what was in fact determined in the High Court, which considered the unique circumstances of Mr Eddie Mabo’s family and the situation on Murray Island in the Torres Strait. The Native Title Act, when drafted, relied significantly on United Nations declarations, which were mentioned six times in a 2½ page preamble. That’s what it’s all about—United Nations declarations and other agreements related to the rights of Indigenous peoples. Locking up land from private ownership is on the UN agenda.
What is not so well understood is the total failure of the Native Title Act to provide practical benefits to the lives of Aboriginal people living in remote areas of Australia. That’s why it is racist. It is hurting and holding back Aboriginals, especially those in remote areas of Australia. Less well known is that some native title claims grant exclusive rights which may allow the native title holder to exclude non-Aboriginals from accessing the land—fact.
This may prevent other Australians accessing beaches and landmarks of significance unless they pay for the privilege. More symbolic than practical, the act has effectively locked up large tracts of land from the use or benefit of individual Aboriginal people. It’s locked them out. The only ones who have benefited under the act are those wealthy community barons, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who are part of the white and black Aboriginal industry and rip off needy Aboriginals. Instead, they divert much of the billions of dollars in Aboriginal funding to themselves, sucking it up and keeping it from the people in the communities. Those who benefit are the white and black Aboriginal academics, activists, Aboriginal community leaders, shonky lawyers and dodgy Aboriginal corporations, who do nothing to help individual Aboriginals.
I’ve travelled widely through Aboriginal communities across Queensland, including every Cape York community—sometimes three times through a community. I’ve been to all of the communities at least twice. When we were in Cape York, we met with local community leader Mr Bruce Gibson, for example. He’s one of many. He shared his views on native title and its impact on his community. And, by the way, we hear these
comments from Aboriginal elders in other parts of Queensland as well, in communities like Gympie and Maryborough—mainstream communities. Anyway, getting back to Mr Bruce Gibson, he said that native title was
important for the recognition of the Indigenous perspective of their relationship with the land and for recognising that Aboriginal people were the first inhabitants of Australia and that they had inherent rights to the land.
That’s fine. His view was that the Native Title Act was not providing Aboriginal people—and, remember, Mr Gibson is an Aboriginal from an Aboriginal community and a fine man—with something tangible, because they could not use native title to advance any individual interests. It’s racist, because white people in this country can go and buy land. They can use that as collateral for a business loan or for building their own family house. Aboriginal people in communities cannot. The land is locked up and given to the barons of the community. Land under native title cannot be mortgaged to help build a home or be used as collateral to support a business loan. The land is essentially locked up and not used to support small projects or family homes. It’s racist. It hurts Aboriginals.
This would seem contrary to the effective intention of the legislators. If the act is supposed to benefit hardworking Australian Aboriginals, it’s failing, just as the Closing the Gap program has failed. Because the land is not freehold, nobody is able to work towards owning their own home, and the property is now locked away out of reach. The Commonwealth government can reclaim land and convert it to freehold, and some compensation is then paid to the traditional owners. Yet this does not benefit any individuals. With individual landownership prevented, there is little incentive to work towards beneficial community or personal goals.
Bruce Gibson said that he wished to own his own place in his community. He cannot. Why? Because he’s Aboriginal on an Aboriginal community. That’s why. Native title doesn’t look after him. He wishes to build up and expand his small business as a shop owner, yet he cannot buy the premises. He must hope that he can lease the shop from the local traditional owners, if he says the right things. These comments were echoed across the Cape, from constituents to council mayors and council members. It was universal—every community. There was not one person to whom we spoke who had a good thing to say about native title other than it providing some recognition to them as First Australians. That’s why native title is racist. It hurts Aboriginals.
Coming back to the Mabo decision, the Mabo decision was based correctly on Mr Mabo’s island in the Torres Strait Islands—Murray Island, I think it is. But that was because there was a system of handing down title of land to succeeding generations. It was a means of keeping people who didn’t hold title to the land out of their land. That system was in the Torres Strait. It was not on the mainland. There was no system of land tenure on the mainland. That Mabo decision should not have been extended. It wasn’t extended by the High Court. It was extended by the Labor Party under Paul Keating. They made that up, and it’s a falsity.
I want to go to some key points that I’ve made in notes. With native title, there are no individual needs being met—no universal human needs. It’s just a feel-good policy to make a few people in the inner-city areas think we’ve handed land back to the Aboriginals, when we never took it, and it hasn’t been handed back. It’s been taken off whoever had it. It provides enormous uncertainty regarding development, which is holding back Aboriginal communities. There’s confusion between native title and the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 in Queensland. They’re two separate issues. They’re both taking up land in Queensland.
There are many uncertainties in claims of native title, like two families claiming the same land. In some cases, one family from interstate is granted the land when the local Aboriginal people are denied the land. It’s rife with these kinds of false claims. Look at Toobeah. Look at Deebing Creek near Ipswich. That hurts the Aboriginals. It also deflects and hides from Aboriginals’ core problems, and they have got problems in remote communities, not in all remote communities—they’re different; they vary—but there are problems. But they’re not being fixed by the white and black Aboriginal industry. The problems are being exacerbated exactly as Senator Hanson mentioned.
Let me tell you a story about my first time as a senator. I was walking up to the One Nation office in Brisbane, and three Aboriginal people approached me. I talked to them, and they said they were from the Northern Territory. I said, ‘What are you doing here then?’ They said: ‘We’ve come to see Senator Hanson because she’s the only one who understands our problems and the only one with the guts to tell the truth. She’s the only one.’ These are Aboriginal people from the Northern Territory who came down from the Territory to Brisbane to see Senator Hanson because she’s the only one who gets it and she’s the only one who understands.
There’s a flow-on from the guilt and grievance industry, the white and black Aboriginal industry that I mentioned, that’s hurting and suppressing Aboriginals, entrenching dependence and entrenching victimhood. The Aboriginal people are wonderful people, essentially salt of the Earth. Why are we keeping them down? Why are we suppressing them under a blanket of bureaucracy?
We need sunset clauses on native title applications, just like the Queensland Aboriginal Land Act of 1991. It had a sunset clause that came into force in 2006. We need a moratorium on native title allocations. We need to review the Native Title Act, and that’s why I support this reference. We need to reverse the closing of landmarks. Prominent Aboriginals in this country have admitted that the closing of landmarks is based on obsolete practices. The closing of Mount Warning was strongly opposed by an Aboriginal elder, a woman, but her voice was not heard. It was suppressed. Mr Marc Hendrix is doing a marvellous job of publicising the truth about Mount Warning’s closure. It was a bunch of gutless bureaucrats and politicians from the New South Wales state government that succeeded to rubbish. It succeeded to the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull, and it was spread by a small, tiny group and opposed by Aboriginals, including elders. Wise females were just ignored, just buried. The One Nation MPs, I’m sure, will review the Aboriginal Land Act of 1991 in Queensland, and also we need a review of the Native Title Act.
I’m going to make some comments about Senator Ayres. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest and the fearful. Senator Ayres put together not one single coherent point, just a lot of labels and lies. That was all we got from Senator Ayres. He retreated. He put forward no arguments. It was all just hollow words. Pauline Hanson is known for her love of Australia and her love of Australians, regardless of skin colour. Let me tell you a story from when we first came to Canberra in the Senate in 2016. We went to the Griffith Vietnamese Restaurant, where a lot of politicians have gone over the years and written on the walls. We couldn’t get out of the place because the Vietnamese people, the other Asian people, wanted autographs with Senator Hanson. Why? Because she protects the country. She protects the country and makes sure we keep our values in this country. That’s why Asian people, Indian people, Chinese people and Middle Eastern people come to this country—because they like the values of this country. We have got to protect that.
These concerns about native title are echoed right across Queensland and in other parts, including across the Territory as well. We know from prominent Aboriginals that they agree with Senator Hanson and with me. It’s way over time for this native title regime to be reconsidered, and I recommend its referral to this committee for the benefit of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and for the benefit of all Australians. Thank you.
Watching the sad events currently underway in the United Kingdom, one might be forgiven for thinking we’ve descended into the dystopian world long foretold by classic literature. One Nation agrees with Milton – free circulation of ideas is essential to moral and intellectual growth. To attempt to preclude falsehoods underestimates the power of truth.
Originally intended to prevent incitement to violence, hate speech laws have now devolved to the point where criticising the government has become a criminal offense, leading to the imprisonment of citizens in the UK. At the same time, the UK Government is failing to ensure the safety of its own streets. The UK clearly has 2-tiered policing.
As we face the next manufactured social or medical crises, there is no doubt that Australia’s law enforcement will commit the same abuses of civil rights that we are currently witnessing in the UK. Only by voting wisely will prevent Australia from following the UK’s path – turning into a communist state.
To conclude, let me be clear: there is no justification for violence from either side of a protest. Equally, the actions of a few should not result in the stripping away of rights from the many.
Watching the sad events currently unfolding and underway in the United Kingdom, one can be forgiven for thinking we’d descended into the dystopian world so long predicted in the classic literature. George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is just one warning, which ironically appears to have been become an instruction manual for the political left. An interview with George Orwell recently surfaced in which Orwell thought there was a possibility Nineteen Eighty-Four could happen in the UK. He was right, again.
Orwell’s description of what looks like the UK under Labour’s Keir Starmer reads as follows:
In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement—
that’s porn and transgenderism by the way—
There will be no loyalty except loyalty to the Party. But always there will be the intoxication of power. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who’s helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever. The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is … don’t let it happen.
One Nation are doing everything we can to prevent this nightmare overtaking Australia. Sadly, the globalist Liberals, Labor, Greens, Nationals and teals intend to push ahead into hell.
Another futuristic story, written in 1961 and titled Harrison Bergeron, from American science fiction writer Kurt Vonnegut, predicted a future where human behaviour was controlled—physical movement and appearance and thought. High-IQ citizens were punished with earpieces that played loud sounds every 30 seconds to prevent them from thinking so they did not outshine low-IQ people. The strong were literally weighted down with ball bearings to reduce their strength to that of the worst weakling. The attractive were forced to wear ugly masks so nobody was made to feel uncomfortable gazing upon someone more attractive than themselves. A quote to explain his predication, which is often incorrectly attributed to Dostoevsky, simply reads, ‘Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not to offend the imbeciles.’
Vonnegut’s view was mirrored in an interview with a former resident of the Soviet Union that was described to me. It consisted of the fellow drawing three stick figures on a piece of paper, two at the same height and one taller, then saying, ‘In the Soviet Union everyone is equal,’ before taking his pencil and drawing a line across the top of the two smaller figures thereby severing the head of the third. ‘Such is life in the Soviet Union,’ he said. Keir Starmer’s communism is the victory of those who have lost their humanity, morality and faith or, as Orwell describes them, ‘those who thrill in the delight of the kill’. Perhaps UK citizens would agree it’s time to add a footnote to the famous quote from Descartes, ‘I think therefore I am—arrested.’
It’s just like the young man in Belfast who was recently arrested for observing a protest, only to have District Judge Rafferty and the Belfast Magistrates Court decide that someone’s presence, including as a curious observer, involves them in such disorder as to justify the refusal of bail. And off to jail he went. That young man had never been in trouble with the police before and had even left when the event became violent. There’s no provision in common or statute law that reads, ‘Injustice is allowed if it exists to make an example of one to intimidate others into disobedience,’ yet here we are.
Similar behaviour was observed in Australia during COVID. The conversation around events in the UK has so far missed an important element. The United Kingdom has been here before. Former Queensland premier Campbell Newman reminded the internet last week of the Areopagitica, which carries the full title: A speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicenc’d Printing, to the Parlament of England. This was a pamphlet published in 1644 to protest a parliamentary order of the previous year requiring government approval and licensing of all published works and pamphlets. This measure was introduced after Milton’s treatise in favour of divorce upset the king, Charles I. History appears to be repeating—the uniparty’s misinformation disinformation censorship bill.
In Areopagitica, Milton defends the free circulation of ideas as essential to moral and intellectual development. Furthermore, he asserts, to attempt to preclude falsehood is to underestimate the power of truth, a lesson for our eSafety Commissioner, who clearly believes the reverse is true. While the immediate objective of the Areopagitica repeal of licensing was not obtained for another 50 years, the tract has earned a permanent place in the literature of human rights.
Repeal took 50 years because, as it turned out, each new government kept that power in order to protect themselves from criticism. Power freely given is never freely surrendered. Here we are 380 years later and Australia is making exactly the same mistake, but One Nation isn’t. The rest of the parties in this place are. Keir Starmer famously took the knee during Black Lives Matter riots and now puts English lives matter
demonstrators on their knees. The start of the trouble was the murder of three young girls at the hands of a suspected Islamic terrorist. If you want to look for the cause of the frustration being demonstrated among everyday Brits, look no further than a failure to keep the public safe. It is basic. Fear used as a weapon of control during COVID has bitten the hand that created it. There is an opportunity cost to arresting citizens for thought crimes like: praying in public; watching—but not participating in—a protest; making posts on social media critical of the government— posts which do not incite violence or incite the breaking of a law; posting up first-hand stories of vaccine harm; and of course, criticising the religion that can’t be criticised using nothing but their own words.
That opportunity cost is the policing of real crime. Over the last 10 years, according to the UK’s statistics office: assault with grievous bodily harm is up 100 per cent—doubled; assault with an injury is up 80 per cent—almost doubled; rape of an adult female up 370 per cent—almost five times; rape of a minor is up 100 per cent. In fact, the conviction rate of rapists in the UK is currently five per cent and not all of those even go to jail. Only last week a migrant was given a suspended sentence for raping a 13-year-old British girl. The court accepted his defence that he did not know that an adult raping a child was against the law in the UK. Imagine being that child’s parents. Imagine being that child. Is it any wonder the Brits are demonstrating this two-tiered justice system? The commentariat, who are denying the right of people to protest peacefully, including many of the usual suspects in here in Australia, are commenting on a world their wealth and their elitist lifestyles insulate them from.
A Merseyside chief constable made a comment last week, apparently unaware this is the exact upside-down policing, the exact two-tier policing, the public are protesting about. They said, ‘What I would say to those people who think they have gotten away with being involved in disorder, we are coming for you. We have hours of social media and closed circuit TV footage. I have officers working around the clock to identify you. We know who you are and we know where you live and where you work.’
Why is this relevant to Australia? Because our law enforcement have been equipped with the powers to do exactly the same thing. The Identity Verification Services Act together with the Digital ID Act, which Labor minister Katy Gallagher passed through the parliament this year, allows law enforcement to obtain the image of any person anywhere any time from traffic cameras, security cameras, closed circuit TV and main roads, even in supermarkets.
All this with a spurious ‘suspected of a crime’ justification. It then allows law enforcement to go through the video, one frame at a time, to extract a photo of each attendee and run them through the national identity database, which currently contains data on 17 million Australians. Our police will indeed know your name; address; where you work, live and visit, and, once fully implemented, the system will be able to locate you from traffic cameras, payment scanners in shops and public transport touchpads in real time.
Welcome to your digital prison. One Nation warned you directly, loudly and often. During the next manufactured social and medical crisis, there’s no doubt our law enforcement will commit the same abuse of civil rights as we see happening in the UK right now. One Nation believes human rights should not be made subservient to the greed and hubris of those who would stamp on the face of their fellow citizens in the acquisition of wealth and power or, perversely, in the name of social justice. Measures to facilitate this censorship and destruction of human rights are winding our society back to the time of Milton, 380 years ago. The irony is this is the same Left who accused One Nation of wanting to wind the clock back!
As a closing remark, let me make it clear there’s no excuse for violence on either side of a protest. Equally, the actions of a few do not justify the removal of rights from the many. The actions of the few do not justify the removal of rights from the many. Human rights are universal, part of being human, inherent in each and all of us from birth.
Since November, I have been trying to get a very simple answer out of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO): How many potential foreign buyers are they detecting?
The ATO runs a data matching program that checks the details of more than 2.4 million sellers and buyers to detect if they might be foreign.
The ATO claims only 1% of purchases are foreign, but they won’t tell me how many of those 2.4 million matches they get are flagged as potentially foreign. Watch as they again refuse to tell me how many foreigners they identify in the 2.4 million records.
They claim to have manually checked over 230,000 records every year that can’t be automatically matched to confirm whether they are Australian. With other evidence like the NAB property survey indicating up to 11% of new housing stock is purchased by foreigners, I believe the ATO figures are completely understating the level of foreign buying in the country.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight, and congratulations to you, Mr Heferen. I don’t think we’ve seen you since your appointment. My first question is about foreign buyers of real estate. Radio 2GB reported in April that foreign buyers accounted for 11 per cent of newly built homes in the final quarter of last year. This is a disaster for Australian homebuyers. Can you please provide that data for each quarter over the previous 12 months—the proportion of newly built homes bought by foreigners?
Mr Thompson: I think the 2GB article would have been using the National Australia Bank—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s my understanding.
Mr Thompson: As I think I’ve talked about at the committee before, there are a number of differences between the National Australia Bank survey and our data. So the National Australia Bank’s data is from a survey,
so it asks real estate and other real estate professionals to estimate. I think the exact question in that survey is about overseas buyers. Our numbers are coming from state and territory land title offices, which are matched
against Home Affairs data and Australia Electoral Commission data. There is a very significant gap between the numbers that appear in that survey and the numbers that we get. Our numbers are based on the definition of a foreigner under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. I think last week we released the 2022-23 numbers, which would put the estimate at around one per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: Moving onto the first home super saver scheme, I’m quoting from the eligibility requirements in guidance note 2018/1: There is no requirement for you to be an Australian citizen, Australian resident or an Australian resident for taxation purposes. Why are we allowing foreigners—not even residents for taxation purposes—access to this scheme, which is meant to be for getting Australians into their first home?
Mr Heferen: That would be a policy question for our colleagues at the Treasury.
Ms Brown: It is a policy question for Treasury, but the appropriate group for it to be directed to is markets group. That is administered by our Retirement, Advice and Investment Division in markets group. We can take it on notice and have them provide a reply.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to come back to foreign ownership again. I refer to table 3 of the answer to question on notice SBE106 from the November estimates. Through the Department of Home Affairs visa data-
matching program, how many of the real property transfer report entities records that are automatically matched to ATO records are foreign?
Mr Thompson: As we’ve answered previously, we’re not able to—the question was, ‘How many do we automatically match?’ and ‘How many do we have to go away and do additional things to match?’
Senator ROBERTS: I’m coming to that.
Mr Thompson: If you think about it coming through the system: if it’s an exact match, that’s all automated. There would be a range of circumstances where we don’t get an automatic match. It could be that the date of
birth’s the wrong way. It could be a maiden name. In those circumstances, we have additional processes to match. We work down through every record. In the automatic matches, there will be some foreigners. In the ones we can’t automatically match, there will be some foreigners.
Senator ROBERTS: What percentage?
Mr Thompson: At that point—
Senator ROBERTS: You can’t tell us?
Mr Thompson: The numbers in that answer to the question on notice were addressing how many we automatically match versus how many we perform additional—
Senator ROBERTS: Correct. How many that were matched were foreigners?
Mr Thompson: If the question is about the compliance results that we get, they’re published—
Senator ROBERTS: My question is: what percentage of buyers are foreigners?
Mr Thompson: One per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide to me on notice the numbers of foreign buyers for the last five years.
Mr Thompson: We publish that. I’ve got the latest public—
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, if you could take it on notice for the last five years.
Mr Thompson: I’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: From table 4, immediately below that from the same question on notice from November estimates, how many of the entity records that were not able to be automatically matched to ATO records remain unverified or unresolved?
Mr Thompson: None.
Senator ROBERTS: How many unmatched records from the data-matching program remain unresolved from 2018 to date?
Mr Thompson: I think that’s the same question.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to go right back to 2018.
Mr Thompson: I’ll take that one on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: How many residential properties in Australia are owned by foreigners today?
Mr Thompson: I think that is the question around the register.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to know how many foreigners own real estate. We’ve got a housing crisis. We’ve got people in Brisbane and all up and down the east coast of Queensland in major provincial cities sleeping under bridges and in cars, taking families home.
Senator Gallagher: Yes, but I think it’s very simplistic to say that that housing shortage is a result of foreign investment in residential housing. We’ve had a number of hearings where you’ve been told how relatively low that level is in comparison to non-foreign owned.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like the exact numbers.
Senator Gallagher: And we’ll provide that number to you, but the link that you are saying—that foreign ownership of properties equals some of what you’ve been talking about and is a real issue in Brisbane—is not
right. The issue is supply. We’ve got to build more houses for people, not blame foreigners for it.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve never said it’s entirely due to foreigners, but that is one—
Senator Gallagher: We need to make sure that the rules are tight, that there are restrictions in place, which there are, so that that arrangement works properly. But it’s not fair to say that the housing crisis is because we’ve got some small foreign-owned investments.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. I said that’s one contributing factor.
CHAIR: I’ll just do some committee administration here. I’ll table three documents—the three articles referenced by Senator O’Neill earlier. The committee has agreed to a time management plan to conclude
questions, so last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to make the point that the witnesses have provided answers so late, in the past, that they’ve been distributed at 8 pm on the day before they appear in Senate estimates, 100 days after the last
hearing, and failing to raise any public interest immunity claims on answers they don’t give. That’s a clear frustration of the committee’s work.
Senator Gallagher: We will try and do better, Senator Roberts. We have had a long discussion about the number of questions on notice which are coming in and having to be managed by departments, but I agree: it’s an important accountability measure, and departments should work to meet the timeframes.
Senator ROBERTS: When it’s 100 days, it’s way late, and then it suddenly comes in at 8 pm on the night before.
Senator Gallagher: Yes. I understand your frustration.
In the event a war breaks out or our shipping routes are blocked, Australia is screwed with practically all of our local refineries out of business.
At the May Senate Estimates, I asked the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) for a detailed breakdown of current fuel stocks, specifically how much is finished liquid fuel versus crude oil. Ms Svarcas indicated she will provide these figures on notice and at the same time, will clarify how crude oil is reported under the Minimum Stockholding Obligation (MSO).
I then inquired about the latest figure for Australia’s crude oil stock relative to the International Energy Agency (IEA) requirement of 90 days. Ms Svarcas confirmed that the current figure is 53 days and includes all fuels and refined products in Australian waters. This stock does not include the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) stock, avoiding double counting between IEA and MSO measures. Ms Svarcas noted that “consumption cover days” are reported monthly on their website and are publicly available. She added that these figures indicate how long the stock will last based on average consumption, giving a clear view of Australia’s fuel supply.
It was a big surprise to discover that Australia had sold its 1.7 million barrels of oil from the US strategic reserve. While it was never a good idea to have a national reserve held on the other side of the world, the secrecy with which the sale was done in response to Ukraine is concerning.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let’s move to fuel security. We covered the minimum stock holding obligations for petrol, diesel and jet fuel at some length last Senate estimates. You gave to me on notice, in SQ24000046, that the refineries may also report crude oil and unfinished stock as liquid fuel. Do you have a breakdown of how much of the reported stock holding is actually finished liquid fuel versus crude oil—not a projected conversion of existing crude into future petrol, diesel or jet fuel, but the actual quantities of the four measures, as it exists now?
Mrs Svarcas: Just so I’m really clear, for the MSO obligation, you’re asking how much of the crude oil do we count as petrol, jet fuel and diesel?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Can you also provide to me the actual amount, right now, of crude oil as it is, jet fuel as it is, petrol as it is and diesel as it is, and not projected conversions of crude oil into those things?
Mrs Svarcas: I will have to take on notice the projected for crude oil into those things. The MSO does allow, under the reporting obligations, for an entity to effectively say they’ve got a bucket of crude oil, and they will be converting X amount of it through their normal operations—and how much of that is going to be diesel, how much of that is going to be jet fuel et cetera. I would have to take on notice how much of the crude is crude, if you will, and how much is fuel.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’d be good. You explained previously how there’s the domestic minimum stockholding obligation for petrol, diesel and jet fuel put in place by the government then there’s the International Energy Agency agreement for 90 days of crude oil. Last estimates, you told me we were at 55 International Energy Agency days of crude oil. What’s the latest figure for that, and is all of that stock in Australia’s exclusive economic zone here?
Mrs Svarcas: The actual figure of that today—the last report was from March 2024—is 53 days and that figure captures all of the things. It might be helpful if I describe what’s captured in that. It’s crude oil as crude oil. It’s diesel, petrol and jet fuel. It also includes other refined products. For example, the oil that you would put into your car is included under the definition provided to us by the IEA. It’s those stocks that are on land in Australia and in our domestic waters. But, importantly, the difference between the IEA days and the MSO calculation is that it does not include the product that’s in our EEZ; it’s just the product that’s in Australian waters or physically in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: So is there any double counting then?
Mrs Svarcas: No, there’s no double counting. There’s a difference between a vessel that is in Australian waters—how it’s included in the IEA days—and stock that is in the EEZ that is counted in the MSO days. It might also be useful, if you’ll indulge me, to explain the difference between the measures that we have in place so that you can get an idea of what we use it for. As I described, the IEA days are one single calculation of all of the fuel and fuel products as defined by the IEA. We also have our consumption cover days. They’re the days that we report every month publicly, and you’ll find those on our website. They are a measure of how long the stock will last. So they give us a really good indication of what we’ve got every month, and how long, based on average consumption, that will last. That’s all publicly available. Then we also have the MSO, which is slightly different, and the purpose of that measure is to set that minimum stockholding obligation to give us the insurance policy of making sure, from our perspective, how much fuel, liquid fuels and things we should have in Australia should there be a market disruption. So the purpose of each of those reportings is slightly different, which is why what goes into them—what we count and how we count them—is also slightly different, because they have different purposes.
Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to the numbers that you’re going to give me. Our strategic reserve—
CHAIR: If you’ve finished that line of questioning, we will need to rotate.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve just one more question on strategic reserve. You told me at last Senate estimates that Australia has sold all of the oil reserves in the United States’ strategic reserve?
Mrs Svarcas: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: That was 1.7 million barrels—nearly two years ago—in June 2022. That hasn’t been reported anywhere, as I understand it.
Mrs Svarcas: No, I believe it was publicly reported. I’ll be happy to table that report.
Senator ROBERTS: Did anyone at the department announce that the 1.7 million barrels had been sold?
Mrs Svarcas: Like I said, I believe it was. I’m happy to be corrected if my evidence is wrong but I do believe it was made public at the time.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Telstra and Optus’ two-month delay on the 3G mobile network shutdown is a failure of the Communications Minister Michelle Rowland and defies recommendations from a Senate inquiry.
A two-month delay is nowhere near enough time to fix the million mobile and non-mobile devices the shutdown is still estimated to seriously affect. The telco companies have been let off scot-free.
There will be no consequences if Telstra and Optus flick the switch and leave hundreds of thousands of Australians in danger.
The 3G shutdown is only being done to boost the profits of Telstra and Optus at the expense of Australians living through a cost-of-living crisis.
The government wants to drive us off a cliff as we speed towards Net-Zero dictates from the un-elected United Nations and World Economic Forum.
None of it is based on proper data and all the evidence we have is that it will destroy our energy grid and our economy.
With inflation re-emerging, we have to put a stop to the billions being poured into climate policy making Australians pay more.
Every time you see a wind turbine or an industrial solar complex, think one thing: your energy prices are going to increase. That’s what those things mean. We’ve been promised that energy prices will decrease, but wind turbines and industrial solar complexes mean higher prices for people, for families, for small businesses, for larger corporations and employers, for the whole community. And they mean trillions of dollars in waste in our economy. In every country around the world, as the percentage of solar and wind has increased, the cost of electricity has increased. That’s a fact—everywhere, consistent. And now, after nearly 30 years of pushing solar and wind, which started with John Howard’s renewable energy target, we see the ridiculous situation of the Labor government offering energy price relief. Why? Because they’re driving up the cost of energy to make it unaffordable; that’s why. So let’s have a look at why. Let’s see why killing the environment in the name of supposedly saving it is costing us so much. Let’s turn to the terms of the motion for an inquiry. So many people want us to have an inquiry, not just rural people but urban people, because they’re worried about the cost. This is what the inquiry is looking into:
… the importance of ensuring that the National Electricity Grid has the capacity to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy to Australians as the economy transitions to new and more dispersed—
and we’ll talk about that—
methods of generations and storage, and acknowledging that transition will necessarily transgress on agricultural, Indigenous and environmental lands and marine environments …
The environment and our productive capacity are suffering.
I’ll cover some key concerns that are key to the inquiry because the uniparty has not thought about this—from when John Howard, the Liberal Prime Minister, started the renewable energy target to this ridiculous situation we’re in now. By the way, John Howard started that and did three other things, which we might have time to discuss, that laid the foundation for the crippling of our energy supply in this country. Six years after he was booted from office, he admitted that, on the matter of climate science, he is agnostic. He didn’t have the science. This whole thing is based not on science; it’s based on contradictions of science.
Let’s start with solar and wind. The amount of steel needed per megawatt of electricity from a coal-fired power station is 35 tons. For wind turbines it’s 542 tons of steel. That’s 15 times as much. Straightaway, wind is suffering a cost penalty. It’s a huge cost burden. Then, when you look at the energy density of coal, it’s very high. It’s not as high as uranium, but it’s very high. For solar and wind, it’s very low.
Secondly I see the government throwing barbs at the coalition, and well it should over aspects of its nuclear policy, but the government is accusing the opposition of uncosted policy. Where are your costs, government? Where are your costs on solar and wind? Where are your costs on solar and wind, Greens? We even see some solar and wind complexes, massive complexes in the Kennedy electorate in Queensland and in western Victoria, not connected to the grid. They have been built but not connected. That’s how much thought has gone into this. It’s bloody ridiculous.
Solar and wind have an inherently high capital cost plus a low energy density, which means low energy production and very high cost per unit of electricity. Plus the amount of land needed for solar and wind is enormous. And then we see that the average capacity utilisation of solar and wind is 23 per cent. That’s less than a quarter of what the nameplate capacity is. Now we see the latest figures just released on wind, which show that it’s 21 per cent. That’s one-fifth of the capacity. What does that tell you? For a given capacity of a coal-fired power station, you’ll need a certain capacity of solar and wind. Multiply that by four, because you’re getting less than 25 per cent. Multiply it by five in the case of wind. Five times makes it prohibitive. Four times makes it prohibitive. Then think about this: at peak hour, when we need maximum electricity, the average utilisation and the average capacity is 10 per cent, which means that, to get the equivalent of that coal-fired power station, we need 10 times the solar and wind capacity—10 times. Then, for sizeable periods, we have the sun not shining brightly because of clouds or we have the wind drought. That means we need a further multiplication to make sure we can store up enough in energy and batteries. But the batteries to store that amount of wind and solar energy have never been thought of, never been considered and never been developed. It’s impossible. The cost if we don’t have them will be blackouts and outages in hospitals, businesses and family homes.
Plus there are the transmission costs. Transmission costs, many years ago, used to be 49 per cent of the cost of the electricity bill. I don’t know what it is now, but it’s certainly substantial. Solar and wind have to be located a long way from the major metropolitan areas, which means straightaway that transmission costs are even higher than for a coal-fired power station, which can be located close to the metropolitan areas. Then, because of the dispersed nature of solar and wind, we have even more transmission lines. Then, because of the capacity factor that I just mentioned, we have even more transmission lines. This makes it prohibitive, not just in terms of the installation of solar and wind but also in terms of transmission lines. Plus, the transmission lines will barely be used because of the capacity of solar and wind not being utilised. And then we have the 15-to 20-year life, at best—12 to 15 years more likely—of solar and wind industrial complexes. That means that over the life of a coal-fired power station or a nuclear power station, they have to be replaced four times, so multiply the cost again by four. What have we multiplied it by so far? We’ve multiplied the cost by five, then by 10 and now by another four. Yet the CSIRO considers not one piece of that puzzle—not one piece. They say that it’s all sunk cost; just ignore it.
That’s why solar and wind can compete. And they still need subsidies. Then you’ve got to add batteries and pumped hydro. Pumped hydro itself is an admission of failure. You cannot have pumped hydro without a disparity between peak hour prices and off-peak prices, and that’s due to the failure of the grid and solar and wind. And then we need firming, another cost, because coal, nuclear and hydro are stable, synchronous power supplies. Solar and wind are asynchronous—unstable—so they need firming. And they need backup gas or backup coal because solar and wind are unreliable. There’s a doubling. Look at the multiplication that we have got there.
None of this is included in the GenCost report from the CSIRO. It assumes no transmission cost because they’ve already been built. That’s rubbish. We need far more new transmission lines. We have an inherently higher cost from solar and wind, plus low capacity, plus regional, plus dispersal, plus backup, plus stabilisation. Think about this: for a business, you need a stable, reliable, low-variation input. When variation occurs, it costs enormous amounts of money. At industrial and manufacturing plants, farmers are using backup, so they have to pay twice for their electricity. We also have a huge footprint in terms of land. Solar complexes and wind turbines use far more land and are far more scattered than a concentrated coal-fired power station or a nuclear power station. They’re taking up huge quantities of resources. The resource footprint of solar and wind is enormous.
We have agricultural land being sterilised. We have poisons and toxins potentially going into the Brisbane water supply, into their drinking water—lead, cadmium—which feeds Brisbane, Beaudesert, Gold Coast, potentially Toowoomba, Ipswich, Logan and other areas in the south-east of Queensland. We also have the future cost yet to be added—Snowy 2.0. By the way, when they first did the costings of Snowy 2.0, thanks to Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership and poor leadership, they forgot about the transmission lines. They forgot to add the transmission lines. Whoops! We better add a few more billion to that. Now look at it. It was originally slated for $2 billion. We could see this, and I’m not an energy expert. We could see it when Malcolm Turnbull first released it. We told them, and no-one took any notice. Now they’re putting in all these additional costs, and Snowy 2.0 is heading for $14 billion and perhaps $20 billion—if it moves! This is not about having an alternative energy supply; it’s about less energy and control of energy.
We also have Mr Albanese and Mr Bowen, ‘Blackout Bowen’, talking about us being a renewable superpower. It means economic and environmental suicide, resource sterilisation, and displacement of Indigenous. No costings—a huge catastrophe! We’re talking about billions of dollars and impacts worth trillions of dollars. We must have this inquiry. They’re building in a high-cost overhead and a huge environmental legacy. When some of those farmers who are looking at the money now—some aren’t selling out, but some are selling out because of the money coming in—think about the environmental legacy. No bonds. The energy company owning the wind turbines and the solar complexes can just walk off and leave it. There’s no requirement to fix it. Farmers will pay for that. They’re already paying in many cases, as are rural towns, with the slow thrum, thrum, thrum of infrasound, which is proven harmful to humans. So they’re killing the environment to save it. We’re seeing human progress being reversed.
The No. 1 message from the last 170 years since the industrial revolution started was that we have a higher standard of living and all the benefits that brings because of a relentless reduction in energy prices. What we’ve seen since John Howard come to power is a reversal of that. As energy prices increase, productivity falls, wealth falls and prosperity falls. We see a reversal of human progress. So what if we spend billions on solar and wind, what if it costs our economy trillions of dollars—and it will—and what if China does not? What happens then? Now do you get what’s going on? Now do you see it?
I want to turn to two other points. As I said, John Howard introduced all the problems we’re seeing now: the Renewable Energy Target; the stealing of farmers’ property rights to comply with the UN Kyoto protocol; and the National Electricity Market, which is really a national electricity racket. He also introduced an emissions trading scheme as policy—not as fact, but as policy. That’s a carbon tax. He was the first major leader of a major party to have that. The CSIRO has never provided any empirical scientific data and logical scientific points that prove the need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity. The CSIRO admitted that to me when I held them accountable, and they gave me three presentations, each 2½ hours long. In the first presentation they admitted that they had never given the advice and had never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and needs to be cut. In the second presentation they gave me, they admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented; they’ve happened before—many, many times. In fact, the scientific term for periods of high temperature is ‘climate optimum’, because they’re beneficial for humanity, for civilisation and for the environment. The temperatures are not unprecedented.
The second point is that I’ve asked many government departments in this federal government for their basis of policy. To have a basis of policy you need to have the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on some climate factor. No-one has given us that. We have amassed 24,000 datasets on climate and energy from around the world, from legally scraped websites and research institutions like the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, and we’ve never found any change in any climate factors at all, so there’s no basis for policy. You need that quantitative impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on a climate factor so that you can then study the alternatives, if you want to get rid of the carbon dioxide production. You’ve got to have that to track progress, but there’s none of that. There’s no basis for policy. We are flying blind. We’re heading for a cliff.
Then we see there’s no environmental impact statement for the use of solar and wind—none at all. What impact is the energy we’re taking out of the wind going to have on our climate? What impact is it going to have on the natural environment? Yet they say that 0.03 per cent of the carbon dioxide is coming from humans, and 1.2 per cent of that from Australians. No impact quantified—the absurdity is enormous. And who will pay for all this mess? We, the people. You are foisting this on the people. We need an inquiry now. (Time expired)
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am