I asked questions of two Army generals as to the viability of military EVs in the field. They spoke of the challenges of recharging in the field, considering factors such as solar charging and the use of hybrid vehicles.
I was told that the technology was not there yet but the hope was that technology would have matured by 2030-35 when the fleet of vehicles may be transformed to EV status and technological problems be overcome.
Transcript
Chair: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: My questions are to do with the Army’s electric vehicles. Since the publicly released information of electric vehicle conversion of the Australian designed and built Bushmaster, has the Australian Army progressed to test the operational feasibility of other Australian electric military vehicles in the field? I understand from Minister Conroy, who gave us a crossbencher briefing, that this is at concept stage at the moment, nothing more.
Lt Gen. Stuart: I’ll begin, and then I’ll hand to my colleague Major General Vagg for any further comments.The concept demonstrator that you referred to was part of our power and energy work, which involves some studies to understand how we can use alternative sources of fuel (1) to ensure an operational capability and (2) to reduce the logistic footprint that is created by bulk fuel. There are a couple of important points to note. Firstly, we were able to produce an electric Bushmaster, but that was to really test the parameters of power generation and how that work would translate into the design of the vehicle and to really test the art of the possible.
Of course, the operating environment would probably require us to have a hybrid approach, similar to a hybrid passenger vehicle, with both solar panels and also the fuel that would be required. So it is on a path of development to determine how we can continue to operate vehicles and reduce the logistics footprint and, obviously, the output of those vehicles.
Senator Roberts: What progress has been made? What stage are you at right now?
Major Gen. Vagg: As the chief has alluded to, we produced the capability demonstrator with Thales. One of the limitations is power generation and storage and the distribution — which I think you’d appreciate —
Senator Roberts: Easy to understand that.
Major Gen. Vagg: for operational use. We’ve got a number of studies underway to look at power generation and electrification of various sizes of wheeled and tracked vehicles. Those studies are indicating that the technology won’t be in a mature state until about 2030. We have plans from 2035 onwards to look at how we’ll transition the broader Army fleet as we move across.
Senator Roberts: So the time frame is you’re hoping to put something into operation by 2030.
Major Gen. Vagg: That’s the time when the studies are indicating the technology will be mature enough so we can field it as an operational capability.
Senator Roberts: So at the moment there’s no real understanding based on anything concrete—it’s just studies at the moment. You haven’t got a plan or deadline or date.
Major Gen. Vagg: As I said, from about 2035 we’ve got plans to look at starting to convert Army’s fleets across to electric vehicles.
Senator Roberts: What are your findings on energy density? One of the advantages of hydrocarbon fuels like petrol and diesel and gas is that they have very high energy density—not as high as nuclear, but very high energy density. Sunlight is incredibly low.
Major Gen. Vagg: That’s a good observation. To inform some of that work, we’ve got trials with electric vehicles that are occurring this year. We have 40 electric vehicles—civilian—that are operating in the ACT. From 2024 we’ll look at a series of small, light commercial vehicles that will use hydrogen cells. We’ll use those capability demonstrators to inform further work and how we’ll look to operationalise that.
Senator Roberts: To what stage has the thinking gotten in terms of replacing the current diesel powered vehicles?
Major Gen. Vagg: Again, I go back to my first point. Looking at the levels of maturity for those technologies, we don’t expect that to mature to where we can deploy it as a legitimate operational capability until about 2030.
Senator Roberts: Is there any way in which our concrete operational plans assume electric vehicles, say, by 2035? Are we going to be reliant upon these things being developed?
Major Gen. Vagg: I don’t think we’d be reliant on them being developed, but that’s a goal where we’ll look to do that transition.
Senator Roberts: So it’s a goal, not a plan yet.
Lt Gen. Stuart: If I can describe the approach, there are a whole range of emerging technologies that we need to understand, and then we need to test their application to the set of tasks that we need to provide for the integrated force. In some cases, I expect, those will be successful; in other cases they may not be. What we want is to be informed and take advantage of the developments in technology as they’re developing. We work with both academia and industry to explore the art of the possible. We’re not making any presuppositions about exactly when, because we just don’t have the evidence or the data to support exactly where that technology may be. What we’re working on at the moment in the case of electrification is that we think, based on the advice we’ve received, that technology—noting your point about energy density and the requirement to operate vehicles in operational situations—is probably toward the end of this decade. That is our estimation based on the work we’ve done so far and the advice from experts that we’ve been working with.
Senator Roberts: Have you deployed the vehicle in the wet or in the north or in the desert or put it through any arduous tests, or is it still very much a concept?
Major Gen. Vagg: It’s still very much a concept.
Senator Roberts: What about battery charging? You mentioned that as one of your challenges. I think, from memory, on Friday afternoon the Minister for Defence Industry, Mr Conroy, said that you had some concepts for fast charging. Is that correct?
Lt Gen. Stuart: We’ll have to take that one on notice. As I say, as part of the power and energy work we’re doing, we’re looking at a whole range of things, which include both power generation and power storage—which includes battery technology.
Senator Roberts: What would power generation involve—what sort of concept?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Solar, hybrid engines—
Senator Roberts: Solar panels?
Lt Gen. Stuart: and those sorts of things.
Senator Roberts: Hybrid using hydrocarbon fuelled engines?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes.
Senator Roberts: You’re not far enough advanced, then, to discuss the recharging question for field operation?
Major Gen. Vagg: No. As I alluded to before, we’re still looking at how that technology matures. That’s one of the principal challenges that we need to overcome.
Senator Roberts: What’s your early gut feeling? Much of the science on this and the application of the science on these technologies is still hypothetical—wish.
Lt Gen. Stuart: I don’t think my gut feeling is particularly relevant. We’ll follow the science and what can be demonstrated and how that can be applied to the work that we are required to do. But we think it makes a lot of sense to be understanding and to be working with experts on how we can apply new and emerging technologies to the business of Army in this instance.
Senator Roberts: I’m reassured now. Initially, I wondered if we were going to be dependent on something happening in the next few years, and I had visions of extension cords all across North Queensland and the Territory. That has put that to rest. Thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/2vJqvwZZIXM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-07-07 16:00:232023-08-24 15:50:32Does the ADF really think electric vehicles can defend our nation?
The left are trying to cause fake outrage with an edited video of me quoting the bible in a speech, falsely claiming I’ve called for the execution of trans people. It’s absurd, given I’ve already talked about trans people I call my friends.
As Labor tries to implement its new “ministry of truth” against misinformation, you can bet the wave of victimhood claims will drown out any of the real truth.
Voltaire said “Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”
My letter to Tony Burke MP, Minister for Employment & Workplace Relations, dated 26 June 2023 is clear on the facts that workers were deliberately exploited.
When union bosses collude with dishonest multi-national employers and unaccountable government agencies, workers are left with no protection.
I have been working for four years to reverse the serious violations stripping workers of their rights, protections and entitlements.
That’s why I continue, after almost four years, to champion tens of thousands of workers across Queensland and in the Hunter Valley, NSW.
Why have Labor & Liberal-National federal and state governments ignored basic questions?
Stop the rot, Minister Burke. The ball is now in your court.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ricardo-gomez-angel-F2iCP_knaj8-unsplash.jpg?fit=%2C&ssl=1Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-29 14:24:112023-06-29 14:24:17Stop the Lies and Dirty Deals Stealing from Miners!
We receive many questions about the integrity of elections and observations from members of the public and volunteers at polling booths.
We investigated the many concerns that people have and provide answers to the most common questions asked.
If you have further questions, please feel free to contact us.
Click Here for FAQ
Q1: The count for elections and referendums is undertaken by over 100,000+ temporary election workers. Is it possible that political activists can work their way into responsible positions in the AEC to interfere with ballot box content?
A1:This is true, however the degree by which this affects the result is likely to be small, if at all, for two reasons:
(a) The ability to make a significant change in results is limited by AEC procedures.
(b)Activist involvement is compensatory. This means one party may influence a booth in one location, whereas an opposing party will do the same elsewhere. This is not ideal but it renders such fraud pointless, which is why little actual proof exists of such things occurring.
Q2: The AEC claims its processes are open and transparent. Surely this can only be true if all staff are honest, which in the present highly charged political environment is unlikely. Is election integrity being assessed on a staff basis?
A2: The behaviour of the AEC over the three years my team has been scrutinising their operations is anything BUT open and transparent. It is because the AEC refuse to answer in a full and honest manner that there is a lack of confidence in their operation.
In a booth of any significant size however, the AEC staff are most likely to keep each other honest because of those competing political sympathies.
We do not believe the integrity issue is a staff-based one, rather the issue is in their systems and specifically the quality of the voter roll and security over ballots and electronic records during counting.
Q3: AEC supervisors leave temporary election workers without direct monitoring despite claims by the AEC that this does not occur. Supervisors are seen chatting outside polling stations leaving temp staff unsupervised. Why is this not addressed?
A3: It would be unlikely that the booth Supervisor was the only experienced person there, however any specific examples of this should be reported to the AEC here. If no suitable response is received, please let us know via contact us.
Q4: An AEC supervisor was seen with a bundle of ballot-box sealing zip-ties all with the same serial number and was seen taking ballot boxes home from the pre-poll. Why are they getting away with this?
A4: Zip-tie numbers are logged and, we are told, reconciled. There should only be one number per box and numbers should only be used once. Anyone with specific information to prove otherwise are invited to contact our office via contact us
Transport of ballots in private vehicles is allowed by the legislation, but it is our view that it should not be happening. Secure transport should be used and this secure transport should include time logs and surveillance cameras on the cargo, with point-to-point transit.
Q5: Auditing means the count is undertaken at least twice and is done by different counting teams. What if the ballots were swapped for different ballots on the kitchen table of an activist employee’s home when the pre-poll closed for the night? That is still a rigged election, isn’t it?
A5: The initial count is compared back to the final count by the AEC and party scrutineers. There is no evidence of a major variance capable of affecting a House of Reps or Senate outcome. Indeed, the closer the electorate the more effective the scrutineer system becomes.
One Nation has not received any proof such rigging is happening. If you have any information that proves otherwise, this can be provided to the AEC here. If no suitable response is received, please let us know via contact us,
As a general discussion though – can ballot boxes go astray and ballots be substituted? Theoretically this is possible given that ballot boxes are not securely transported and the quality of the seals is an issue. One Nation supports secure, point-to-point transport in a vehicle with video and GPS surveillance to remove any chance of ballot substitution.
Q6: The AEC’s rigorous chain-of-custody mechanisms are open to abuse, as the last pre-poll supervisor out of the building can simply double back and load up his private car with sealed ballot boxes.
A6: One Nation has not received any proof this is happening. If you have any information that proves otherwise, this can be provided to the AEC here. If no suitable response is received, please let us know via contact us.
We believe video surveillance and alarms with a check on “arm” and “disarm” times should be the absolute minimum requirement for a secure pre-poll or regional counting centre. We use the same venues election after election, so the cost of this is justified by the magnitude of the task these venues perform.
Q7: Although all AEC staff are requiredto sign a declaration of political neutrality, this in reality means nothing. Activists don’t care about declarations, contracts, laws, fairness, justice, or the will of the people. Is there a way to ensure no activists are employed during the election?
A7: It is not possible to find 100,000+ poll workers with no political allegiance. What matters is a multi-faceted secure system to ensure political loyalty does not affect their work.
Inmy early days in the workforce I received some great advice about security – ‘opportunity creates its own temptation’. It is a basic responsibility of management to ensure staff are protected by removing temptation from them.
Wedo not believe the AEC has done this to a sufficient degree.
Q8: The AEC systems are incredibly easy for activist employees to defeat because the security is far too weak. How can this be improved?
A8: The AEC provides many layers of security and integrity in their processes. Recent legislation, which was authored by One Nation and passed by the LNP Government, added auditing of the count and auditing of the computer system to eliminate computer fraud. These were important reforms.
One Nation will pursue video and alarm surveillance of pre-polls and regional counting centres, an audit of the voter rolls and secure transport of ballot boxes. More detail on this can be found in this FAQ.
Q9: Can procedural changes be made that ensure only Australian citizens vote and they vote only once, that ballots cannot be swapped once lodged and that the ballots are properly counted?
A9: This is already a requirement of our law. The question is to what degree is the law being complied with? In practice, this would require an audit of the voter roll (which One Nation is calling for) to ensure accurate rolls.
Voter ID is essential to voting integrity.
Refer to answers 4 and 6 above around ballot security and transport.
One Nation believes the actual count itself is conducted as accurately as is possible, given the issues that arise around human error on the part of counting staff and voters. This is often made worse by the shocking state of some returned ballots.
Q10: Would it be better if voting was paper only, in person, with ID and on the day?
A10: Yes. Yes. Yes. No. If pre-poll is conducted properly, it is not an issue for voting integrity. We have some concerns around current pre-poll systems – refer to answers above.
One Nation would like the AEC to take a serious look at blockchain-based online voting. There are some University Academics who propose a very good way for this to be done without the possibility of fraud.
Q11: Could postal votes be restricted to those that are overseas, in hospital or care homes, with all ballots to be received by election day?
A11: Postal voting needs to be replaced as soon as possible with secure online voting. There are ways to do that accurately and without opening the door to fraud.
Q12: Current ballot boxes are not fit for purpose. What would it take to ensure ballot boxes are large, heavy and constructed of transparent material, kept under strong lights, continually videoed online, stored in the National Archive for any citizen to access in the future, and under constant observation by party scrutineers and members of the public?
A12: The cardboard boxes you place your ballot in are not used to transport ballots. Once full, they are switched out to sealed, transparent plastic containers. This is safe to transport, however One Nation are still investigating issues around the accuracy and tamper-proof capacity of the seals, current use of private cars to transport ballots instead of secure transport, alarms and video monitoring of pre-poll and regional counting centres.
Q13: How can we provide a system where the ballots must be counted with the same uninterrupted security and scrutiny, and continue until finalised?
A13: This is just not workable. Many voting places are school buildings which need to be accessible for teaching staff and children on the Monday. The use of regional voting centres is necessary. Counting 24/7 is expensive and it may be very hard to find staff willing to do that.
An accurate count relies on accurate systems with foolproof security, not continuous count.
Q14: Wouldn’t it be better for elections if computers or scanners were not used in the counting, tallying, or reporting? What if counting was done by accountable individuals? What if there was always at least two different candidate scrutineers or members of the public per staff member.
A14: This is actually the system now with the sole difference being that the Senate preference flow is provided by a scan of the voting paper. Thanks to One Nation legislation passed by the previous LNP Government, there is now an audit on that count and for some months now an audit has been underway into the AEC computer system to ensure integrity in the next election.
The preference flow is also checked by a third-party group comprised of University Academics and they have not found errors that affected the result. Indeed, they show the preference flow is very accurate.
Q15: The AEC “disinformation register” is an affront to the Australian public. A transparency system would be far more useful. When bureaucrats exceed their authority as public servants paid from the taxes of hard-working Australians, what mechanisms can we put in place to ensure these petty tyrants are removed from their positions?
A15: The disinformation register is an area One Nation are investigating. The idea had some merit, but its implementation seems biased against minor parties.
Q16: What has changed since these findings below?
“the electoral system is open to manipulation is beyond question … Fraudulent enrolment is almost impossible to prevent.” (NSW Electoral Commissioners, Messrs R. Cundy and Ian Dickson, in the NSW Government Inquiry 1989.
“Electoral fraud, malpractice and errors are a common feature of the Australian electoral system,” Alex Howen, Metropolitan Vice-Pres of the NSW Liberal Party 11/9/1999.
78% of several thousand people voted “Yes” on www.publicdebate.com.au in year 2001 to the question “Should a Royal Commission be held into Electoral Fraud?”
A16: Historical cases are unlikely to inform current electoral process, although it does show that the ALP and LNP will cheat if an opportunity arises. One Nation is calling for further electoral reform.
Q17: Recent data showed that millions of dollars of corporate “donations” continue to fill the coffers of the major parties and that 40% of money received is not disclosed at all. I would like to see the following reforms legislated ASAP, including real-time disclosure of all donations over $2,500, banning big political donations altogether, and limiting electoral spending by parties and corporations. How will you ensure that these reforms are part of the recommendations made in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters?
A17: One Nation supports improving electoral disclosure laws and extending those to cover third party financing such as the Teals used in 2022. However, be aware that both the LNP and ALP vote together to maintain the status quo in this area.
Q18: Should voters stop using a pencil when filling out a ballot paper?
A18: There is no reason you can’t use your own black ball point pen (please ensure it writes clearly). Pencils are used simply because of cost and can be stored and used again without the ink running dry.
Q19: The AEC says that “Staff are obligated to report any suspicious activity to their supervisor.” – but this doesn’t mean a group of activist employees would do so. How can we ensure the AEC is free from infiltration by activists?
A19: The AEC certainly harbours activists, however it is impossible to hire 100,000 people and not get activists. There is no system in the world that can stop that. The “people” factor is the wrong way to look at it. If the systems are properly secure, remote monitored and alarmed, ballots transported securely (not by AEC staff), and the voter rolls audited with rolling audits, then the few “bad eggs” that creep in will not be able to do any harm.
Q20:It seems obvious that the main parties won’t fix the mess the AEC has become even though the commission itself says, “The AEC runs elections and referendums in accordance with legislation, and I note that many of the suggestions that you have made would require legislative change. I suggest raising them with your local member of parliament and/or senators.” How do we get this legislation changed?
A20: One Nation was successful in authoring election integrity legislation that was passed by the Morrison LNP Government. As a result, Australia now has election auditing mandated by legislation. That auditing is currently underway.
Other reforms require support from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) and One Nation is not a member. The review is underway into the 2022 Federal Election. Submissions have now closed. The next step is to see the recommendations and then prepare a further integrity bill to respond to the many issues raised.
Q21:Current AEC chief, Tom Rogers, is quoted saying “Citizens have the right to express views about democratic events that are a contest of ideas – the AEC does not restrict those freedoms.” Despite this, the AEC inappropriately took to social media in a ‘war’ against so-called ‘misinformation’ which amounted to suppression of free speech. How is this not illegal?
A21:There was a lot of disinformation in the last election and I understand the AEC wanting to deal with that. Confidence in the result is essential for democracy. Having said that, the operation of the AEC around “disinformation” attracted a lot of criticism. One Nation is pursuing this matter to get a better balance into the process for the next election.
Q22: Has the AEC got an opinion on the “Yes” campaign having a flood of taxpayer’s money to support it while the “No” campaign gets stuff-all? AEC states, “While we’ll be active in communicating about referendum processes, it’s up to voters to stop and consider information they see, hear or read from ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns.” Isn’t that the sort of “mistruth” Mr Tom Rogers should be “prebunking”? What do we hear from the AEC about the Yes-biased campaign? Crickets.
A22: The AEC has so far followed it’s enabling legislation. It is the Albanese Government that is immorally trying to influence the referendum outcome by funding the ‘yes’ vote and not the ‘no’ vote. Please direct any feedback on this to the Albanese Government.
Q23: Electoral reform needs to happen and it appears that while we run with the 2-party preferred system, we will never get another party into a majority position for change or reform. Minor parties will fight over the scraps. Reform will be difficult and part of the issue is the AEC. The question is who regulates the regulators?
A23: The Australian people regulate the regulators by way of elections and referendums. If any Australian is unhappy with the outcome, please get involved – sign up as a candidate or poll worker and exercise your democratic rights before we lose them.
Q24: The NSW Electoral Commission confirmed that no ballot boxes were to be removed from polling stations until after they were counted. Why were NSW Electoral Commission vested staff removing ballot boxes from booths? This is alleged to have occurred at 8 booths. AEC-vested staff are said to have walked around hospitals with iPads asking if people would like to vote. Country polling stations were being closed and electors asked to submit mail-in ballots.
A24: One Nation has examined every video that was provided to us, or viewed on social media. Each of the videos show ballot boxes being removed from pre-poll centres correctly sealed and in the custody of AEC staff. We believe that no staff of the AEC should be moving ballots and instead, secure couriers with video surveillance on the load and GPS tracking should be used.
Can the seals be defeated? We are looking into this following multiple reports that this is possible, however we have not seen a video or statutory declaration indicating it is actually possible.
Voting in nursing homes on iPads is acceptable if there are scrutineers in place. Based on our information, there were scrutineers and the count was accepted by those scrutineers.
Closed voting centres are probably due to staffing issues, but if you have information regarding specific centres, please let us know via contact us.
Q25: At the 2023 NSW election, ballots were being mishandled. As confirmed by the NSWEC, they are only responsible for what occurs to the ballots up to and including 6 metres from the polling booth.
A25: The AEC does not run NSW elections. As this is a state matter, you will need to contact the NSW Electoral Commission: https://elections.nsw.gov.au/contact-us
Q26: Why were there blank boxes above the line in the Senate ballot?
A26: The wording of this section of the Electoral Act is poor and can be read to allow a blank name, which is what the AEC have done.
This decision disadvantages grouped independents as people are reticent to vote for a blank box.
The videos and audio recordings of AEC staff advising voters to not vote or worse, that they cannot vote in that square, are real and call into question training of the AEC staff.
One Nation supports amending that provision of the Electoral Act to require grouped independents to be labelled as “grouped independent” and not be left blank.
It’s estimated that 28,000km of power lines will be required to help the government’s net-zero pipe dream.
In many places, these powerlines are being proposed over prime agricultural land with the owners having their property compulsorily resumed.
I spoke in support of a inquiry to give affected landowners a voice as the government bulldozes over them on their way off the wind and solar cliff.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to acknowledge the people in the gallery. My brothers and sisters in Queensland amongst the rural sector were at a property rights conference just last Friday. The stories about the so-called green power—wind and solar—are well and truly horrific.
People are just starting to wake up to the blight that is coming upon this country. And it’s not just the city people paying for power; it’s rural landholders and farmers losing their land, losing their livelihoods and losing their health. The social, economic and moral impacts are enormous and devastating. And the anti-human Greens are responsible.
I want to compliment the farmers who have come here today. Thank you so much, because what you’re showing is democracy in action. You’re putting pressure on the people down here in this chamber. We are paid by these people. We serve them.
Recently I was in the wonderful Widgee community to listen to people about the Queensland government’s plan to destroy their national park and communities in order to build a high voltage powerline. Electricity transmission has become a controversial topic in recent years. The UN’s 2050 net zero—next to zero—needs a huge spend on wind turbines and solar panels, inevitably located in the bush and requiring tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines to bring the power all the way to the cities.
Long transmission lines were not needed when coal power kept lights on and fridges running, lifting our beautiful country into a period of prosperity and stability.
The woke Left—the socialist Left—are destroying what works and replacing it with a short-lived, unscientific exercise in feelings. Net zero will need $50 billion spent just on transmission lines, every cent of which will come out of the pockets of everyday Australians and electricity users, including manufacturers. Queensland Premier Palaszczuk’s plan for a big battery in the Pioneer Valley calls for peak generation of five million kilowatts of electricity to be delivered into a 275-kilovolt transmission line. It’s absolute insanity, deceit and arrogance. Premier, where’s the costing on the several thousand kilometres of additional lines necessary to carry that amount of power into the grid without melting the wires? Are you forgetting that melted wires is exactly what happened when the Kennedy renewables project was connected to the grid, and that was less than one per cent of the Pioneer project?
It’s a fact that Katherine Myers from Victoria addressed the Property Rights conference in Gympie on the weekend. She told us that 80 per cent of solar and wind in western Victoria is not connected to the grid. You guys have blown that money and now you’re wanting to tear up farms to get it to the cities. Once wind and solar wear out, which takes only 12 years—and that’s the reason they’re called renewables, by the way—and taxpayers become jack of this ruinous drain on public finances the bush will be left a wasteland of glass, toxic chemicals, rusted steel towers, concrete and fallen wind turbines full of oil and dangerous chemicals. Do you know why they’re called renewables? Because you have to renew the bloody things every 12 years. In the space of building one power station you need to build four generations of solar and wind. That’s why they’re renewables.
Wires melting is exactly what happened when the Kennedy renewables project was connected to the grid, and that’s less than one per cent of the Pioneer project. Nothing stacks up—nothing. Their owners are Bahamian shelf companies and Chinese shelf companies, which have no intention of remediating this inevitable environmental disaster. Who will be left with this legacy of blown toxic panels and wind turbines? You will be. That’s why we need this inquiry to explore this issue.
One Nation stands opposed to green vandalism underway in rural Australians’ backyards just so that wealthy, ignorant and uncaring inner-city anti-human Greens and teals can feel better about their inhuman energy consumption myths. Why do the Greens hate nature? Let’s look at their track record. They chop down trees to make way for steel and fibreglass monuments to the sky god of warming, who is celebrated with religious fervour by people who think themselves too clever for religion. Tens of thousands of hectares have been cleared and devastated for electricity interconnector easements. It’s a permanent scar across the landscape for no reason.
The seabed is marked with two new interconnectors to get hydropower from Tasmania to energy deficient Victoria. Suicide is what’s going on with the Victorian government. They’re suiciding their state. Productive farmland and native grasses are covered in a carpet of glass and silicon reflectors. The sea is supposed to shine, not the countryside. Productive land is dug up as a graveyard for expired wind turbine blades. There’s strip mining of the seabed for rare earth minerals to make EVs and big batteries. Beautiful natural lakes in China are polluted with toxic chemical run-off from the processing of rare earths. The Greens look the other way with this environmental vandalism because ignoring environmental standards is essential to bring the price of solar down so that they can claim the price of solar is falling.
This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. So there’s China’s environmental standards and the health of the locals, but who cares about children being devastated? Our beautiful bird life is sliced and diced in wind turbines across the country. If oil were the culprit, they would never shut up about birds. But with wind turbines: ‘Shoosh. No-one mention the dead birds.’
I make this offer to the Greens: come camping with me. Let me show you the beauty of this amazing countryside and then perhaps then you will be less likely to chop it down; cover it in glass, steel and concrete; pollute it; and lock it away so nobody but a chosen few can appreciate the beauty. One Nation is now the party of the environment.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/2YdRg6yeY9o/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-15 17:10:062023-06-15 17:10:11Australia turning into a spiderweb of high voltage transmission lines
During the recent Senate Estimates, I questioned the Reserve Bank about the effect of the ascendant BRICS alliance on the Reserve bank’s holdings of US Dollars (USD) and US Treasuries (UST). I also asked Mr Lowe about his expectations of the US Economy’s movement in the next few years and how this may affect Australia. Mr Lowe avoided any pessimistic projections regarding the US economy.
I then asked if the Reserve Bank was increasing its gold reserves as a precaution against the BRICS group releasing a gold-backed currency. The RBA has actually reduced our gold reserves from a peak of $5.2 billion to $3.9 billion now. The answer I received was also negative.
I think this is a mistake. Australia should be increasing our gold reserves as a hedge against international currency fluctuations in the uncertain times ahead.
Transcript
Chair: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: I have a question about the Reserve Bank’s reserves. Let me get to it by giving some background. At the BRICS meeting in Cape Town on 2 and 3 June, 13 nations will formally apply to join BRICS, which is currently Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa—and Saudi Arabia, with an each-way bet. Candidate nations include Mexico, Argentina, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Indonesia and Iran. BRICS is now the world’s largest trading bloc, accounting for 25 per cent of world trade which is expected to grow to 50 per cent by 2030. And it’s big in oil. BRICS member states are abandoning the US dollar in favour of using their own currency or the Chinese renminbi in an environment where other countries, including Australia, are doing the same thing. Pakistan is now buying Russian oil and renminbi. The US dollar is now denominating just 58 per cent of all world trade. The United States has printed $10 trillion over the last seven years, doubling their M2 money supply. That increase has been absorbed in part by an increase in international trade. As the world moves away from the US dollar the value of the US dollar may fall. The Reserve Bank holds United States treasuries and dollars. Have you modelled the effect on your balance sheet from that probable fall in the value of US holdings.
Mr Lowe: Not as a result of these other global changes you’ve talked about. We spend a lot of time and part of our risk management processes looking at volatility in currencies, because currencies move around all the time, don’t they? That affects the value of those assets on our balance sheet, so we model that from a risk-management perspective. Despite the developments you’re talking about, most countries still hold the bulk of their foreign reserves in US dollars. There’s diversification going on, which is good, but the US dollar is going to remain the dominant currency for some time.
Senator Roberts: What is the value of Reserve Bank holdings of US dollar and US treasuries in Australian dollars?
Mr Lowe: Our total foreign reserves at the moment I think are the equivalent of U$35 billion. What’s the share, Brad?
Dr Jones: I think it’s 55 per cent.
Mr Lowe: Roughly half of that $35 billion is allocated to US dollars, and then we have holdings of yen, Korean won, euros and rmb.
Senator Roberts: What about treasuries?
Mr Lowe: When we hold US dollars we invest it in US Treasury securities. We don’t invest in bank deposits or any other securities. We invest in US government securities.
Senator Roberts: What’s the reverse holding of Australian government currency and bonds held by the US government or their agencies?
Mr Lowe: We don’t have data on that.
Senator Roberts: Could you get that on notice?
Mr Lowe: No.
Senator Roberts: You don’t have it?
Mr Lowe: We don’t have data on specific holdings of other countries.
Dr Jones: If I understood your question correctly, Senator, the US holds euros and yen, from recollection, but not in large quantities.
Senator Roberts: While that arrangement helps with international stability across holdings, it is a method for backdoor quantitative easing. Does the Reserve Bank expect to increase your holding of US treasuries in the next 12 months?
Mr Lowe: We’ve just done an exercise where we were looking at how much of our balance sheet should be held in foreign assets. We said we’ve got $35 billion at the moment. As the size of the economy grows you would expect that to gradually increase. But, no, nothing dramatic. As the economy grows and the nominal value of the Australian economy gets bigger, then you would expect a bigger portfolio in US dollars and foreign currency.
Senator Roberts: The Reserve Bank has a mission to anticipate movements in major trading partners and in world markets. As it affects your provisioning and portfolio, does the Reserve Bank anticipate being affected by any out of the ordinary moves in financial markets in connection with the US economy or the US dollar over forward estimates?
Mr Lowe: We’ve recently been focused on the US debt limit issues in the US. If an agreement had not been reached there, that would have had implications for currency markets and economies around the world. So that’s one thing that we’ve looked at carefully. It looks like that has been resolved, thankfully. And, just as part of our general risk management exercise, we’re looking at developments in other economies and their implications for currency markets in own economy.
Dr Jones: As a general rule though, the way the bank has operated its reserves has changed quite a bit over the last, say, 25 years, and now the bank effectively sets key benchmarks and sticks to them. There are not big discretionary decisions going on every day. There’s wild speculation going on at the Reserve Bank, I can assure you, about the future value of exchange rates.
Senator Roberts: I wasn’t implying that. Worldwide purchases of US treasuries by central banks has fallen $600 billion in 2022 as compared to a baseline year of 2013. That’s just arbitrary—2013. Purchases of gold have increased $300 billion. So something is going on that Australia would be prudent to hedge against. Is the Reserve Bank increasing its gold reserves as an each way bet against BRICS introducing a gold brick currency of some form?
Mr Lowe: No, we’re not. We’ve got our gold reserves. We haven’t bought and sold for a long time and we have no intention of changing that at the moment.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Br6XLHZsdN8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-14 16:28:132023-06-15 17:26:51Is the Reserve Bank in Denial?
At Senate Estimates I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics about the accuracy of the data they publish.
Many Australians, politicians, government officials and media should be watching the ABS data for signals that there could be a problem with our COVID response. Births and deaths would be the main indicators.
The ABS are slow in producing this data and don’t appear to understand that these datasets should be produced faster than pre COVID times.
In addition, the ABS has been loading incomplete data and not labelling it as such. After this was pointed out to them during our last senate estimates, the dataset referenced was changed to include the label “incomplete”.
How many other datasets are labelled as final when in fact they are incomplete?
The answers showed that the data for Provisional Mortality only includes doctor-certified deaths (which we knew) but that the comparison baseline includes ALL deaths, including coroner-certified deaths (which we didn’t).
This means the ABS has not been comparing apples with apples, and the figure for Provisional Mortality understates actual deaths by 15%.
What this means is that unexplained deaths in Australia is over 30,000 in 2022. Around 10,000 of those are attributed to COVID.
What are the other 20,000 deaths?
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you all for appearing today. My first questions go to accuracy of data. In the last estimates session, we had a conversation around the accuracy of one of your datasets. I want to follow up on that. The dataset is births by year and month of occurrence by state. It’s available in your Data Explorer. The conversation was around the reduction in births shown towards the end of 2021, and that reduction was quite dramatic. I accept your position that this effect is caused by delays in reporting of birth, and a lot of December’s reports came through in January. Is this correct so far?
Dr Gruen: That is correct. There’s a pattern, which is repeated every year, which is that the first unrevised estimate of births in December is of the order of 6,000 or 7,000, and then, once you have the final numbers, the final numbers are of the order of 22,000 or 23,000. So, there is an enormous revision for precisely the reason you just mentioned—namely, not everyone has recorded the birth of their child. I think they have other things on their mind than making sure that the ABS gets its numbers right.
Senator Roberts: The dataset is titled ‘birth by month of occurrence’, not ‘births by month of reporting’. 2021 data was not available until 19 October 2022. Why was 10 months insufficient time to completely compile the full 2021 calendar year? I note that December is still showing 6,600 births against an expected 20,000 in your Data Explorer, as you’ve just said. Why is this data still incomplete 17 months later—and still wrong?
Dr Gruen: It’s unrevised; I wouldn’t use the word ‘wrong’. The answer is we have a schedule of births which has been the same schedule for an extended period. We haven’t yet got the revised numbers for 2021, but, when we do, we have a pretty good idea of the order of magnitude that they’ll be. This hasn’t changed. We’ve be doing it on this timetable for many years.
Senator Roberts: The database now carries a warning—thank you for this—’incomplete data’. Have you made a note of where else incomplete data is being loaded into your Data Explorer and ensured incomplete data warnings are attached as you load that data?
Dr Gruen: We provide preliminary data for a range of series, and we did more of that during COVID because we thought it was important for people who were making decisions to have the most up-to-date data that they could possibly have. So, we brought forward some releases, understanding that they would not be complete, and we were transparent about that. It is certainly the case that revisions are part of producing statistics, whether it’s births or the national accounts. The national accounts also get revised. It’s a common feature. We do not revise the quarterly CPI because there are legislative indexation arrangements. Again, it’s a longstanding practice that we do not revise the CPI, but, for many other series, revisions are a standard practice.
Senator Roberts: I don’t think anyone would complain, Dr Gruen, about data needing to be revised. Maybe the speed of it might be something we might inquire about, but what I was getting to was: are there any other datasets on your Data Explorer that need the words ‘incomplete data’ as a warning? Bad decisions are made off bad data, and it becomes misinformation.
Dr Gruen: I don’t think it’s misinformation. We are as transparent as we can possibly be about the nature of the data. For instance, we put out provisional data for deaths, which we have actually discussed in previous estimates hearings.
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Dr Gruen: That is based on the available information two months after the end of the reference period, and those are also revised subsequently. When we first started producing that data, again, that was during the early phase of COVID. We did it purely on the basis of doctor certified deaths, which is about 80 to 85 per cent of overall deaths. We’ve managed to include some coroner certified deaths in that series, but it’s still incomplete when it’s first published two months after the period. So there are several datasets where we are very clear about the fact that they’re not the final data and that extra data will come in for the period that we’re talking about.
Senator Roberts: I’m advised that the incomplete data warning arrived after our session last time.
Dr Gruen: That is possible.
Senator Roberts: So I’m just wondering if there are any others. The dataset ‘Causes of Death, Australia’ for calendar year 2021 was released in October last year. Can you confirm that 2022 will be released no later than October this year?
Dr Gruen: I’m sure there’ll be someone here who can tell you for sure. Around October is when we publish the annual data for the previous year, but we can take that on notice and give you an answer, for sure.
Senator Roberts: The provisional mortality figure is still showing that deaths are running above the previous known range. Has the ABS received any request from any minister or department—federal or state—for an explanation of where the increase is or what data the ABS has which could cast light on that substantial increase in mortality?
Dr Gruen: We do talk about provisional deaths, and we do talk about what proportion of those are people who died with, or of, COVID and from other causes, so I don’t think there’s a mystery about what is happening. We get lots of requests for our data, so I can’t answer the question. Since it’s on the website—
Senator Roberts: They wouldn’t need to ask you.
Dr Gruen: That’s right.
Senator Roberts: I was just wondering, in particular, whether Health had asked, but, as you said, they don’t need to. Do you send reports routinely, or do you just publish on the website?
Dr Gruen: We publish, and we answer media inquiries. We have outposted people in many of the departments in Canberra, and we have continuing discussions with them. If a department had a specific request, it would be straightforward for them to ask us.
Senator Roberts: There’s a disparity between datasets that I would like to ask about. Starting with the publication ‘Provisional mortality statistics, Jan 2020-Dec 2021’, which was released on 30 March 2022, the key statistic is that 149,486 doctor certified deaths occurred in 2021. If I then go to your Data Explorer, the figure for ‘Deaths and infant deaths, year and month of occurrence’, shows deaths in 2021 to be 160,891.
Dr Gruen: Is the subsequent number published? The number you first quoted is the number that was available from doctor certified deaths up until the end of March, and then the second number you quoted comes from more recent data. Is that correct?
Senator Roberts: I don’t know when that was published, but it shows deaths in 2021 to be 160,891, which is higher. So, I understand the difference in deaths because some would be autopsy certified and take time to come through; is that correct?
Dr Gruen: Yes, that’s right. As we say when we publish those provisional death numbers, they are provisional. They are the data that we have available on the date at which we finalised the numbers. As I said earlier, doctor certified deaths are something like 80 to 85 per cent of all deaths, so the number goes up when you add the coroner certified deaths.
Senator Roberts: It includes the autopsies. Is the figure on this graph for the baseline average calculated using provisional mortality or using final data from the ‘Causes of Death, Australia’ dataset?
Dr Gruen: We can check, but I’m pretty confident that it’s final.
Senator Roberts: Would that then include autopsy deaths?
Dr Gruen: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Provisional mortality is a widely shared dataset that informs much debate around our COVID response. It’s running well above our historical range. From today’s exchange, we know that the figure for provisional mortality understates actual rates of mortality. Your dataset does make that clear, so this isn’t a criticism.
Dr Gruen: No.
Senator Roberts: What I would like to know is: by how much does provisional mortality understate actual mortality in percentage terms on average? I think you’re saying 85 per cent?
Dr Gruen: I think the number that we get two months after the reference period is about 85 per cent of the final number.
Senator Roberts: I’d like to go briefly to data collection. A constituent of mine in Queensland has contacted me in person during a listening session in Rockhampton just recently. This elderly lady, who is single—widowed—and lives alone had a terrifying interaction with the Australian Bureau of Statistics that raises questions about either the staff training or your understanding of the fair exercise of power. The ABS maintained a dataset called the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey, which apparently involves Australians being selected at random to participate. The survey consists of an Australian Bureau of Statistics officer visiting the selected person’s home and taking their height, weight, blood pressure and waist measurement, which is compulsory. Then the citizen has the option of submitting a voluntary blood and urine sample. Is that correct?
Dr Gruen: I think so. I think that is correct.
Senator Roberts: The constituent in this case advised the ABS worker that she lives alone. After receiving a series of letters they thought was a joke, an ABS field worker came by her home in the dark at 6.30 pm, showed her credentials, asked for her by name and advised that the constituent must submit to the government mandated physical. When the constituent declined, she was threatened by your worker with a fine of $220 per day until she submitted to this physical examination by a complete stranger. Is that how the ABS runs its survey?
Dr Gruen: Well, I can’t comment on a specific event. We obviously do our best to treat people in a dignified way. It is true that the surveys that we run are compulsory, but we also allow for the possibility that people who have extenuating circumstances can apply not to be part of the survey, and people do do that on occasions. It is important, in order to be able to collect data that is representative, that we can indeed choose a representative sample, but it is also true that, for people who are in circumstances in which they find it particularly difficult or who are in the circumstances that you described, we are understanding.
Senator Roberts: That goes to my next question. Why can’t you get this information from hospital records for admitted patients with de-identified data? Why pull names out of a hat, knock on their door, call out for them by name and terrorise them into submission? It seems like a massive overreach when there are alternative ways of doing it. Maybe the alternative ways are not entirely random, but they could be made so, couldn’t they?
Dr Gruen: Just to make it clear: our aim is not to terrify people.
Senator Roberts: This lady was terrified.
Dr Gruen: Well, I’m sorry about that. We obviously train our interviewers to be sensitive to people. On the general issue of being able to find alternative ways to get the data, we are very much alive to those possibilities. What you’re talking about is an example of using big data instead of surveys, and there’s a worldwide move from national statistical offices to do precisely that both because the big datasets that are becoming available—there are increasing numbers of them. For instance, early in COVID we started using single-touch payroll from the tax office to be able to give high-quality, up-to-date information about employment. That’s an example of a big dataset. But it is also true that response rates around the world are falling because people are, for whatever reason, getting less happy to respond to the surveys of the national statistical offices. That’s another push factor to lead us to do precisely what you’re suggesting. Now, we haven’t accessed the particular dataset that you have talked about, but the general proposition that we are moving in the direction of using big data and taking the burden off individuals and businesses is very much a journey that we’re on.
Ms Dickinson: For some of the surveys that we run, there are not alternative sources that we could avail ourselves of, and the survey that you referred to—the nutrition survey—has quite a range of questions that we ask people before we come to the physical measurements. It’s things like diet. We ask people to recall what they have eaten and sometimes do a food diary. That’s the type of thing that we can’t get from big data and in which there’s quite a range of interests from users, including the Department of Health, Treasury and so on.
Senator Roberts: By big data you mean data that can be automatically collected or harvested from existing datasets?
Ms Dickinson: Yes, such from the example that you gave, such as hospital data.
Senator Roberts: Okay. Have you ever fined someone for refusal?
Dr Gruen: Yes. And we fine a small number of people for not filling in the census.
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Dr Gruen: But not a large number. We have 10 million households fill it in and the number of people we fine is very small.
Senator Roberts: Minister, are you happy that this elderly widow was terrified?
Senator Gallagher: I’m sure the ABS and Dr Gruen would be very happy to follow up an individual matter, if you’re able to support your constituent to raise that—if she felt vulnerable over that. I think that resolving these issues is important and there are ways to do that. I’d certainly encourage you to think about how you could facilitate that. I also totally support the need to seek this information, because it helps in so many ways to understand what’s going on. Currently, for example, I’ve been selected for one of the household surveys—I think it’s for nine months. Do you get selected for that—
Ms Connell: Eight.
Senator Gallagher: Eight months—
Chair: You can—
Senator Gallagher: It was made very clear to me when I inquired about having to do it—the compulsory nature of it—and the consequences for not filling things out every month—
Senator Ruston: They didn’t believe you when you said you were too busy, did they?
Senator Gallagher: I had very helpful advice from the ABS when I rang to try to get out of it! I was told, politely, that those were not grounds for getting out of it. But that’s how we get information about what’s happening across the country.
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Senator Gallagher: And I don’t think that anyone who’s sitting here would say that they took any comfort in thinking that an elderly woman felt terrified by it; that’s not the intent, and I’m sure there are ways to work through that.
Senator Roberts: I applaud your comments about the need to use data in government but I don’t see much of it—and I’m not talking about this government on its own, I’m talking about previous governments as well. One of the sad things is that government doesn’t use data when making policy and legislation, in my view.
Senator Gallagher: But it’s not just for government. So many people rely on the ABS datasets for their work.
Senator Roberts: Dr Gruen, you mentioned something that I took to mean people are becoming more reluctant to share data—
Dr Gruen: More reluctant to participate in surveys.
Senator Roberts: Is that due to the pushback because of—well, what is the cause? Is it due, partly or maybe majorly, to the intrusion into people’s lives during COVID?
Dr Gruen: It’s a phenomenon that predates COVID, and it’s global. It happens in all countries. I’m aware that there has been a gradual decline in response rates to surveys. We have higher response rates than most advanced countries for many of our high-profile surveys, like the Labour Force Survey, which I think must be the one the minister is enrolled in.
Senator Gallagher: Mine is the household one.
Dr Gruen: Oh, can I—
Senator Gallagher: They want to know how many people in my house, what we’re doing and how hard we’re working. I’m skewing the statistics!
Dr Gruen: That’s the Labour Force Survey.
Senator Gallagher: Is it?
Dr Gruen: We have the labour force expert behind us.
Senator Gallagher: Okay!
Senator Roberts: In which way are you skewing the statistics?
Senator Gallagher: Because I work so much! I’m off the scale!
Senator Roberts: Oh, off the scale.
Senator Gallagher: And it’s, ‘Why are you working so hard?’ I fill it all out.
Dr Gruen: On the web?
Senator Gallagher: Yes.
Dr Gruen: Good, I like to hear that.
Senator Roberts: Because a pesky senator is asking questions in Senate estimates! Thank you, Chair.
Chair: I’ve got distracted and entirely lost control of the committee!
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ktfHpyahicM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-13 17:36:192023-06-14 15:23:57Incomplete data leads to incomplete conclusions
I have many constituents email me their concerns about mRNA vaccines for cattle.
In the recent Senate Estimates I shared their concerns with Meat and Livestock Australia, who are project managing the development of mRNA vaccines for cattle in Australia.
I asked them about the project and MLA responded saying that mRNA vaccines for cattle are in the early stages of development in Canada, but not Australia.
They do not know if they will work and if they can be used without altering the health or the genetics of the animal. These are the things the MLA are watching out for.
If an mRNA vaccine is developed, then the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicine Authority will have to put the vaccine through its own safety testing before approval.
I can also add that the stories on the internet about death of cattle after mRNA vaccines are wrong. The video being used is from other incidents, including the use of poison feed.
mRNA vaccines are not in use in cattle in Australia, and as far as I am aware, anywhere in the western world.
Although we don’t need to worry immediately about these gene shots in our cattle, we will keep an eye on how this unfolds overseas.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing tonight. I refer to questions on notice dated 28 February 2023. Question SQ23-0002000 is going to be distributed. It is from February estimates regarding the development of mRNA vaccines. A copy will be coming. Do you agree with this answer as it was written at the time?
Mr Strong: This is a question to us and an answer we provided?
Senator Roberts: I’m not sure if you were in the room at the time. Maybe Mr Metcalfe took it.
Mr Metcalfe: Sorry, Senator. I wasn’t paying attention.
Senator Roberts: That’s alright. You undertook to take this question on notice for people who weren’t in the room. I think you did it for two or three groups last time.
Mr Strong: The highlighted piece that you are asking about on this first one?
Senator Roberts: Yes. Do you agree with this answer as it was written at the time? Has anything changed since then?
Chair: Which one are we on, Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: It is SQ23-000200.
Mr Metcalfe: I think MLA is being asked whether there is any update to the reference to 200, Jason. I think we are being asked about 128. Senator, I will undertake to see whether there is any update to 128. I don’t have the relevant staff here because they’ve all gone home. I am not sure whether MLA can assist you in relation to the question.
Mr Strong: Yes is the short answer, Senator. We would still agree with the answer that has been provided here. It is a research project that is still going through the research process now.
Senator Roberts: You are involved?
Mr Strong: Correct.
Senator Roberts: In supporting the development of mRNA vaccines for cattle? It’s under development at the moment, but it hasn’t been approved?
Mr Strong: So involved. I’m absolutely not trying to be cute. We are involved in the research to look at the potential use and development of mRNA vaccines. There is not the commercial use of an mRNA vaccine for a veterinary purpose at this stage.
Senator Roberts: That’s right.
Mr Strong: This research project is looking at that. Can it be done? Can it be done in a safe way? Can it be done in a way that produces a vaccine that provides a level of efficacy we need? Can it be done in a commercial way?
Senator Roberts: I think the third criteria you had was that it doesn’t contaminate the food.
Mr Strong: Of course. And it has to be commercial.
Senator Roberts: I want to unpick the whole third paragraph. Firstly, this answer indicates that a lumpy skin vaccine will undergo testing in Canada. Is it still being tested in Canada and not Australia?
Mr Strong: The research is being conducted in Canada to develop the mRNA type vaccine. For any vaccine to be approved here, it would have to go through an approval and testing process here. But the research is being done in Canada. We probably could have been clearer in the way that was written.
Senator Roberts: The TGA, which did not do live patient testing in this country, relied on the FDA. The FDA in turn did not do any testing; it relied on Pfizer. Unlike them, you will do thorough testing?
Mr Strong: We’re very confident of the standards in place and the requirements we have to comply with for veterinary medicines in Australia. We will absolutely comply with them. I think we all have a level of concern and confusion in this space from what we have seen and heard in the last few years. Luckily, in Australia, we have a very sound and detailed approval process. Absolutely we will make sure any research we do in this space is connected to that process.
Senator Roberts: I would like to get into that. The TGA admitted, in answering my questions at the last Senate estimates, that they did not do testing with live patients. They relied upon data from the FDA in America. The FDA also admitted that they didn’t do live testing. They relied upon data from Pfizer, the producers. Do our testing requirements require proper testing in this country?
Mr Strong: Yes, they do. I think there are some big differences between what we all experienced over that two or three-year period and what we are doing here. The main one is that we have more time and human lives aren’t at risk. If we don’t get positive results out of the tests with the research that is being done on these mRNA vaccines, we can stop. If there are different paths we have to take, we can do that. If we need to take more time, we can do that. I think the two examples are sufficiently different that we can have confidence that we will be able to stick to a very disciplined research and development and then testing, pre-approval and approval process for any potential new vaccine.
Senator Roberts: It is good to know that the mRNA technology is still new. It hasn’t been tested properly in humans at all. What makes you confident that your test will pick up any problems in cattle?
Mr Strong: Nothing is the short answer to start with. The follow-on from that is that it is exactly what you just said; it is new technology. A very important part of this research is to learn about that. If it has the utility that we think it should have and the ability to manufacture the type of vaccine which is actually safer for animals and easier to use and more effective, it provides a fantastic potential opportunity and we absolutely should explore that. But we absolutely have to do that in a way that protects the safety of the animals and the food chain and, obviously, the consumers.
Senator Roberts: Because the reputation of mRNA now has been tarnished well and truly. People will be wary about eating something that has mRNA in it and eating that meat.
Mr Strong: We will be very conscious of those consumer and community views in the space.
Senator Roberts: Will the meat be labelled?
Mr Strong: I don’t know the labelling requirements for what would happen with an animal that has been vaccinated. Like I said, that hasn’t existed previously. Labelling requirements is something that absolutely would be part of the approval process. Of course we would rely on the Australian authorities to make those rulings.
Mr Beckett: It is a bit early in the consideration. Those things will all be dressed.
Senator Roberts: What is that, Mr Beckett?
Mr Beckett: I said it is early in the consideration of the whole research. Those things will certainly be considered in the process.
Senator Roberts: Overseas experts with regard to the COVID injections for humans say this new technology should have had 15 years of testing, not 15 months or nine months, and not rely just on Pfizer itself. Now we are finding out that the efficacy is negative for these injections. It doesn’t stop transmission. The authorities have acknowledged that. It needs to be very well tested over an extended period with cattle to make sure there is efficacy and to make sure it is safe and it is safe for humans. The mRNA vaccine for foot and mouth is also being tested in Australia, though, isn’t it?
Mr Strong: No. Not yet.
Senator Roberts: No, sorry. It will be tested in Australia. The testing will be in Australia at the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute located in the middle of a large dairy production area in Menangle. Is that right?
Mr Strong: No. Not necessarily. Before anything can come into Australia, it has to go through a very controlled and specific quarantine process. Nothing would actually be brought in and tested or released without appropriate controls.
Mr Metcalfe: Our department has to approve the import of such a virus. We would give extremely careful consideration to any application such as that for obvious reasons.
Senator Roberts: You would have to bring foot and mouth virus in?
Mr Metcalfe: Absolutely. We would probably need the chief veterinary officer and others to provide evidence to you about the management of that issue.
Senator Roberts: They are up next, I think.
Mr Metcalfe: No. I am only here because I am supporting the minister. The department is formally no longer here.
Senator Roberts: Will you be involved in that test, MLA?
Mr Strong: It’s too early to say. The research that we’re investing in is whether it is possible to produce vaccines using mRNA technology that would allow the treatment of diseases such as lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. That is the research.
Senator Roberts: So it’s very early days?
Mr Strong: Very early days, absolutely, yes.
Senator Roberts: Are you aware that the testing on mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease includes ensuring that the vaccine does not alter the DNA of the animal, thereby destroying generations of genetics? Australian farmers, whether dairy or beef, should be very proud of the genetics they’ve developed over the years. We don’t want the genes altered.
Mr Strong: Absolutely we don’t. Again, it’s too early in the process. I am sure those things will be part of the consideration if there’s any potential risk from that.
Senator Roberts: The answer to question SQ23-000128 precludes the precautionary use of an mRNA vaccine for foot-and-mouth disease or lumpy skin disease as it would remove our status as being disease free. Can you reassure the committee that this is still the position of Meat and Livestock Australia?
Mr Strong: I don’t think that was our position in that question. Wasn’t that a department question? Isn’t that what you were saying?
Mr Metcalfe: That was actually advice from the department to you, Senator. I have indicated that we’re happy to update. If there are any changes, we’re happy to update it. It was only provided a couple of months ago. I would be surprised if there is anything to update.
Senator Roberts: If you could just let us know.
Mr Metcalfe: We’ve taken that on notice already.
Senator Roberts: Let us know if it remains constant or if it has changed.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/q2gP9au7gpo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-13 14:45:192023-06-13 14:45:24Is there an mRNA Vaccine for Australian Cattle?
I highlighted the dilemma facing Aussies who are getting squeezed out of the property market by cashed up foreign buyers.
I was told that purchasers of new properties by foreign investors are monitored through the Australian Tax Office but they were not prevented from purchasing the property.
I told the ATO that this was not good enough and asked when the government would stop selling off the farm to the detriment of Aussies at a time when there is a grave housing shortage in Australia.
Click Here for Transcript | Part 1
Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here this morning. The Foreign Investment Review Board makes recommendations to the government about approving certain large investments in projects in Australia. One concern of Australians is the seemingly large number of Australian residential homes and residential land that is being purchased by foreign investors, to the exclusion of Australian homebuyers—are you aware of that?
Mr Writer: We are certainly aware that there are publicly reported concerns about the acquisition of property by foreign investors, yes.
Senator Roberts: Anecdotal evidence is of land banking, where properties are purchased by foreign interests and then held vacant, in the middle of a housing crisis where thousands of Australians are left homeless.
From 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021, one year, there were 5,310 residential real estate purchase transactions by foreign buyers, with a total value of $4.2 billion. Eighty-six per cent of those were for new dwellings and vacant land. Minister, why does there appear to be no governance or restriction on overseas ownership of residential property in Australia?
Senator Gallagher: There is, and I’m sure officials can take you through it.
Mr Writer: There are restrictions. Generally speaking, foreign investors, in relation to residential real estate, cannot purchase existing properties. There is only one real exception, which is for temporary residents who need somewhere to live. Generally, they will only receive approval for the acquisition of newly built properties, not existing properties. That’s designed to encourage the construction of new residential properties in Australia.
Senator Roberts: So foreigners can’t buy existing property, but they can build new property?
Mr Writer: That’s correct.
Senator Roberts: Who gives the approval?
Mr Writer: In general, the residential real estate proposals are considered by the ATO under delegation from the Treasurer.
Senator Roberts: The Australian Taxation Office as designated by the treasurer?
Mr Writer: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Given that many countries do not allow foreign ownership of their residential properties, why does Australia allow foreign investment in residential property with little or no restriction?
Senator Gallagher: We’ve just gone through that there are restrictions. The other thing I would point to is the changes that we’ve put in place to double the penalties applicable to breaches of the foreign investment rules applicable to residential properties, which we implemented on 1 January. We’ve doubled the foreign investment application fees from 29 July 2022. Fees now start at $13,200 for acquisitions of residential property valued at $1 million or less and $26,400 for acquisitions of $2 million or less. The settings under the approval process are designed to increase supply, which is essentially the big challenge we’ve got in the housing market at the moment—we need more supply of housing, and that’s why the settings are targeted to increase that.
Senator Canavan: Can I ask a quick follow-up, Senator Roberts? I believe our foreign investors can buy established dwellings with approval from the FIRB. Is that correct?
Mr Writer: With approval from the ATO, yes.
Senator Canavan: How many approvals have you provided over the past year?
Mr Writer: I’d need to go to the ATO about that question, but what I can say is that in 2020-21 the total number of purchases of residential dwellings in Australia was 588,176. Of those, 4,355 concerned foreign investors.
Senator Canavan: Sorry, 355 in total?
Dr Kennedy: Yes, 4,355.
Senator Canavan: Sorry, 4,355.
Mr Writer: Yes. It’s still less than one per cent of the total.
Senator Canavan: Yes. It’s still quite a lot. That’s of established dwellings?
Mr Writer: No, that’s of all residential dwelling purchases.
Senator Canavan: Okay, so it includes, potentially, new ones. So you can’t tell me how many approvals. How many times did you reject somebody who wanted to buy an established dwelling?
Mr Writer: I’d have to take that on notice. The ATO will be here later this afternoon and may be able to answer that.
Senator Canavan: I thought it was FIRB that does that rejection.
Mr Writer: In relation to residential property, no. The ATO manages that.
Senator Canavan: Finally, the new penalties the minister mentioned—how many times has a foreigner been penalised for illegally purchasing an established residential dwelling over the past year?
Mr Writer: I couldn’t answer that. The ATO would need to respond to that.
Senator Canavan: Does it happen? Was there one?
Mr Writer: The ATO certainly took action, I think, last year, and were successful in obtaining a penalty against a foreign investor, yes.
Senator Canavan: The issue seems to be—notwithstanding your figures—anecdotally, that the foreigners are always turning up at auctions and buying established dwellings. It doesn’t seem to me that hard to get around our rules, to just get someone else to buy it in their name. Does that happen? How do we know? What sort of efforts do you put into making sure people aren’t trying to avoid these restrictions?
Ms Kelley: Again, the ATO is responsible for the compliance in that regard. I would also note that Australian citizens and temporary residents are able to purchase as well, regardless of their background.
Senator Canavan: Of course, but they could also do so on behalf of others. Is that illegal? Would it be illegal to do so on behalf of someone—
Mr Writer: That would be a scheme to avoid the application of the act. Yes, it would be.
Senator Canavan: I’m just asking. I know you’re saying the ATO is enforcing it, but presumably you’re the policy area.
Mr Writer: We are.
Senator Canavan: So how confident are you? You don’t seem to understand the details of the prosecutions that go on. How confident are you that this restriction is actually being implemented?
Mr Writer: We rely on the ATO to do this. It administers and enforces the law in accordance with the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act and the relevant policies that the successive governments have put in place around this area of activity.
Senator Gallagher: And I think the numbers that were read out before give you an indication that that—
Senator Canavan: That doesn’t go to my question, because it doesn’t capture people doing it illegally.
Senator Gallagher: No, but you were saying anecdotally, basically, that foreigners are out buying up all the houses, and I think—
Senator Canavan: You can’t even tell me how many people you prosecuted.
Senator Gallagher: It’s not about prosecution.
Senator Canavan: If you were taking this issue seriously, you’d know that, Minister.
Senator Gallagher: That doesn’t relate to prosecution, and we can deal with that through the ATO.
Senator Canavan: My question did.
Senator Gallagher: That deals to the scale.
Senator Canavan: Clearly people are not obeying the law.
Senator Gallagher: And that question has been answered, and obviously your anecdotal information is incorrect.
Senator Canavan: No, it’s not, because you don’t even have any evidence about how many prosecutions you’ve made.
Chair: Order!
Senator Canavan: You’re obviously not taking it seriously.
Chair: Order! I’d like to return to Senator Roberts, who I believe has the call. Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: I thank Senator Canavan for his questions. Minister, doesn’t it mean, though, with the current housing crisis, that the ability for foreigners to buy or to construct a new house crowds Australians out of the market or certainly raises the prices?
Senator Gallagher: Again, no, I wouldn’t accept that. Again, it goes to the numbers that Mr Writer has outlined. But the fact is that the settings are targeted, essentially without exemptions, to new housing supply. It’s focused on generating that new housing supply to be available for people to live in, and part of what we have to deal with in the housing market at the moment is a shortage of supply.
Senator Roberts: According to Mr Writer’s figures, 4,355 were bought by foreigners, out of 5,186. That’s almost 80 per cent.
Senator Gallagher: No. You’ve got that wrong.
Mr Writer: It’s 588,000.
Senator Roberts: I’m sorry. That’s my mistake.
Ms Kelley: It’s 0.74 per cent, to be precise.
Senator Roberts: Quite often, though, foreigners will lock up their houses rather than rent them out. So they’re vacant. They’re not available to Australians.
Mr Writer: I don’t think we can confirm that kind of statement.
Senator Roberts: That’s widely known. You won’t confirm it, because you haven’t got the exact numbers. I understand that and I appreciate that.
Mr Writer: I don’t think we have any actual evidence of that fact.
Ms Kelley: Part of the ATO’s responsibility is also around the amount of time a property is vacant and ensuring that it’s not left vacant as well. That is part of the compliance regime.
Senator Roberts: That’s the ATO’s responsibility, is it?
Ms Kelley: Yes.
Senator Roberts: So you’re just responsible for the policy?
Ms Kelley: In terms of residential real estate, Treasury has a policy responsibility. The ATO implements the policy.
Senator Roberts: Minister, wouldn’t the widening of the mandate of the FIRB to include residential purchases go a long way to slowing down the sale of residential properties to foreign speculators?
Senator Gallagher: If FIRB were assessing them?
Senator Roberts: If FIRB were extending their authority over all residential property.
Senator Gallagher: It would slow it down—is that what you’re saying?
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure how those two things go together. Essentially, we’ve got Treasury with the policy side of the work and the ATO then enforces those arrangements, so I’m not sure how FIRB extending reach into residential property would slow down the sale. As you’ve heard, it’s 0.75 per cent of residential sales.
Senator Roberts: So FIRB would have authority as to whether or not to approve or recommend—they don’t approve anything. They make recommendations.
Senator Gallagher: The ATO currently does. We have an approving entity that does that work—
Senator Roberts: Which basically has no teeth.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t accept that, but, by all means, put those questions to the ATO.
Senator Roberts: Isn’t it time, though, for the government to start buying back the farm and limiting sales of Australian land to Australian purchasers only, like China and several other countries do?
Senator Gallagher: No. That’s not the policy of the government. We have in place an arrangement that allows, under specific circumstances, foreign investors to purchase residential properties in this country. We’ve got those settings—they’re here; we can answer questions about them—but they are the arrangements that are in place.
Senator Roberts: I understand they’re here, but I’m saying why not change them so that only Australians can buy Australian land, not just Australian residential real estate but Australian land?
Senator Gallagher: That’s not the government’s policy. We are an open-facing economy. We are a country that has relied on foreign investment. We believe there need to be suitable controls in place to manage that, and those settings are the ones that we’ve been talking about this morning. That remains the government’s policy.
Chair: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: This is not a radical thought, Minister, as many other countries protect their sovereignty by not selling their land to foreign interests. Why is it that Australians can’t buy land in those countries but foreigners from those countries can buy land in our country?
Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure of the countries that you are referring to.
Senator Roberts: China’s one of them. There are a number of countries.
Senator Gallagher: We’re here, and we do have arrangements in place, through FIRB and through the arrangements with the ATO, to put restrictions and limits on the sale of housing or, in FIRB’s case, on foreign investment matters. They are looked at and assessed against the national interest.
Senator Roberts: It’s a one-way street for foreigners. Australians can’t buy property in their countries, but they can buy it in our country.
Click Here for Transcript | Part 2
Acting Chair: Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here tonight. My questions are in two streams: registration information for the Australian Taxation Office and foreign investment in real estate. I’ll get on with the first one.
Senator Gallagher: Senator Roberts, FIRB are no longer here.
Senator Roberts: No, it’s to the ATO. You referred me to the ATO this morning.
Senator Gallagher: That’s right; I did. That was a long time ago.
Senator Roberts: A very long time ago. I understand the registration information for the ATO was displaying incorrectly on the business and company registers. It displays a record named ‘ultimate holding for all company’. This was updated in early March. Can you please explain when this error was brought to your attention and what part you had in correcting that?
Mr Jordan: Is this on the Australian Business Register for the ABN?
Senator Roberts: I think that’s where it was, yes.
Mr Allen: I’m not aware of that issue, but I can take it on notice and come back to you.
Senator Roberts: Okay. Could you also answer these questions then please? How did that information come to be displayed on the registers in this way?
Mr Allen: Again, I’ll take that on notice.
Senator Roberts: Yes. And also take on notice what information the ATO supplied to the business registry service or ASIC that caused the registration to be displayed in this way. Can you take that on notice?
Mr Allen: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Was it an error from ASIC or the business registry service or the ATO that caused the information to be displayed in this way?
Mr Allen: I’ll take it on notice.
Senator Roberts: How did BlackRock come to be displayed as the owner of ‘ultimate holding for all company’?
Mr Allen: I’ll take it on notice.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. Can you please take on notice to provide a full chronology of this incident, including data and correspondence—who it was sent to, who it was received from and what was addressed in it?
I’m raising it because it suggests that there may be other errors for entries that are not as high profile that are still there. What routine audit of this database do you have in place to detect such errors? After this embarrassment, have you gone looking for more?
Mr Allen: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. That’s all on that thread. Now I’ll get on to housing. Minister, why does there appear to be little governance or restriction on overseas ownership of existing residential property and newly constructed residential property?
Senator Gallagher: I think we answered this earlier today. Weren’t the issues that were to be referred to the ATO over essentially the approval for foreign investors to buy—
Senator Roberts: I want to put it in context that the ATO understands. Many countries do not allow foreign ownership of their residential property. Why does Australia allow foreign investment in residential property with minimal restriction?
Senator Gallagher: Is that to the ATO?
Senator Roberts: It’s to you, Minister.
Senator Gallagher: As I think I went through this morning, there are restrictions in place. It is something the government—
Senator Roberts: On older properties, but not on newly constructed or first residencies; isn’t that correct?
Senator Gallagher: No. For foreign investors it is targeted at new properties, unless you get an exemption. That’s my understanding. We don’t have that group of officials here—they’ve gone—
Mr Jordan: We have a deputy commissioner of international here.
Senator Gallagher: but that was the evidence this morning.
Mr Jordan: He’s responsible for the registers that we maintain. He will try to answer any questions.
Senator Roberts: So you’re purely a registry?
Mr Thompson: No. As was touched on this morning, in the residential property space the foreign investment regime essentially seeks to promote the growth and development of housing stock. The way it does that is by restricting foreign investment to new builds, development of existing builds or vacant land. There’s only one circumstance in which approval for an established dwelling would be granted under that regime, and that’s for temporary residence. Those properties will need to be divested when that person ceases to be a temporary resident.
Senator Roberts: Established properties cannot be purchased by foreigners?
Mr Thompson: The scenario where an established property would gain approval to be purchased by a foreigner is where they’re a temporary resident.
Senator Gallagher: It’s also when it’s their primary residence, isn’t it?
Mr Thompson: They will be required to live in that—
Senator Roberts: But, other than that, they can’t purchase existing residential properties?
Mr Thompson: That’s correct.
Senator Roberts: Can they build a new property?
Mr Thompson: Broadly speaking, there are three classes of properties that a foreign resident might get approval to purchase. One would be vacant land. One would be redevelopment of an existing property—so you could perhaps subdivide and convert a single dwelling into two dwellings. One would be a new build, yes.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. Doesn’t it still mean that the system is fairly unregulated, since people can come in and develop?
Mr Thompson: There’ll be conditions around our approval, so there’ll be a time period. If you were to seek approval to develop an existing property, there would be time periods around that approval being granted, if it’s not an open-ended approval.
Senator Roberts: Do you know how many properties are being developed or redeveloped every year with foreign ownership?
Mr Thompson: I don’t have that level of detail. We have a register of foreign ownership of residential land that we publish every year. That actually breaks down transactions between vacant land, established dwellings and new dwellings. That would probably be the most disaggregated split I can provide.
Senator Roberts: I’m being asked to wind up. Minister, wouldn’t the widening of the mandate of ATO to include all residential purchases by foreign purchasers go a long way to slowing down the sale of residential properties to foreign speculators?
Senator Gallagher: They do.
Mr Jordan: I think we do. Some are not allowed—
Senator Roberts: Do you register all?
Mr Jordan: and some are allowed, depending on their circumstances. All purchases asked by foreigners to be made are looked at and regulated.
Mr Thompson: I know there was conversation this morning. It is a requirement to seek approval to purchase properties if you’re a foreign resident. We do undertake compliance activity. We do, in some cases, force a divestment of properties. There was a reference made to a civil matter in 2022 where the court imposed penalties of $250,000 on an individual for purchasing four properties without approval.
Senator Roberts: How many existing residential properties have been bought by foreign purchasers in each year over the last five years?
Senator Gallagher: We’d probably take that on notice.
Mr Thompson: Yes. We can take that on notice.
Senator Gallagher: We certainly had some figures that we gave you for the 2020-21 year. But if you want us to go back five years, we’ll take that on notice.
Senator Roberts: What monitoring is in place to keep track of foreign purchases of existing residential properties?
Acting Chair: Can I ask you to see if you can put questions on notice? We need to wind up.
Mr Thompson: I have four years.
Senator Roberts: That’d be good. I can put most questions on notice. How many residential properties, new or existing, are sitting vacant after purchase by foreign purchasers? Do you track things like that?
Mr Thompson: There is a regime that is known as the ‘vacancy theme’. Under that regime, foreign owners are required to notify us if the property is vacant. If they fail to notify us in a given period we deem the property to be vacant and there is a vacancy fee charged for that.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. I will put the rest of my questions on notice.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/RO-wkWXSXRc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-08 15:57:122023-06-23 15:34:28When will the ATO stop foreign buyers?
Everyone’s power bills are going up, which made me wonder why the Australia Council was happy to make their power bill 7% more expensive for no reason at all.
Despite the same power coming through the plug (probably from a coal fired power station) the council elects to make their bills 7% more expensive so they can buy “green power”. What a scam and a waste of money.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I want to follow up on something we discussed last time. You may recall that last estimates we had a conversation about your power bills.
Mr Collette: Yes.
Senator Roberts: A lot of people are talking about power bills these days.
Mr Collette: They are.
Senator Roberts: This is estimates, and one of the purposes of estimates is to assess how you are spending taxpayers’ money. That is what I want to revisit. Firstly, thank you for your detailed response, when you took my question on notice. That was SQ 23-003317. I hope all of the Public Service takes notes from you about how questions on notice should be answered. We appreciate it.
Mr Collette: Thank you.
Senator Roberts: In that answer, you said that you elect to add the green power product to your power bills. That is totally optional. You opt in, and you take extra money from the taxpayer to pay that expense. That is making your power bill 6.8 per cent—say seven per cent—more expensive than otherwise. Whether you opt in to pay the extra for green power or not, the same power comes through the same plug, probably from a coal-fired power station. But you are choosing to waste taxpayers’ money on this optional expense that makes no difference to what is turning the lights on. How much did you pay for green power over the last year?
Mr Collette: I will have to take that on notice, unless my colleague has the answer.
Mr Blackwell: I don’t have it.
Mr Collette: We will try to come back to you with an equally exemplary response.
Senator Roberts: Good, thank you. I don’t expect this of you, but do you have any guess as to what your power bill is?
Mr Collette: I would not like to guess, no.
Senator Roberts: Can you also tell me how much you expect to pay this coming year?
Mr Collette: I can’t tell you that, but I will certainly get that information for you.
Senator Roberts: You were established under legislation; correct?
Mr Collette: We are.
Senator Roberts: So I assume you have been established with the objective of funding the arts.
Mr Collette: Yes, we have, investment and advocacy.
Senator Roberts: Investing in arts and advocacy on behalf of the arts. Thank you, that is clarifying. What part of your objectives enables you to waste an extra seven per cent a year on a core component, power, when it is literally the same power coming through the plug whether you pay the extra expense or not?
Mr Collette: What part of our objectives? I think the Australia Council—Creative Australia to be—does have sustainability goals, and we try to exemplify those, which are important to the sector that we serve as well. Given that we invest in the sector, and we advocate for the sector, I think this is generally respected by the arts and creative industry.
Senator Roberts: I think you are wasting taxpayer money and that should be cancelled. Would not that money be better spent on the art that you are supposed to be funding?
Mr Collette: There is always a cost to investing in servicing the art that we are funding, and I think you will find that this is significantly respected by the sector.
Senator Roberts: The point is that you are spending an extra seven per cent on a key component—
Mr Collette: I understand that.
Senator Roberts: Same plug, same power.
Mr Collette: I understand that. But there are different kinds of value as well.
Senator Roberts: I am not arguing with you on that point.
Mr Collette: So this would be a small contribution to social and environmental value that is respected by the sector, and I am sure if you ask their general view on whether we should save whatever the sum is—seven per cent of our power bill, and I confess I don’t know our power bill as I sit here—you would find very broad support for what we do.
Senator Roberts: I think there is a lot of ignorance—and I am not singling you out; I think it goes right through the community—about this green power, because the same power comes from the same place through the plug, regardless of whether you pay that seven per cent or not. So I would like to know what benefit you get from that seven per cent.
Mr Collette: I will take that on notice and come back to you, once I understand the argument that I think you are making—that there is actually no difference in this power. I need to satisfy myself on that argument and then we can come back to you with a response.
Senator Roberts: I am pleased to hear that. Thank you.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/lPbKiu20_UU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-06 16:47:162023-06-06 16:47:20Australia Council happy to waste 7% more of your money to virtue signal
