Why are casual coal miners getting ripped off? Coal LSL at Senate Estimates

, ,

Despite possibly tipping more into their entitlements from working more hours, casual miners pull out less on the other end from the entitlements pool at Coal LSL. I also queried $33 million dollars that has been paid out at Coal LSL with no description of why.

If that wasn’t enough, we also believe there are money laundering risks due to insufficient record keeping and the amount of money being held by Coal LSL. The entire model and governance needs a root and branch review as it is totally inadequate.

Transcript

[Chair]

Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you, Chair. And thank you for coming again. First of all, The Coal LSL Scheme. The Coal Long Service Leave Scheme was established specifically for the Coal Mining Sector. Is that correct?

[Witness]

That’s correct. Back in 1949, The portable long service leave scheme was established.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. The objective of this scheme is to provide long service leave for employees in the Coal Mining Sector. Is that correct?

[Witness]

For eligible employees who are defined under the Admin Act? Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The scheme provides the ability for employees to request to be paid extra amounts directly rather than contributing into the scheme. If they do this, it immediately becomes their money rather than going into the pool funded Coal LSL. Is that correct?

[Witness]

You’re referring to the clause on Waiver Agreements,

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes

[Witness]

Senator, I believe and that is underpinned by a separate regulation, but yes Waiver Agreements are enabled under the legislation.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Coal LSL has a guidance note explaining how it calculates the “levies” on the eligible wages for coal employees. It provides two formulas; one for casual employees and one for permanent employees. Casual employees are required to pay the levy on all hours worked. Whereas permanent employees contribute based on a maximum of 35 hours per week. Is that correct?

[Witness]

It’s the employers who are paying Senator, but 3B under the Payroll Levy Collection Act does outline how the different calculations are to be performed by the employer. And they are linked to the employees classification, employment classification but the employer is paying that payroll levy.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So, a casual employee though, accept that so casual employee working the same weekly shifts as a permanent employee pays in more because they contribute on all hours worked whereas a permanent pays not more than for 35 hours. Is that correct?

[Witness]

No, the employer is paying the levy and it is a different calculation. So it is linked to different assessment of hours. That’s correct, but the formula is different between the two classifications.

[Malcolm Roberts]

When it comes to a crowing and taking long service leave casuals and permanents are treated differently again. Permanents automatically get long service leave accrued for the maximum of 35 hours , regardless of the hours worked in that week. But the casual only gets it for the actual hours worked in a week. If the roster patterns of a casual don’t fall neatly in a week, there is the potential for them to work the same shift pattern as a permanent employee yet accrue less entitlement than a permanent on the same shift. Is that correct?

[Witness]

Correct. In the sense we’re relying on the hours reported for the employees working week to inform the accrual calculation for the casual employee. That’s correct.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So casual employees working in the coal mining sector can work the same weekly shifts as a permanent employee, but pay more in levies to Coal LSL through their employer and get a lower accrual of long service leave than a permanent employee. This is despite working the same shifts. They pay in more, their employer pays in more on their behalf but they get less out of it. Is that a fair outcome?

[Witness]

I don’t agree that the employers paying more in that scenario Senator, because they are very different formulas that are linked to the wages that are paid for each in different employee. So I don’t agree that is as simple as the way it’s been described. And I’d also say for the casual who is working the 35 hour week, they will accrue the same entitlement as the full-time equivalent. So if they are working the 35 hour week and the employer reports those hours they’ll accrue that full-time equivalent.

[Malcolm Roberts]

A lot of them are not working that 35 hour week, if they’re on production, they’re on a roster.

[Witness]

We’re relying on the hours and yeah

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah, we’ve seen what happens with that relying on employers hours. This is in the past, this is all based on a Coal LSL guidance note, which interprets the act. Given the potential for such an inequitable outcome, is it possible that your interpretation is wrong?

[Witness]

No, I’m confident our interpretations right. It’s been through legal channels over the years and that guidance note is verified. It has not been tested in a court as such but it has been formulated based on legal interpretation.

[Malcolm Roberts]

When the coal, this is the last question on this thread. I’ve got some more on others. When the coal long service leave system was established for coal mine workers. Do you think that it was intended to make one employee through their employer pay so much more and get less?

[Witness]

I don’t agree, that it’s as simple as that Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Sorry.

[Witness]

Okay. The intent of the scheme coming back to the intent of a long service leave scheme is for the employee to access a benefit when they meet certain milestones. So i think the intent of the scheme is structured correctly and that all workers should be able to access an equivalent entitlement when they meet the AES qualifying service milestone.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. So moving on to another topic, do you ensure that casuals are made aware that they do not have to pay contributions paid to coal LSL and that they may be able to X to be paid the approximate 2% cash in hand, so they can elect to take the cash instead of having it accumulated.

[Witness]

Colleague will talk to the detail their regs of a Waiver Agreement.

So Peter Kembrey, General Manager legal calls Hill. Senator there is information on our website in regard to the Waiver Agreements. I think it is important to point out that Waiver Agreements are only available for a small category of employees. So they’ve targeted. The intent of that is for people coming to either on high incomes or coming to the end of over 55 that already have the 8 years qualifying service or have no qualifying service to be able to redirect those contributions as you say, to other forms of savings whether that be superannuation, which is the commonly what we see is, is the conversation that we have with people that are interested in that. So most people in this game, can’t quote don’t count

[Malcolm Roberts]

But those who are eligible for the Waiver, are they notified?

[Witness]

Well, they are not notified individually but there is information in respect of

[Malcolm Roberts]

So they’re not notified. They could have to go to a website, which they might not know about.

[Witness]

Senator. We don’t know the ages of people necessarily who are in the fund.

[Malcolm Roberts]

No, but no employers do it either. Is that right?

[Witness]

I can’t speak for what employers do, but

[Malcolm Roberts]

Do you tell the employers that they need to do it?

[Witness]

Well, we don’t instruct the employers to do it but we certainly make it clear to employees that information in regard to aspects of the fund are contained on the website. There is information in regard to Waiver Agreements, better than say the waiver Agreements. There’s no many people in the fund or a significant minority of people in the fund can actually apply for these.

[Malcolm Roberts]

From the research we’ve done into Coal LSL it would seem that when an employer registers an employee with Coal LSL, that Coal LSL just asks for a name and a date of birth. Does this mean that because you did not take a Tax file number that you are not able to verify that people named are indeed real people that they exist. What do you do to verify they are real people and provide me with a summary of the last three occasions when this was done.

[Witness]

Sorry. The last three occasions we verified people

[Malcolm Roberts]

When you verified someone was done.What was real?

[Witness]

My understanding of the process is when a new entrant comes. Firstly, I say, we are not authorised to collect tax file numbers. That would mean amendments in legislations. So it’s not it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Is anyone raised that with the government?

[Witness]

It’s been raised, but like, it’s there’s very few entities that can do that. But, so we don’t collect tax file numbers at this point in time.

[Malcolm Roberts]

But you collect names and dates?

[Witness]

We collect names and dates of birth.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And you collect money

[Witness]

And we collect money, Yes. We collect money and we keep records of entitlements but we write to those new entrants into the scheme at the time that they appear on it. So we get their addresses, we contact them and we follow them up in regard to this is what we’ve been told, are these details correct? Particularly in cases where there might be employers registering them in registering them in regard to historical service. So we asked, we say this is what the records we’ve been given. Can you verify these are correct.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So let me continue then. Also from the research we have done, I was concerned to see reference to approximately $33 million in levy reimbursements made to entities with a statement beside it saying, “not readily available”. This is a lot of money to have no detail attached to it. Can you explain what’s happening. And I can give you a reference in the report, given last Senate estimates. The report was EEC-BE20-82, pages 121-144. As you provided to me.

[Witness]

Senator, the further detail that we provided in that written response to the question on notice was to explain why that reference was associated to a number of the transactions. So in the Excel spreadsheet that were provided to you which was data from July 17 to June, 2020 had 5,594 lines. And there was a 100 or 407 odd lines, which had that category. The reason being we insourced our operations in 2017. So when we took over the administration from the previous administrator that resulted in us implementing a new financial system. So all the records live in the administration system going back to day one. So all the historical records reside there which is the employees entitlements, the money in and the money out. We, and in our response to we said it would be an unreasonable division of resources to be able to extract that data because we were only migrating it to our new finance system from 2017 where we’re able to readily access the data through reporting frameworks that had been established. So the period of three months where we had that description that we explained in our response to the QON that was that migration stage. And all of the detail, I’ll say migration hadn’t been established but I do assure you, it will always residing in the administration system but it would be unreasonable allocation of time and money to be able to put a reporting framework around that, to extract that data, as you requested.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So you don’t know about it then. You don’t know

[Witness]

No, we do know about it

[Malcolm Roberts]

But you know about it but you don’t know the identities.

[Witness]

No, we do. It lives in the administration system and should we receive inquiries at a transactional level, We will investigate or access that transaction to pay but to pull thousands, hundreds of thousands of lines of records out of that system, establish the reporting framework to extract that in the timeframe that was needed. It was an unreasonable allocation of resources to extract that. And we’ve provided you with the information that was readily available.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. I note from records provided that registered and unregistered employers, make long service leave contributions. And then in some instances they claim the funds back. Yet I’ve seen no evidence whether these bulk refunds made by Coal LSL are linked to a list of employees or that if employees are referred to that, they are real people. To me, this leaves open the question as to whether the coal LSL could leave themselves open to claims of potential money laundering. Do you ensure that the money laundering does not happen? And if so, how, how do you do it?

[Witness]

It would be highly unlikely for money laundering to be existing in the fund. For an employer to come into this scheme, through a registration project process, we verify their details through ASIC, ABN and verify their bank banking details. So their, the source information that we rely on to ascertain that the employer or the entity is a found entity. The employer would then need to have an employee in their records for years of years of service and paying a levy for that period in order to see that that employee meets the qualifying service provisions and then ultimately access any reimbursement from the fund should that employee access their long service leave. So it is, there are many hurdles that an employer would need to jump through over a very extended timeline in order to launder money through our fund. So first up, Senator Roberts look at the time, we’ve got a minute left. So the one very quick question or we have to ask you to put the rest on notice, please.

[Malcolm Roberts]

How many board members or members of the bodies they represent have been on either registered or unregistered companies that made contributions and or received reimbursements from Coal LSL? Could you please provide a list of them and the entity names and the dollar value of all the transactions.

[Witness]

The current directors?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes.

[Witness]

Senator,

/by

Why do we send data to the IRS without telling the individual? Australian Tax Office at Senate Estimates

, ,

Australian banks hand over a large amount of sensitive banking and financial data to the United States IRS. This happens through the FATCA Act. Despite the huge intrusion to privacy and information of Australian citizens, no privacy impact statement was ever prepared for the Act.

The government has also failed to negotiate mutual recognition of retirement instruments like 401Ks in the US and super in Australia, meaning dual citizens are double taxed. This will only cost Australian taxpayers more as retirement funds are lost to US taxes.

Transcript

[Chair]

As well, Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you chair. Thank you for attending again. I want to talk about, oh, ask questions about FATCA, which for people on the committee, who don’t understand. In implementing the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Acts, that’s FATCA, in Australia. One major group of stakeholders has been ignored from the very beginning. They’re the individuals, typically dual Australian and US citizens. Whose financial data is being reported to a foreign government. So this goes beyond the question of, why are we reporting data on Australian citizens to a foreign government? But it goes into the specifics of FATCA. In drafting the post-implementation review of FATCA, did treasury consider the impact on those Australians whose accounts were being reported to the internal revenue service in America?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

I got to take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Thank you. If not, why did treasury decide that this group of Australians were not significant stakeholders in the Australian implementation of FATCA?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

So Senator I’m happy to provide whatever information we can on that conservancy US initiative.

[Malcolm Roberts]

It is and it’s hurting dual citizens all around the world because United States is the only country I understand that taxes on citizenship basis. Whereas every other country, taxes on residency. So an Australian citizens-

[Chair]

You can understand from the official’s point of view, it’s difficult for them to answer on the policy of another country. So perhaps-

[Malcolm Roberts]

This is to do with reporting.

[Chair]

I understand-

[Malcolm Roberts]

Under that policy,

[Chair]

But perhaps look keep going with your line of questioning, but it might pay if we can put these on notice and then at least give the officials the chance to consider this in some more data,

[Malcolm Roberts]

Some of them, they will have to be taken on notice, I accept that at the time.

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

Maybe just one context about the interaction of FATCA which is indeed another country sovereign, right And their sovereign, as you point out they tax they’re citizens on a different basis from pretty much every other country. I think there’s maybe one or two others, who tax on a citizenship basis, not developed countries. That FATCA was designed in a way that it would penalise, let’s say if the Australian government did not collaborate, did not interact at all with the FATCA system. It was designed in a way to force other countries banks to report the data with a penalty tax of 30% on all their US earnings, which would effectively stop those banks from actually operating in the international banking system. It was a very strong unilateral measure. The Australian government and many other governments negotiated to try to mitigate that through in a sense providing some of the information or in a sense agreeing to be a conduit for some of that information from domestic banks to the US government, primarily to save domestic banking industry from this measure. So it’s the consequence of the Australian government. Not, in a sense having that information flow would be, there’d be a 30% withholding tax on pretty much all the US source income of Australian organisations.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’m aware that it’s blackmail. So let’s continue asking questions and what has to come on notice, but I thank you for that clarification. What was the number of accounts and aggregate values reported to the American internal revenue service in the fact that data sent by the ATO in September 2018 September 2019 and September 2020. You’d have to taken it on notice

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

I’ll probably take that on notice but if you give me one second, I might just clarify

Yes senator, I’m going to have to take that on notice

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Of these accounts how many were held by Australian residents? I imagine you have to take that on a notice too how many were under the United States dollar 50,000 minimum reporting threshold?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

So again.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yep were there any accounts reported by institutions that qualify as local client base banks under the FATCA agreement? So this one, you probably third question I have is how are account holders informed that firstly their data is being sent to the internal revenue service or secondly the amounts being reported under FATCA? What opportunity do account holders have to correct the information reported about them to a foreign government?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

So Senator, I’ll take those on notice but primarily the relationship of the account holder is with their bank who first provides the information to us which we then on provide.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yep.

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

And so many of those the notification points will be matters between a bank and its clients. I would say that the clients would generally be, I would expect would almost universally if not universally be advised that they are a person with US indigene and be asked for more information to clarify their US potential status

[Malcolm Roberts]

Which raises more questions. But anyway, that’s not for now, thank you for that. Why wasn’t a privacy impact statement, PIA conducted with regard to FATCA reporting and given the quantity of data being sent to foreign governments under both FATCA and the CRS the common reporting standard shouldn’t a privacy impact statement be conducted as soon as possible?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

So Senator, look I’ll have to take that on notice, but I don’t think that’s

[Witness]

I think between the two of us we’ll take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Is it acceptable for financial institutions doing business in Australia to deny accounts or otherwise discriminate against Australian individuals because of their citizenship or national origin?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

So again Senator, I suspect that’s a matter for different specialists who specialise in discrimination matters.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, you’re discriminating because you’re, sorry the ATO is discriminating by sending that information by requiring it off certain individuals in Australia.

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

Sorry senator I was focusing on your question, which is should the bank be able effectively stop customer relationship? I mean, really that’s a matter for the bank and its and its discrimination law in terms of the information we receive, Yes we do share information with the US. We share information with many peragrando of common reporting standard, which is a multilateral solution. We do provide information to many other countries and also receive information from many other countries.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Thank you.

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

So the CRS is a two way so we’ve received both in and out for example, and again I don’t have the numbers with me but we received a lot of information about Swiss bank accounts, for example, under the CRS.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And the previous question was about the privacy impact statement. So what recourse do Australian individuals have when they are denied accounts due to their US citizenship?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

Senator, I think that that would probably be a matter of for APRA or ASIC.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Last question Chair, FATCA reporting includes reporting on the Australian income of Australian residents, has treasury expressed their support of a same country, exception to FATCA as recommended by the US taxpayer advocate?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

Is that a question of treasury?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

Senator, I’ll take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Thank you. Just a final statement. This not only affects US residents, it affects Australians because we have to pay more of our tax to people in America who are Australians who have superannuation and have to go on the pension because they’d been taxed to the hilt by the Americans. There’s a dual taxation, so Americans get slugged, they have a different definition of superannuation than we do. So our superannuation accounts are taxed heavily because they happened to be Americans who had got dual citizenship. There’s a lot of cost involved in this for our country. Thank you very much.

/by

How many foreign deals have we actually rejected? Questioning the Foreign Investment Review Board

, , ,

Despite the tough talk about foreign ownership, the government continues to allow foreign entities to buy up too much Australian land and critical infrastructure. While there is a lot of spotlight on larger deals, the government isn’t that concerned about the amount of small residential properties that are being lost to foreign ownership.

This pushes up the price of local house prices while other countries won’t even let us own property in their country. There is a difference between foreign investment and foreign ownership. Foreign investment, fine. But foreign ownership, absolutely not.

Transcript

And you have the call Senator Roberts.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you all for being here today. Since the Foreign Investment Review Board lowered the dollar threshold for projects to be considered to zero, how many projects have been rejected because of unsuitability by the treasurer?

[Tom Hamilton First Assistant Secretary, Foreign Investment Division]

Senator, excuse me, Tom Hamilton First Assistant Secretary, Foreign Investment Division. I don’t have a specific response to a question in relation to the timeframe that you’ve asked. As you know, a very small number of rejections over the period of operation of the FADA itself. We work every carefully to facilitate investment into the country and we, you know, we’ve been very careful through the whole period of the $0 threshold to ensure that we are allowing investment works in the national interest.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So I understand it’s only investigated if the project is raised by someone, is that right?

[Tom Hamilton]

No, that’s not right Senator. So if- every investment that comes through under the foreign investment framework is assessed carefully by Treasury and its consult partners on a case by case basis, you referred to the $0 threshold, which is a temporary measure during the course of 2020. During that period, we looked at every proposal that came forward before the treasury in accordance with the operation of that threshold.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So can you get me the numbers?

[Tom Hamilton]

I can give you the numbers for, for the numbers that were considered. Let me start my numbers here. All right, so for the period of, in total in 2020, there were 2,943 proposals. Of those, 1,732 were not $0 threshold. So the balance were that the cases that came forward as a result of the operation of that new threshold.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And none were rejected?

[Tom Hamilton]

I don’t have that number Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Could you get me that number please?

[Tom Hamilton]

We’ll take that notice Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. When will the Commonwealth Government act to stop foreign purchases or leases of significant local real estate gems, including Keswick Island in the Whitsundays in Queensland, as foreign purchases continue to buy up local real estate, rural mining, and tourist properties?

[Minister Simon Birmingham]

Senator, a number of different waves in relation to foreign investment reform over the time, our time in government, to seek to make sure that the perspective that has long been Australia’s policy in relation to foreign investment, which is that it ought to occur, where it’s in national interest is one that is effectively applied under our foreign investment laws. You know, foreign investment is important to a country like Australia. It has continued to support economic growth, jobs growth and ultimately achieving wages and living standards above a level, certainly well above global averages and global standards commensurate with a small country in population terms able to achieve large economic outcomes, thanks to domestic growth and foreign investment activity. And so it remains important but it has to be in the national interest. And that’s why we have taken successive steps, particularly in areas of national security to make sure that we have the right safeguards there to make those decisions. Just make an observation in terms of your first question about numbers rejected as well that it’s not unusual through the screening process for applications to be withdrawn at different junctures depending upon the types of question scrutiny or otherwise perhaps that applicants find themselves facing. So numbers rejected should not be seen as the only measure of effectiveness in relation to the FIRB, the mere fact that we have the regime in place would stop some from even bothering to make an application quite clearly. And then even the process itself will occasionally deter some as they get a sense of the type of conditions or the type of rejections that or the potential for rejection that may ensue.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s a fair comment. I’m also interested then in the number of rejections, sorry the number that have withdrawn their applications.

[Tom Hamilton]

I mean, Senator I’ll take that on notice. I mean, one thing that we bear in mind is being very careful not to release information that might relate to the business dealings of the applicants. But we’ll take that question on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Minister, I don’t think there’d be too many Australians who would argue with you that we need investment. However, there would be a lot of Australians who are upset about the control in foreign hands, and we’ve got Keswick Island, a beautiful gem in the Whitsundays, and it’s now been leased by the Queensland Government to a Chinese firm. And that is now acting like tin pot dictators over that island and trashing the barrier reef and the state government’s doing nothing. Now that’s not your responsibility to the state government as the lessee but lessor, rather, but these are the kinds of incidents that leave a bad taste in people’s mouth when we’ve got Chinese coming in here or anyone foreign and restricting what Australians can do and can’t do. And in fact, hurting our own environment. They are the things that annoy people.

[Simon Birmingham]

Look, I without personally knowing the circumstances around Keswick Island, so I’d be reluctant to comment directly on that, but as a general observation Senator Roberts you’re right, there’s a social licence aspect that goes to areas like foreign investment. It’s why making sure the Third Regime operates in the national interest has been so important to our government to seek to maintain that support for our own investment. And particularly as we face changed security risks and environments across our region to respond to that in the way in which we have structured those arrangements but indeed other things beyond our control, such as the way in which properties are operated, obviously can also undermine areas of confidence. And so all governments in that sense, have a responsibility to make sure that not only do we have effective screening but also that the laws and standards that we expect in this country, be they in relation to payment of wages and industrial conditions, be they in relation to payment of taxes, be they in relation to protection of the environment, apply equally to whoever you are. Absolutely.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And compliance with our laws. Is there any opportunity for us to contact someone in FIRB to discuss this particular issue? Do you have a review process?

[Witness]

Senator we are always happy for people to contact and give information. And I would just add to what the Minister has said that character of investors is part of the national interest tests that we look at as well. So we’re very happy for people to contact and provide information.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay, thank you. We will do that. Are there any more rule changes being considered to take into account the widespread purchases of Australian properties by overseas interests pushing up prices and making it harder for younger Australians to purchase a home?

[Witness]

So certainly in relation to foreign investment, as you know, the most recent and significant set of reforms came to effect from the 1st of January. The government has commenced a review of the legislation as set out in the legislation itself. That review is due for completion at the end of this year. We have made it clear in talking to stakeholders that we’re willing to, you know, hear from interested parties around the operation of the act.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay so then you’re just doing a review at the moment.

[Witness]

Yeah, that’s right.

[Malcolm Roberts]

No formal consideration of further changes yet.

[Witness]

Well, Senator the changes just took effect from 1 January. And so we’re actually quickly commencing our review process, which was part of what was passed in the legislation. And we’ve got until the end of this year to complete the review of the changes that were just made. So that’s why we’re sort of saying we’re very happy to hear from people because there are quite extensive legislative changes that were implemented as of 1 January.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s right. And we’re happy with some of them, but we’ll see how they’re implemented because it comes down to not just the legislation, but how it’s implemented. And that seems to be an area that’s wanting, especially when we see water and land and properties and essential services like electricity in foreign hands.

[Chair]

Senator Roberts, we want move rather soon.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Can I have the last question?

[Chair]

Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Is it not time to consider stopping sales of Australian assets to overseas interests? Many countries do not allow foreign ownership of their land. Investment in Australia is fine and may include long-term leases but we need to sell stop selling off our country. Is there any consideration being given to at least stopping sales of land to those, citizens of those countries that don’t allow Australians to own land in their countries.

[Witness]

I think Senator, as the minister has said the positive impact of foreign investment is very, very obvious.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I don’t dispute that. I agree with that.

[Simon Birmingham]

But I think Senator Roberts, it’s particularly important given the way you frame the question there to understand the extensive restrictions that exist in relation to foreign investment in residential property. The tightened screening restrictions were put in place in relation to foreign investment in agricultural lands as well. And in terms of your question about how other countries treat us, I guess we have under our foreign investment arrangements an overall approach that sets the threshold for any country in the world and their eligibility to purchase, which usually entails more frequent screening and lower thresholds for screening. And then we have the thresholds and arrangements that are put in place under reciprocal arrangements, essentially as negotiated through our free trade agreements that do seek to provide a, usually then a slightly higher threshold for screening to apply because of the level of reciprocity that’s usually been negotiated.

[Witness]

And if I can add to what the minister said, which is all correct, the thresholds do vary. For foreign government investors, $0 threshold continues to apply. And there are some, much stricter thresholds in relation to agricultural land as well. And not withstanding the threshold, every time an investor comes to us, we look at that case very carefully.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well perhaps, I said, I wouldn’t ask any more questions. So that was my last but perhaps I could just give you one area to consider in the future. Many foreign companies do not have to pay tax in this country, company tax. We know that, that gives them a hell of an unfair advantage over Australian companies. Maybe we should be generating more Australian investment by making sure we track tax foreigners properly. So thank you.

/by

Can we afford $220 billion Submarines right now? Department of Defence at Senate Estimates

, ,

CANCEL THE $220 BILLION SUBS CONTRACT

It is currently estimated that the Future Attack Submarines the government wants to buy will cost $220 billion including construction and ongoing service. We aren’t expecting to see the first one in the water until 2032 and the final one sometime in the 2040s.

They are outrageously expensive, will be obsolete by the time they hit the water and aren’t even nuclear powered. Don’t just take my word for it, almost every expert adviser and person outside the government has said they must be cancelled.

Transcript

[Chair]

As the call.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you Chair, thank you all for being here today. My first, the questions are about the Attack Submarines Contract. Given that some estimates of the final cost to Australia for this Attack Submarine fleet of 12 subs may run to more than $200 billion over the life of the subs. For example, the Managing SEA 1000 document is Australia’s Attack Class Submarines, February, 2020. Why is this considered good value for money in the face of wide criticism from reputable experts on the government appointed Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board, which included admirals and others. The board advised the government to consider terminating the contract with Builders Naval Group.

[Greg Sammut]

Greg Sammut, General Manager Submarines. Senator, the board didn’t recommend terminating the contract with Naval Group. They recommended that we make sure that we are managing our risks properly as we continue our work to get into contract with Naval Group and talked about the best alternative to a negotiated outcome when they made their recommendations. What actually occurred was, we reached a negotiated outcome with Naval Group. We entered into contract with them and as the auditor general concluded, we have established within the strategic partnering agreement. A fit for purpose strategic framework for meeting the government’s objectives for the future submarine programme.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. You raise the word risks and that report raised risks, that committee meeting. If the last sub will be delivered in the 2040s and the first delivery estimated to be in 2032, ’33, won’t these subs be obsolete by the time they’re ready for the water.

[Greg Sammut]

No Senator, they won’t be obsolete by the time they enter the water we’re designing these boats now to meet Navy’s capability requirements. Those requirements contemplate a submarine that has to operate within the timeframes of delivery. We’re also designing this submarine to have appropriate margins, such that through life new technologies as they sufficiently mature can be incorporated into the submarines to keep them regionally superior throughout their service life.

[Malcolm Roberts]

When the contract was first being considered, is it true that only eight submarines were to be built?

[Greg Sammut]

Not when the contract was being first considered I’ve said previously in Senate estimates that the competitive evaluation process that was initiated in February of 2015, which was established to pick an international partner used an assumption of eight submarines. But as we’ve also said previously to this committee, after the decision was made to commence the committee evaluation process there was a defence White Paper in which the government announced its policy to acquire 12 submarines.

[Malcolm Roberts]

What was the reason for the change? From eight to 12

[Greg Sammut]

There was a policy decision in the White Paper of 2016 to acquire 12 submarines that followed a process that was underway at that time, called a full structural review that accompanied the defence White Paper of 2016. And through that process, when options were considered for the structure of the defence force, 12 was the number that was decided by government.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The original cost quoted of around 25 billion was that for eight or 12?

[Greg Sammut]

I’m not sure what original cost you’re referring to, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’m told that the original cost of the programme was expected to be around 25 billion.

[Greg Sammut]

I’m not sure where that information ever came from, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

It was widely known that in the early stage of this project that the cost was estimated to be around 55 from memory for 12

[Greg Sammut]

I’m not aware of what you’re referring to, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

What was the original cost of the programme? The very first cost when the contract was set.

[Greg Sammut]

When the contract was set, $50 billion constant, which today in outturn dollars is $88.5 billion that has not changed.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So the $200 billion that some people are estimating, reliable people.

[Greg Sammut]

I think people are endeavouring to estimate not only the acquisition costs but the through life sustainment costs, which will run out to an excessive 2080. And cost that also include I might add, not just material sustainment of the boats but expected costs of crewing, operations and fuel.

And infrastructure.

Infrastructures included in acquisition costs as well, Senator, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

How will these subs be cutting edge when they use technology from the 20th century?

[Greg Sammut]

What technology are you referring to, Senator?

[Malcolm Roberts]

This technology of the subs comes from the 20th century.

[Greg Sammut]

Well, Senator, I’ll assume you’re referring to the battery technology that we’re using.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I am, ’cause the next question is will these subs be using lead acid or lithium composite battery bank? That’s one of the things, but the technology generally comes from the last century.

[Greg Sammut]

We are using proven technology in these submarines to meet the capability requirements of Navy. And I think that’s what we must understand in the first instance. We’re not making compromises to meeting capability requirements, by simply choosing technologies. We are also being very mindful of the risks that attend the use of new technologies in something as complex as a submarine. So if we were to take the battery as an example, yes, the first batch of submarines will be delivered or at least the first future submarine will be delivered with a lead acid battery. We need make that decision now because if we don’t make that now the boat’s design will not be completed. And if the boat’s design isn’t completed in sufficient time we won’t be able to commence building and deliver the boat by the early 2030s. What’s important to understand is that in choosing the battery technology that we’ve chosen we are still meeting Navy’s capability of requirements when it comes to parameters such as dive endurance, range and so forth. We will continue as we are currently doing now to look at new battery technologies. Indeed we have an established and funded science and technology programme that is looking into a number of battery chemistries, including lithium ion but there are other promising technologies out there such as nickel zinc. When these are sufficiently mature, And we agree that they can be safely incorporated into the submarine to meet the Seaworthiness requirements of Navy which go to the safety of our crews at sea as well as meeting those capability requirements or indeed expanding the capability of the boat because of what advantages that new technology might bring. We will have the option to incorporate that. Because as I said earlier, we are building a submarine with margins to be able to incorporate new technology into the future.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you, how easily, these questions reflect concerns of our constituents. And they’re very concerned when we look at the government debt right now and what has happened last year, they’re very concerned at the amount of money that’s going towards these subs. And they’re very concerned about the value in particular. How easy will the submarines be located by potential enemies when they’re so large and powered by obsolete diesel engines that apparently are easily heard? I’m not a submariner, but that’s what I understand.

[Greg Sammut]

One of my first response would be that diesel engines aren’t obsolete. Diesel electric submarines throughout the world use diesel engines to generate electricity, to charge batteries, to run the submarine. Again back to the capability requirements of Navy to which we are designing this submarine, it contemplates the threats and the scenarios in which the submarines will be operating. And those requirements have been established to enable the submarine to operate in the environments in which it operates remaining undetected to achieve its mission.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Given the exponential rate of increase or improvement in technology throughout life. Is there any regular or systemic review of the original assumptions?

[Greg Sammut]

We always continue to look at new technologies and what they might bring, not only to the future submarine but the existing submarine capability we have today. And that’s a good example perhaps to use that for your constituents, to understand how we continuously look at the ability to upgrade existing platforms that were produced some time ago. And if you look at any Naval vessel, it generally has a long life. And you’re right Senator, of course technology does evolve over the life of ships or submarines which are typically in service for at least 30 years in many cases. Over that timeframe we have to have the ability in Australia to be able to not only maintain the systems as they’re delivered, but to update them to deal with obsolescence that might emerge as well as upgrade them to take advantage of those new technologies so that we can maintain a capability edge or regional superiority. We do that today with the Collins class, we’re upgrading the Sonar suite in the Collins class, we’re upgrading the communication systems in the Collins class. We continue to manage any obsolescence that may arise in the Collins class because it was designed back in the 1980s. And we have to make sure that it continues to perform well. Life of type extension for the Collins class looks at these very issues where we will look at updating the diesel engines in the boat as well as the main motor and power control and distribution systems in the first instance. So what I’m saying to you is that we don’t design a vessel, deliver it and expect that that’s the way it will remain throughout its service life. It will be updated. It will be upgraded to ensure that it remains a potent and viable capability for the defence of our nation.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. And you mentioned the Collins class. So let’s go to that. Given the difficulties that have been reported about like for locating enough submariners to man the current Collins class submarines, what’s planned to identify and train enough submariners to man the Attack Class submarines, should they actually be built

[Greg Sammut]

I’ll hand that question to Chief of Navy whose his area of responsibility that falls under

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

Good afternoon Senator, Vice Admiral Michael Noonan, Chief of Navy, with respect to the workforce for our submarine force, we have a growth plan which will allow us to achieve the required manpower to man 12 submarines as the Attack Class come to service.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Can you tell us any particulars about that that would give us confidence without divulging anything secret?

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

The submarine force has been enduring record growth over the last five years. I currently have over 800 submariners in the trained force which is an increase of almost 50% of where we were 10 years ago. And we have a separation rate from our submarine force at the moment, which is the lowest of any other trade within the Navy. I need to achieve a growth of approximately 50 submariners a year to achieve our target for the introduction of the cones. And we are well on track.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So could you just tell me the expansion, how much it expanded? Was it 50% since when?

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

50% in the last 10 years.

[Malcolm Roberts]

10 years. Could we man all of the Collins class submarines 10 years ago?

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

No, we could not.

[Malcolm Roberts]

My final three questions Chair. They’re brief ones, they’re to the minister because they’re matters of policy or opinion. Given minister that the prime minister has just said that the submarine contract will go ahead is this to win votes because of Australian-built content?

[Minister]

Absolutely not, Senator Roberts, as you know and as I think Mr. Sammut has indicated and has been discussed in this committee for some time both during my previous tenure and since. The Australian government and the Australian Defence Organisation, both the ADF and the Defence Organisation itself regard submarines as a vital element of our defence strategy essential to protecting those interests. And we will continue to stand behind the commitment that we have made the partnership that we are invested in and engaging in. We have, as you have noted in passing a very strong policy approach about maximising the Australian industry content, about building submarines here in Australia with Australian steel, with Australian workers. But that aside, Senator, we regard this as a vital element of our strategic approach.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Has the government given… I’ll leave that question. Can Australia afford this in the light of the COVID 19 restrictions from state and federal governments, that recovery will now take enormous effort from our country? Can we still afford it?

[Chair]

How many last questions do you have, Senator Roberts?

[Malcolm Roberts]

One.

[Minister]

Senator, my response to you would be how can we not afford to do it? We must do it in the interests of the factors I put forward to you in response to your previous question and in the context of a COVID-19 recovery, the the impact of the work that we are doing in defence industry and particularly in Naval ship building is absolutely vital in the Australian economy. So I would absolutely respond to you in the affirmative to say we can afford it and we will afford it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So given the risks with technology increasing and improving so much outside the area, as well as inside the area, given that and the cost, and the changing circumstances in Australia isn’t it time to face reality and cancel these particular submarines?

[Minister]

Senator, I don’t agree. And I think Mr. Sammut has done an excellent job of setting out the reasons why including at a highly technical level.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

/1 Comment/by

Why didn’t Fair Work raise the alarm on casuals? Fair Work Ombudsman at Senate Estimates

, ,

In Senate Estimates today, I continued to pursue the case to support casual coal production workers. I showed the FWO that the hunter valley CFMEU bosses sold out casual mine workers and left them significantly underpaid and unsupported. This union ignored casuals and trapped them in the “permanent casual trap”

The FWO made us all aware that the Fair Work Commission has known about the problem with the lack of a definition for casuals that left them fall through cracks in the IR and WH&S systems. Yet they have done nothing. We stood up for small business and successfully put up and amendment to enable a simpler system for casual conversion for small business.

Transcript

[Chair]

Senator O’Neill could you at least let Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you all for being here today. First question, in correspondence between myself and the Fair Work Ombudsman, I was disappointed to hear your office repeatedly told casual coal miners that you could not or would not help them, even though their abuses were many. This was because you said that casual black coal miners did not exist, and there’s no provision for them in the award. At this point, the Ombudsman became a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. Why did you not report this gap to the minister or an authority that could fix it? And what can you do to ensure that these sort of abuses by your office and other instrumentalities like Coal LSL do not happen again?

[Ms Parker]

So, senator, we are able to provide basic information around black coal long service leave provision. Is that what we’re taking about?

[Malcolm Roberts]

No we’re talking about the-

[Ms Parker]

Now, my apologies. We’re talking about-

[Malcolm Roberts]

This was about why you would not be able to help them, help black coal mine casual,

[Senator Sandra] Yeah. working casuals in the black coal industry.

[Ms Parker]

Okay. So, has anyone got the… All right then we’ll have a look at… So, in terms of casualization there’s a couple of things happening with this, we’ve been monitoring workpac and rosatto I guess what I would say is we have to… our job is to enforce and apply the law as it stands. And I believe Senator that we have done a lot of work in regards to your requests for assistance, your complaints about the enterprise agreement, the award, the conflict as you say, between the two. And I understand what you have been advised is that you know, once an enterprise agreement is in place it doesn’t have to align directly with the award. So, there’s a contradiction between those two things?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah. I guess the heart of my question really goes to, who did you inform? Which ministers did you inform? Which agencies responsible did you inform? Because this was a problem where there’s no classification of casual in the Black Coal Mining Industry Award. Yet the union did a deal with the employer, that vastly decreased pay rates, substantially decreased pay rates, and enabled casuals with no provision for conversion. So, the union basically locked them into casualization forever.

[Ms Parker]

So, Senator the-

[Malcolm Roberts]

So, they were significant problems and I wanna know, what mechanism you either didn’t follow or you need in the future to be given power so, that you can raise these issues with the relevant authorities.

[Ms Parker]

So, senator the relevant authority is the Fair Work Commission, which ratified the enterprise agreement.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s true, it did ratify it.

[Ms Parker]

Well, we he had nothing to do with that.

[Malcolm Roberts]

But Mr. Turner and others raised the issue with you that they were locked in by their union which gave them a substandard deal, and the Fair Work Commission approved it. Mr. Turner originally was employed as a casual under the Black Coal Mining Industry Award even though there’s no classification for it. Then he went to what looks to be a dodgy enterprise agreement that the union signed off and the Fair Work Commission signed off.

[Ms Parker]

Quite possibly. So, we regulate agreements and awards that the Fair Work Commission approves, we have no responsibility to alter them or amend them, that’s not our role, not our tribunal.

[Malcolm Roberts]

But if an employee comes to you and says, I’ve got this problem, can you at the moment go to another group, say, look we can’t fix this because it’s sort of locked in by the union and the Fair Work Commission, but this is a problem that needs to be fixed. The casual problem it could have been fixed years ago, should have been fixed.

[Ms Parker]

So, the Fair Work Commission is aware of this issue, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So that’s what you do? You make-

[Ms Parker]

Well, we have no other option because we are there to regulate an agreement that is published, agreed by the Fair Work Commission, or the award.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So, thank you for clarifying. So, if someone was not aware in the Fair Work Commission, you would make them aware? But in this case they were aware.

[Ms Parker]

We do share information with the Fair Work Commission. They are aware of this issue because certainly it’s been running for quite some time.

[Malcolm Roberts]

You’re right it has.

Okay, let’s move on. You may soon be required to prepare, to distribute and to build awareness in regard to the Casual Employment Information Statement, associated with the recent bill that passed, including employment conditions and to educate both business and employees on their rights and obligations. Please detail what you will be doing to ensure integrity and awareness in regard to this information sheet. And also what systems and support will be in place to ensure prompt, clear and informative support for both business and employees?

[Ms Parker]

Certainly. Chief Counsel Financier you can look in it.

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

Senator, Jeremy O’Sullivan, Chief Counsel Fair Work Ombudsman. You’re quite right. When the bill that’s just passed the parliament, receives Royal Assent, I think there’ll be a new Section 125 capital A that will require the Fair Work Ombudsman to draught and prepare and Gazette a Casual Employee Information Statement. That work is well underway. There’s some consultation requirements because that statement is required to just canvas some of the work of the Fair Work Commission. So, under I think it’s Section 682 sub 2 we’re required to just consult on with the Fair Work Commission on that, that’s occurring now. And so I’m very confident that we will be able to publish that statement as required by the legislation when it comes into force, shortly after it comes into force. We’re also consulting with the department, obviously is it’s novel legislation, and we will be there for appropriate to make sure that the department with the administrative responsibility for the act is comfortable with if you like, giving effect to this new provision.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So, that’ll give you the instructions in a way?

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

No, that… Sorry, I’m sorry for interrupting I shouldn’t have done that,

[Malcolm Roberts]

No, that’s fine.

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

But no it’s up to us to form our view on the crick content but obviously we consult with the department. And we are obliged to consult with the Fair Work Commission under the Fair Work Act as it is now.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And then you check with them to make sure the interpretation is correct?

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

Yeah. Yeah. I mean-

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. That’s good.

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

Well, in as much as… So, I don’t wanna act like… sound like we’re acting on dictation, we have to form our own view and we’re responsible, and as Ms. Parker is often reminds me, unfortunately, the buck stops with her, so, we just make sure… I just make sure that we give our advice so that we’re comfortable. Now, there is a mechanism under the legislation for us to update or change the Information Statement as required. And of course now, if any matters came to light that we thought it could be improved, and just like we do with our Fair Work Information Statement, we improve. In particularly for readability, ’cause this is not to be a document that could only be-

[Malcolm Roberts]

Just a living document.

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

Yeah. That’s okay a good point.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Will you be doing a separate sheet to ensure that small business employers and employees are aware of the requirement that casual employees working in small businesses have a right to apply for conversion?

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

Indeed. We’re also preparing if you like, complimentary web content to make sure that basically you know, we’re providing a one-stop shop for everything you need to know about this new statement. We’re afraid to ask if I can be of burden, but you know that’s exactly… we’re making sure and striving to make sure that it’s readily accessible and it’s ready to go out as soon as, you know, the legislation receives Royal Assent.

[Malcolm Roberts]

After what I’ve learned in the Hunter in the last two years, what more can the Fair Work Ombudsman do to support casual coal employee… casual employees, especially in regard to both understanding the impact of the recent change and on their right to casual conversion? How much is being invested to ensure that there is a helpline and or accessible information available in regard to casual rights?

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

It’s an excellent question. I was gonna say that this new legislation provides both an opportunity and a challenge for us to deliver on that. So, the proof will be in the pudding.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And there will be arguments. You anticipate there will be arguments with people in larger businesses denied conversion and then the employee wanting to come back later and saying that the denial was not for sound reasons?

And that will be the jurisdiction of the Fair Work Commission,

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

Right.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah. But you’ll be in touch with them?

[Ms Parker]

I might just clarify to that a little bit. So, the initial conciliation will be the Fair Work Commission, but any disputes we know would go for the small claims court of the Federal Court.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you.

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

You’re quite correct mam, thanks.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Will Fair Work Ombudsman inspectors be able to help small businesses with things such as, coaching and support? Because it was small business who did most of the heavy lifting during COVID-19 restrictions imposed by governments around the country. And we want to ensure that they’re not burdened with more red tape and unnecessary administrative costs.

[Ms Parker]

The answers is

Yes. Senator, we’ve put a lot of our resources into supporting small business and we’ll continue to do so. We’re certainly developing material for this but we also have a dedicated small business helpline, and we’ve had 34,000 calls to that this year alone as in the financial year. And we have a small business showcase with a whole range of resources. The small business webpage was visited 50,000 times this year, we’ve got best practise guides and we have… So, we do put a lot of effort into small businesses and we’ll continue to do that. It’s important they understand what their, you know, obligations and rights are.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, I think it’s important just to mention chair, just in finishing up, that we’ve had a lot of contact with small business and small business organisations who are relieved that the bill went through last week, but now they need to make sure it’s implemented properly. So.

Thank you.

/by

Is Australia’s election software hackable? Questioning the AEC at Senate Estimates

, ,

Confidence in our elections is a cornerstone of our democracy and many questions have been raised by events in the United States Presidential election about our own software, which was originally sourced from the same supplier – Scytl.

Last night I asked questions of the AEC regarding the serious issues found in other audits by the Australian National Audit Office and the Australian Signals Directorate, as well as by leading University cryptographers.

The AEC replied that having purchased Scytl software they then chose not to use it, and have developed their own bespoke system. They claim this has been audited and the AEC had every confidence it worked.

One Nation feel bland assurances of this critical issue is not good enough. Today I will ask the Australian Signals Directorate, who are responsible for cyber security, if they have conducted a server-level and code-level audit of that software. If ASD haven’t, then who did the audit and what was the result?

Audits are normally done by the Australian National Audit Office and that agency has not audited the AEC. We need to know that this software is fit for purpose so the public, candidates and media can have complete confidence in our elections.

Transcript

[Chair]

Thank you, Senator O’Sullivan, Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you Chair, thank you for attending tonight. My questions should be pretty quick I think, in terms of going through them. I’ve got a number of them. Where are pre poll votes kept during the pre polling period and where are they counted?

I might ask the National Elections Manager to step forward.

[Assistant Commissioner]

First Assistant Commissioner, they are kept in a secure location within the polling booth. We have secure facilities that hold those while they’re not counted until after 6:00 PM on election night.

[Malcolm Roberts]

What percentage of pre-post centres have monitored back to base alarms and monitored surveillance cameras covering the location of the stored paper ballots?

[Assistant Commissioner]

I don’t have that on me, I’ll have to take notice.

We’d have to take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Do any?

[Assistant Commissioner]

Pardon!

[Malcolm Roberts]

Do any?

[Assistant Commissioner]

I couldn’t answer right off here now.

[Tom Rogers]

There’s a whole range of security measures that are put in place including the involvement of scrutinies in every step of the process, signed documentation with numbered seals that can’t be cut and security guards, were security guards are required and a range of other measures that provide total security for all of those ballots. We treat that very seriously.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So the Senate first preference votes are counted in the polling place and then, to get a rough count. And then transported to the Senate scrutiny centre to be recounted, is that correct?

[Assistant Commissioner]

Correct.

[Tom Rogers]

That’s correct.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Do you compare the polling place count with the machine count?

[Assistant Commissioner]

We do.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. The 2013, how often or how, what sort of frequency, what sort of sampling?

[Assistant Commissioner]

The whole time. We manage those numbers all the way through to make sure that we’ve got the right… Are you’re talking about the… Well, sorry, there’s two parts to your question there. The first is that we always compare to the first count and we always see what we’ve done throughout the thing. I think what you’re asking there is how much sampling you just said?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Correct.

[Assistant Commissioner]

Right. We do do a portion of sampling throughout to make sure that it’s consistent.

[Malcolm Roberts]

What sort of portion, roughly?

[Assistant Commissioner]

I don’t have that on me. I have to take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay, thank you. The 2016 Senate machine count was supplemented by a hand count. Did you compare the scanning accuracy with the manual count accuracy?

[Assistant Commissioner]

Great, so-

[Tom Rogers]

I might just start before Ms. White answers. It wasn’t supplemented, It’s actually part of the process, Senator. So it’s not a supplemented issue. What we’ve got is a manual count and a scanning process. The results of those are compared and where there’s no issues then that vote is then included in the count. It’s deliberately set up that way as a check mechanism. It’s not supplemented by. It’s actually one part of the-

[Malcolm Roberts]

Part of the process?

[Assistant Commissioner]

Yeah.

[Assistant Commissioner]

Correct.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Thank you. The software you use in the Senate scrutiny centre is sourced from Scytl.

[Assistant Commissioner]

No, it is not.

[Malcolm Roberts]

No. Who is it sourced from?

[Assistant Commissioner]

We, it is a bespoke system that we use within the AEC.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay thank you. I understand the AEC issued a contract to Scytl Australia to update the software between 2016 and ’19. Is that correct?

[Assistant Commissioner]

No.

[Malcolm Roberts]

There’s a Tender here.

[Assistant Commissioner]

Yeah, there is. So in 2016, when we had the short lead time to put this new scanning solution in, we had a number of tenders go out to see who could replace or upgrade the systems to be able to do the new process. They did try and do that but we ended up going with our internal process.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay, so the serious flaws found in the Scytl software in 2016 and in the 2019 New South Wales state audit. So I note that the 2016 audit found that admin passwords were left in during the election period, admin logs were not kept, software changed logs were not kept and the wifi was not disabled on the computers holding the votes.

[Tom Rogers]

I think you’re talking about the New South Wales.

[Assistant Commissioner]

Your New South Wales, that’s what it was.

[Tom Rogers]

I actually don’t wanna dispatch our New South Wales colleagues but I think you’re talking about the New South Wales state election and I-

[Malcolm Roberts]

We’ve got questions about that, yeah.

[Tom Rogers]

I think that’s what you’re referring to there.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So can you assure the committee that none of these errors affected the 2019 election in federally.

[Assistant Commissioner]

Well I can tell you it didn’t, because we didn’t use that software.

[Malcolm Roberts]

At all?

[Assistant Commissioner]

We’ve never used Scytl software for our election.

[Malcolm Roberts]

You’ve used your own bespoke system.

[Assistant Commissioner]

We have.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Dr. Vanessa Teague associate professor at the ANU college of Engineering and Computer science and Australia’s leading cryptologist was able to hack into the New South Wales Scytl server and change the votes in real time before they were passed through to the AEC server. Can this be done to the system you propose to use in the next federal election?

[Assistant Commissioner]

Nothing is plausible.

[Tom Rogers]

Just for the record, That’s not the AEC server, that was the New South Wales

[Malcolm Roberts]

New South Wales Again?

[Tom Rogers]

commission again. And we have sufficient measures in place that we’re satisfied with all the security measures that we have for the federal event and for the scanning of the Senate vote.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So Dr. Teague is Australia’s leading cryptologist. Would she be welcome to come back and do further audits?

[Tom Rogers]

Frankly, Senator, no. We’ve complied with, we work with a range of partners including the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Cyber Security Centre. We’ve had our internal code audited, checked and a range of other issues and not being rude, I’m sure that Dr. Teague is a wonderful person but we’ve had sufficient checks in place to assure ourselves that that system is running smoothly.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. In Senate estimates on the 27th of February, 2018 in response to concerns raised about the audit software I think by Senator Farrell, Mr. Rogers, you made the following comment, quote “To the extent that I can be confident that nothing untoward happened. I’m very confident that nothing untoward happened and I am very confident the processes we’ve put in place.” That doesn’t sound like a resounding guarantee of the cyber integrity. Can you make an unequivocable guarantee of this as the sole assurance of the sovereign integrity of the software?

[Tom Rogers]

What I can tell you, Senator is that no one would sit in this chair and give an unequivocal guarantee about that issue. I would be cheapening the guarantee by giving it. What I’ve done very clearly is said to the extent that we’re aware and our partner agencies are aware, and the security agencies that we work with, we are satisfied with all the measures we have put in place. But no one is going to give you an unequivocal guarantee on that because there are unknown factors at play. But I am very, very, very confident that we’ve got an incredibly robust system in place that’s worked well and continues to work, and we continue to assess it. We continue to work with our partner agencies. We comply with all Commonwealth guidelines, cyber security guidelines. And I think it’s a fantastically secure system. I can’t give any stronger than that. If I said, I give you an unequivocal guarantee I don’t think anyone would give an unequivocal guarantee about anything, there are factors that I’m not aware of.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well you’ve certainly lifted a burden from my mind with regard to Scytl. In 2016, it took 29 days to transport the completed ballot to the Senate Scrutiny Centre, you allowed apparently 18 days and it took 29. How long did it take in 2019 to get the ballots to the Senate Scrutiny Centre? And what is your projection for 2022?

[Assistant Commissioner]

So I’d have to take that on notice, and probably ask you to expand a little bit on that because we do a rolling transportational logistics of all our papers every day as they’re counted in our outpost of centres. We continually roll them through to our scanning,

[Tom Rogers]

Count them, all of them, send them off…

[Assistant Commissioner]

So it might take a total of 29 days to do all of those millions of ballot papers but they won’t take 29 days to get there.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So they take from each pre polling centre each day?

[Assistant Commissioner]

And each polling day output and into the output centre. And then they are rolled out and continually scanned through the whole process. If we waited till the 29th day you wouldn’t have a Senate result in time.

[Malcolm Roberts]

What sort of confidence do you have with regard to the integrity of the votes being preserved during that transfer.

[Tom Rogers]

Very high. We’ve got a whole system in place. We, as I said before, we’ve got specially designed boxes. Those boxes are secured by numbered seals that are witnessed at both sites. They’re counted in and out. They’re reconcile when they arrive at the Senate scanning centre-

[Assistant Commissioner]

Scrutineers can also-

[Tom Rogers]

Scrutineers are also involved in the process. It’s a good system, sir.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So you’ve got serial numbers recorded as they leave a pre polling place.

[Assistant Commissioner]

Yes.

[Tom Rogers]

That’s correct.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And when they arrive to the destination.

That’s correct. At the last Senate estimates in response to a question from Senator Farrell again on the AEC budget, Mr. Ryan made the statement that quote, “We are cognizant of the complex cyber environment that we operate in. At the moment we do a 24/7 manual look at security for cyber at election time. Could you please tell me what 24/7 manual look at security for cyber looks like?

[Assistant Commissioner]

Well…

[Malcolm Roberts]

What does it mean?

[Tom Rogers]

Well, I can tell you that. As I mentioned before, Senator, we are compliant with all Commonwealth cybersecurity guidelines. We are always, did it say Mr. Rogers or Mr. Ryan said this, by the way?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Mr. Ryan.

[Tom Rogers]

Mr. Ryan. What it means is that we are fully compliant with Commonwealth guidelines. We monitor our system at 24 hours a day like every other Commonwealth government department does to make sure that it’s safe and secure. And I think that’s what Mr. Ryan was probably indicating. It’s not so much a manual process that we do that in any case. And we’re always monitoring our own system. We’ve got good arrangements in place. We work with other Commonwealth security agencies to make sure our systems are monitored. And we’re very satisfied with the level of security we have on our system.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Thank you. I understand your software was approved by IBM in 2017 as having a likely error rate below 0.5%. Is that correct? And what was your error rate in 2019?

[Tom Rogers]

I might have to take that one on notice, I think Senator

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Thank you. 16.4 million ballots at 0.5% error rate indicates that up to 80,000 Senate votes nationally were recorded in error. Is that acceptable to the AEC?

[Tom Rogers]

I think I’d wanna look at the statistics of that before I answer Senator, I don’t think we have that here tonight so,

[Malcolm Roberts]

On notice?

[Tom Rogers]

Let me look at that.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Two more questions, Chair. What audit has been conducted on the software used in the Senate scrutiny centre including comparison of the accuracy of the scanned file against the original paper record and the accuracy of the routine use to allocate preferences?

[Tom Rogers]

I’ll take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. In previous estimates… This is a different line of questioning. In previous estimates, the AEC has indicated that when a federal election follows a state election there is an increase in informal votes as voters vote federally in the manner they voted in the state election. That’s understandable. I note your testimony that the AEC spends extra time and money educating voters in those States. Can I ask if any consideration has been given to allowing the States to specify the voting technique for their own state and federal elections, which would remove this confusion for good? I’m not advocating it I’m just asking about it.

[Tom Rogers]

No.

[Malcolm Roberts]

No consideration? Thank you very much. Thanks Chair.

Thank you very much, Senator Roberts, your economy with your questioning is very much appreciated.

/by

Industrial Relations Omnibus Explainer

,

The Government’s IR omnibus was gutted last week before it passed the Senate. I was disappointed to see that the wage theft and enforcement measures were not passed. The insertion of a detailed definition of casual worker is good for certainty.

The inclusion of a right to get conversion from a casual position to a permanent position was also a welcome addition. Industrial Relations must return to the fundamental relationship between the employer and employee. The complexity of the Fair Work Act is the cause of many of our problems in IR. It must be simplified if we are going to have a productive country.

Transcript

Last Thursday’s industrial relations changes are a win for employees and for employers. I was disappointed though to not see more, especially the wage theft and enforcement measures in Schedule 5. I’ve been very vocal and active working for casual miners and workers, and want to share what last Thursday’s changes mean.

Firstly though, the government agreed to my demand for a comprehensive review into the employment of casuals in the Hunter Valley. The government committed to the Fair Work Ombudsman doing a thorough review. Secondly, after almost two years supporting injured casual coal miners, it’s time to look for a broad and complete solution.

I invite the key stakeholders to join me at a round-table to discuss solutions for the problems that I have identified facing many workers in the Hunter and throughout Australia. I will be inviting key stakeholders including unions, employer groups, and government to come together to work cooperatively and then report back on the results.

It’s time the facts came out and are addressed. Thirdly, the IR Club, class-action lawyers, and political parties with vested interests have driven a dishonest misinformation campaign protecting their easy profits and their power over workers.

So now, here are the industrial relations changes and what they mean:

Casual workers now have a pathway for conversion to secure permanent work. There are 2.5 million casuals in Australia. In some industries casuals want to stay as casuals for the loading or for the lifestyle. 830,000 casuals are employed in small business, our country’s largest employer and largest provider of jobs.

Most awards already include casuals. The Black Coal Mining Industry Award though, did not have provision for casuals on production, and only in staff jobs and the unions refused to fix that. Despite that prohibition on casuals, the Hunter Valley CFMEU negotiated and signed enterprise agreements that allowed abuse of casuals.

It did that without casual conversion and that had locked many miners into being casuals forever. Some enterprise agreements that the CFMEU had agreed to were for substantially lower pay rates than mine owner enterprise agreements. I tried many ways to overcome this, yet once I realised that union bosses had signed these enterprise agreements with lower pay, I knew that the workers were then legally bound by that deal.

It’s important to know that some workers value casual employment as a way of getting into the coal industry or as a way of getting more money quickly and then leaving the industry. Workers and employers have a definition of casual employment now that provides clarity to protect all businesses, small and large, and gives workers a fair go.

The definition is complex yet detailed and comprehensive. We negotiated a 12-month review of the new law to identify and rectify any unintended consequences, it’s one of our amendments to protect workers. Employers will be protected from paying twice for casual workers’ entitlements as that could have driven businesses, especially small businesses, insolvent.

And workers can still get their entitlements, and will get their entitlements. Permanent workers will get their entitlements while casuals will continue to be paid a casual loading in lieu of the entitlement, it just means people won’t be paid twice.

This protects small business from double-dipping where workers are paid a casual loading in lieu of entitlements, and then paid for those same entitlements in addition. Now following my commitments and my comments opposing double-dipping, I should have been no surprise that I voted for this Offset clause.

The class-action lawyers and some union bosses who profit from signing the abusive enterprise agreements and then taking employers to court are worried about the changes. Employees in small businesses will have the option to ask for conversion to permanent instead of adding to busy small business employers’ paperwork having to track people.

This will ease small business red tape, and that’s an amendment we added. Preserving all workers’ entitlements and rights means that workers will still be able to file claims for wage theft or to vary enterprise agreements made incorrectly, we made sure of that. Now some enterprise agreements were for substantially lower pay rates than mine owner enterprise agreements on the same site.

Again, it’s the union bosses that signed those agreements and made them law, we can’t do anything about them. Workers have greater flexibility now in seeking to convert to permanent work when it suits them, while the many who want to stay casual can now have that option too.

Having worked at the underground coalface for three years, I proudly admit to having a soft spot for miners. Yet while taking care of miners, I have a responsibility as a national Senator to our whole country, including small business, Australia’s largest employer. Out of the hundreds of awards in place across Australia, only 12 don’t have clauses for casuals.

This law now covers all awards, including coal mining and small business, and miners now have a casual conversion option at last. Though we are also asking the Fair Work Commission to ensure that the awards align with the legislation. When this legislation was first introduced into parliament last year, we immediately wrote to more than 80 stakeholder groups, and invited feedback.

The CFMEU construction division said it was the only invitation they received from a politician. In total, we listened to around 100 groups, some more than once, including the ACTU who had three meetings with me. The big problem for casual coal miners were the cracks they fell through because union bosses were happy to sign agreements knowing there was no definition for a casual coal production worker, and this disadvantaged casual coal miners.

The union didn’t care about that for years. The lack of a definition of casual coal mine worker that the union bosses, the Fair Work Commission, and the Fair Work Ombudsman, and the Government ignored for years until now has caused huge problems for workers. Now we have a definition, and this should only be better for workers.

Groups representing small business as well as individual business owners have been very positive about the changes that One Nation advocated for economic recovery.

These include: the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, COSBOA,

the Small Business Association of Australia,

the Australian Retailers Association,

the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman,

the Australian Hotels Association, taking care of pubs,

the Australian Industry Group,

the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry,

and the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Opponents of these reforms have been treated harshly by employers and employees alike. For example, the ACTU reportedly copped it from small business employees. Simply saying it’s bad for workers, it’s not enough to describe this legislation, that’s nonsense.

Some workers are taking time to understand the changes, yet small business employees and employers have been quick to see the benefits. The main negatives we faced have been from class-action lawyers and the Industrial Relations Club, so we must be doing something right for workers.

The negotiation process has confirmed some core truths: Firstly, the Fair Work Act is the real culprit. It’s six bloody inches thick. How can any worker or small business know their entitlements, rights, and protections? They can’t. And that’s why workers have lost entitlements and unions have lost members.

The Fair Work Act is the root cause of the complexity and problems, and we must do something about that. And we had success during negotiations with unions and employer groups agreeing to my invitation to them to discuss what employers and employees need in order to restore Australia’s productive capacity, and to give workers a fair go.

The Rudd-Gillard-Shorten Fair Work Act has led to a drop in union membership and a deterioration of management and executives right across our country. People are going around the laws. Workers and employers are both losing and hurting. Employers could not afford the complex system or the cost, and nor can the workers.

We need to restore the primary workplace relationship between employees and employers to make work safer and more satisfying for our workers and employers, and make it more productive for our country’s future.

/by

Does Australia Post care about Mum and Dad LPOs?

, ,

Licensed Post Offices (LPOs) provide important services especially in regional towns. Unfortunately, they’ve been overlooked in a number of the changes to the way Australia Post operates.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you chair. And thank you all for attending today. Is Australia Post considering selling off its profitable parcel post business? And please advise what discussions, reviews and planning has and will occur in relation to the parcel post business?

Senator, that would be a matter for government. So we’ll have to defer to…

[Lucio Di Bartolomeo]

If I could just respond from the chair’s and board’s perspective. There has been no discussion, no plans, no undertakings to prioritise any aspects of Australia Post business. Certainly in the time that I’ve been there. And while we’re on that time, Can I correct the figure that I gave earlier? I was appointed on the 22nd of November not the 14th of November.

[Woman]

Thank you.

[Lucio Di Bartolomeo]

The 14th was the date that the press release was put out. I apologise for that.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So you can rule out that there’ll be a sale of the parcel post?

[Lucio Di Bartolomeo]

Correct. Correct.

I mean, I…

[Woman]

So can I.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you.

Does Australia Post consider it has a responsibility to provide a possible, a profitable business model for licensees of community post offices?

[Lucio Di Bartolomeo]

We certainly believe we have a responsibility to maintain viable partners in all the business that we undertake. Both at the contractor level and at the LPO level, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So you will look at their services through their eyes.

[Lucio Di Bartolomeo]

Absolutely.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The chair of Australia Post commissioned a review by the Boston Consulting Group to inform the board and the CEO. Why were the most heavily invested stakeholder group, the licensees, not engaged and or included in the sharing of the outcomes, recommendations for that review.

[Lucio Di Bartolomeo]

Senator, if I could just correct one point. The Australia Post board did not engage BCG. This was an independent investigation by our shareholders, shareholder ministers and we supported the investigation. But we did not engage nor ultimately conclude any position on that review.

[Malcolm Roberts]

From whom do I request to get a copy? Because it’s been out since I guess… Sorry.

[Woman]

We’ve already taken public interest immunity on that report, Senator Roberts. The cabinet’s explicitly considered the executive summary of their BCG report. The full report though, as a usual practise, was also available to cabinet and I consider by a number of ministers. But the report’s expected to be given further cabinet consideration in the context of ensuring that Australia Post has a sustainable future.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Could you please advise the status and next steps being taken by Australia Post with licenced post offices, LPOs, to progress payment reforms.

[Lucio Di Bartolomeo]

Senator, thank you very much for the question. I may just defer to Ms. Sheffield, who heads up our community and consumer area and ask her to come to the desk. And outline we are about to kick off on the payment review process . So, Ms. Sheffield.

[Nicole Sheffield]

Thank you Mr. Boys. Thank you, Senator. Nicole Sheffield executive general manager, community and consumer. Thank you Senator for that question. We work very closely with our licensees, our licensee partners and associations. The payment reform itself, we have had one consultation with LPOG. And we have a first consultation with POAAL, the other group later this week. Once we understand the principles and agree what are the areas that we will be looking at, then we we’ll make for some recommendations. And start working that including, as per the first lot of payment reform, looking at those payments per outlet. Because when you have so many outlets, 2,580, there are a lot of impacts. So when you make any changes to payments there’s going to be some impacts that we want to make sure that we understand across the entire network. So that requires a lot of modelling, a lot of consultation. As you know, the first payment reform was very successful and introduced $50 million worth of extra payments in the last two years to licensees. And that was all about ensuring that they were paid for parcels and for scanning. The second lot of payment reform is going to focus on community representation, and the very important role that they play in that. But also looking at our identity services and financial services. I feel very confident that before the end of this financial year we should have some really good parameters to move forward.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So it has a budget. Thank you for that. And it’ll save me, giving my preamble for the next question. Has a budget allocation been made for phase two reform implementation, which we understand is expected to begin shortly. And what is the budget allocation for phase two? When do you anticipate it will be commenced and then implemented?

[Nicole Sheffield]

So budgets at the moment have not been concluded for next financial year. So we’re in the process of discussing within the organisation, all of that. But I can tell you confidently Senator, there will be budget allocation. We’ve been discussing this and just like anything we will put aside the required amounts. And that’s part of the reason we’ve started the discussion so early this year to make sure that we allocate the appropriate amount.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And that would come with extensive consultation with the LPOs?

[Nicole Sheffield]

Absolutely.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. In order to achieve sustainability for LPOs, does the significant change in volume between letters and parcel post require a review of the financial relationship between licence, with licenced post offices. Especially if, yeah, that’s all I need to say.

[Nicole Sheffield]

Yeah. Look, we’re always ensuring the viability of our licenced post office partners. We know how important they are for us to deliver our community service obligation. But actually they’re, you know, the face to our community to regional and rural Australia. Their viability is critical. And just as we’ve seen, COVID has created an e-commerce boom that none of us expected. We hoped, but none of us expected that it’s changed the financial model completely for our post offices. Because all of a sudden their revenue drivers are significantly more coming from parcels than we’ve ever seen. And so it really is constantly working with them looking at what products, services they are offering to their communities. What arrangements that we have, what opportunities we can have to introduce new products and services that will drive transactions and foot traffic for them. And I think it’s something that we’ll just constantly need to be looking at and working with them to look at what we can do to grow.

/by

Fixing IR reform to protect employees and help small business

The monstrosity of the Fair Work Act is the first problem with our industrial relations. We have gone through the proposed legislation in detail and put together many amendments for the government to consider. While some of the amendments are more critical than others, we will be working with the government to get them over the line.

Casuals should be able to request conversion to full time, but making it compulsory for small business to offer the conversion is just more red tape they don’t need.

/by

Protecting scientists like Peter Ridd: Academic Freedom is essential to University

, ,

Too often, we are seeing ideas silenced and censored at our universities. University is a place where the exchange of conflicting and opposing ideas should thrive and be encouraged. Thanks to One Nation lobbying, this bill ensures that the definition of academic freedom to do that is put into law.

We only need to look at examples such as Peter Ridd to see why we need to protect academic freedom. He describes his experience of standing for academic freedom against that university as feeling ‘hunted’.

Peter’s so-called crime was to question the quality assurance of research outcomes related to reef science. But it is his duty, as a scientist, to question, to be rigorous and to protect the integrity of science. Every scientist’s first duty is to be a sceptic and to challenge what he or she is being told.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to start my contribution to the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 with the statement that central to scientific endeavour is an environment that gives permission for the work of talented people to challenge the status quo, to develop ideas and to deepen our knowledge and understanding. This work demands a creative and innovative spirit, courage and objectivity, and a deep respect for the scientific method. Universities had, and should once again have, a central role to play in advancing thought and finding better ways of doing things. Therefore, their scientific staff must work in an environment that supports academic freedom. The Dalai Lama said:

In order to exercise creativity, freedom of thought is essential.

One Nation introduced these concepts and requested action from the then education minister, Dan Tehan, and I commend Senator Stoker for commenting that the government supports this initiative. Mr Tehan took these concepts from One Nation, particularly from Senator Hanson. He made sure that the now education minister, his replacement, Minister Tudge, continues to champion true freedom of speech in academia.

Therefore, One Nation wholeheartedly supports the new and expanded definition of academic freedom and hopes that no-one will ever need to endure what Professor Peter Ridd is still going through to fight for these fundamental academic freedoms. Professor Ridd was an employee of James Cook University for nearly 30 years. He describes his experience of standing for academic freedom against that university as feeling ‘hunted’. Peter’s so-called crime was to question the quality assurance of research outcomes related to reef science. But it is his duty, as a scientist, to question, to be rigorous and to protect the integrity of science. Every scientist’s first duty is to be a sceptic and to challenge what he or she is being told.

Quality assurance is a concept that many corporate organisations are familiar with. They do not invest money, time, energy and effort without that quality assurance. Yet it seems that some of our universities have strayed away from the discipline of the scientific method so much that they don’t feel the need to justify research outcomes or to deal with challenges to quality and assurance. Considering that billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is funnelled into policy development based on so-called research, it is not negotiable that these research outcomes must be above reproach. When we consider that the opportunity costs and the consequent costs for some policy based on so-called science are in the trillions of dollars for our whole nation, it is essential that science is challenged.

I have listened firsthand to many canefarmers and industry bodies from North Queensland and Central Queensland who attended the hearings into water quality in the Great Barrier Reef. These farmers and community members are exasperated, with one saying:

They trusted reef scientists to get the science right, … that trust has been destroyed. Instead cane farmers are being publicly demonised …

They also said that the reef regulations reflect a systematic abuse of science, based on assumptions and not evidence.

Communities are being gutted. Apart from the destruction of so many livelihoods, think of the cost to our society, to Queensland, to communities and to our nation when policies are knowingly based on poor science—which, by definition, is not science. Energy policies, climate policies and renewable energy policies based on so-called science are costing $13 billion in addition to the normal costs of electricity. That’s an average of $1,300 per household across Australia in addition to the cost of electricity. For every so-called green job created, 2.2 jobs in the real economy are destroyed. The Murray-Darling Basin act—the Water Act 2007—is now destroying communities across the Murray-Darling Basin, our No. 1 food bowl, and it’s based on rubbish that contradicts the empirical evidence.

Any scientist worth their professional reputation should have the freedom to stand against poor scientific outcomes and the lack of appropriate peer reviewing. I’ll go beyond that: it is the duty of every scientist to do so. The professional integrity of scientists should compel them to defend spending billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on policies that do not have a robust scientific basis and which are destroying people’s livelihoods.

Professor Peter Ridd has over 100 scientific publications and he has co-invented a worthy list of instrumentation, including an instrument for monitoring the effect of sediment on the reef, which is technology now used around the world; a water current meter, which is marketed by James Cook University worldwide; an optical system for measuring pipeware, which is used in mines Australia wide; and a system for managing agricultural weeds, which is marketed through AutoWeed. This is an impressive list of achievements. After three decades of work, such a scientist ought to be held in high esteem. If a scientist of this academic calibre and such commercial achievements and practical nous can still feel hunted down by a university for challenging the quality of research results in other departments—and hunted to his emotional and financial detriment—how the hell can we ever expect our upcoming brilliant minds, with far fewer runs on the board, to ever have the courage to do the same? We can’t. The simple answer is that these newcomers will not challenge, because they do not have the safety of freedom of speech and can’t risk their careers crashing and burning before they’ve started. Instead, these upcoming brilliant minds will fall into line and continue to expand the increasing pool of homogenous groupthink. And there is the death of creativity and the narrowing of truly great solutions to tomorrow’s problems.

In recent decades we’ve seen our society, our country, being decimated by policy driven science—and that is not science. It’s costing us trillions. We need to return to science driven policy—policy that is driven by science, true science that passes quality assurance tests and questions from sceptics. Professor Ridd has become the modern-day Galileo, for daring to challenge the common myth that farming methods in the Great Barrier Reef catchment areas are damaging the reef. Professor Ridd’s research shows that commonly held myth to be incorrect, to be a lie. James Cook University didn’t like it, maybe because there is no doubt, in their view, that there would be a gaping hole in James Cook University’s funding for Great Barrier Reef research if water quality was indeed just fine, as Professor Peter Ridd’s work and the work of others confirms and suggests.

I acknowledge that universities are required to enshrine in their policy statement clear messages around freedom of speech and academic freedom. While we cannot intrude upon the enterprise agreements between universities and their employees, the amendment I will put forward today in the committee stage requests that higher education providers must take reasonable steps to ensure that enterprise agreements include provisions to uphold the freedom of speech and academic freedom. This commitment to academic freedom needs, wherever possible, to move beyond a policy statement that sits on the shelf and to enter the enterprise agreements, since that is where the cultural change will be brought about.

We cannot afford to be timid and ordinary when it comes to scientific endeavours. One Nation supports this bill, because we must give our scientific staff the academic freedoms they need to be at their creative best. Universities, businesses and governments all need to be prepared to update their outdated views when our brilliant minds in academia show us a better way. I’ll finish with the words of the late Steve Jobs, talking about his company Apple, one of the leaders in the world in new technology:

It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.

/by