During the recent Senate Estimates Session with the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), I tabled a graph from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report to challenge some of the exaggerated claims we’ve been hearing about extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods, and fires.
For years the BOM has always referred me to the IPCC’s work as the authoritative source on climate science. I specifically pointed to the IPCC’s Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, where they provide an analysis of a wide range of weather events. What struck me—and I think it should strike everyone—is that for nearly every major type of extreme weather event, the IPCC finds that there has been no detectable change in frequency or severity over time. This includes river floods, fire weather, tropical cyclones, and coastal floods. The data doesn’t support the claims that these events are becoming more frequent or intense because of “climate change”.
This is important because politicians and the media have often linked these events to human-induced climate change. They claim that floods, fires, and cyclones are somehow the direct result of our carbon dioxide production.
Yet if the IPCC itself, the body these same politicians refer to, says there’s no significant change in these events, why aren’t we calling out this misinformation? Why isn’t BOM calling out this misinformation?
For example, tropical cyclones – the IPCC indicates no change in their frequency or severity, not just for today, but looking ahead through to 2100—even under the worst-case climate scenario. And yet, we continue to hear false claims that “human-induced climate change” is worsening cyclone events. This isn’t true. These events have been part of the natural weather cycle for millennia.
The BOM Director, Dr Johnson’s response acknowledged that the science on cyclones is evolving and confirmed that while there may be fewer cyclones in the future, the ones that do occur may be more intense. Yet again, these claims are based on unsubstantiated projections—not hard data. They’re misinformation!
What’s more, looking at the IPCC’s tables, which break down the evidence of (naturally) varying weather patterns, for nearly every phenomenon—whether it’s precipitation, floods, fire weather, or tropical cyclones—the data simply doesn’t support the idea of dramatic increases due to “human-induced” climate change.
So, why are we still seeing politicians and the media push these claims?
This is not saying to ignore the importance of understanding climate variability, it’s about dealing with the facts – the measured data. The science must guide us, not the political agenda. And if the observed, measured scientific data says these extreme weather events aren’t changing as some claim, we need to stand firm against the misinformation.
Let’s be clear: the data doesn’t support the alarmist rhetoric. We should be calling out the misinformation and ensuring that decisions, policies, regulations and public opinion are based on what the science actually tells us—not on what some want us to believe.
I will continue to hold taxpayer funded agencies and politicians accountable. The truth matters, because, as always, it’s we the people who pay.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table this graph from a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as the basis for some brief questions. I don’t have too many questions today. I’ll start with a little preamble just to set the scene for this. When you get the graph, you’ll see it. I refer to misinformation being put out that cyclones and floods are getting more frequent and severe. Over many years in this committee the BOM has referred me to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This might surprise you, but I’m not actually going to argue with you on the merits of the IPCC today, even though they’re a bunch of net zero pushers and are politically driven. I’m going to quote them, because you claim they’re the authority. I’ll take you to Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, table 12.12, by working group 1, on the science of climate, at page 1856. In that table is just about every type of measurable weather event. Some call it extreme weather events. The blank or white boxes indicate there is no detectable change in frequency or severity of the weather event. I’ll go down the list of what the IPCC itself says—not me. River flood—no change is detected in current period. No change is expected to be detected under the worst case climate scenario by 2050 or even by 2100. Fire weather—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Tropical cyclone—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Coastal flood—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Pluvial—there’s a minor risk in the most extreme, worst-case scenario. If your net zero gods at the IPCC say the data shows weather events are not getting worse because of climate change, why isn’t the Bureau of Meteorology calling out the misinformation peddled by politicians when they state that this flood is because of climate change, this fire is because of climate change or this cyclone is because of climate change? Everyone knows that’s not true. These events have been happening for millennia. Even the scientists in the United Nations that you reference say it’s not so.
Dr Johnson: I might make a couple of preliminary remarks and then ask Dr Braganza, who is online, to join in. I haven’t had a chance to study the page that you’ve just supplied me. I think many times I’ve referred you to the State of the climate report that the bureau produces with the CSIRO every two years, which contains the latest up-to-date information on climate.
Senator ROBERTS:I’ve read each of them.
Dr Johnson: I know you read it, and I’d encourage you to refer to it again. Across a range of phenomena we know there are very strong signals already from climate change, in particular around temperature and in particular around drying in the southern, south-east and south-west parts of Australia. Those signals are very strong. The level of confidence in them is very high. Some of the signals for other phenomena, including tropical cyclones, are still evolving and maturing. We have seen an increase in the incidence of high-intensity rainfall. We know as a matter of fact that, as the atmosphere warms, it holds more moisture—probably up to 10 or 11 per cent more—than it would otherwise have, and that we’ve seen an increase in high-intensity events. We’ve certainly been on record saying that we expect in Australia it’s likely that there will be a lower number and frequency of cyclones, but they’re likely to be more severe. We’ve been on the record for that for ages. We’ve also been on the record on many occasions—
Senator ROBERTS: Could you explain the basis for that? The UN says it’s not—
Dr Johnson: I’ll come to that. Dr Braganza might want to say something about this in a minute. We’ve also been on the record that, particularly when it comes to individual cyclones and individual rainfall events, it’s very difficult to attribute single events to climate change. We’re talking about longer term global trends here. That’s been our position for some time, and it remains so unless new evidence is entered into existence that would cause us to change our mind. I can only be accountable for the science we do. I can’t be accountable for how those in the public domain choose to talk about it. We certainly provide advice, as we’ve done to this committee many times and in many other fora, about what we’re observing and what our science is telling us is likely to come down the pipeline, and also where we have higher or lower confidence about what is or isn’t coming. They would be my general comments.
Senator ROBERTS:Did I hear you correctly—just before we go to Dr Braganza—that cyclones are not becoming more intense?
Dr Johnson: No, I didn’t say that. I said that in our outlooks we think there’s a reasonable likelihood—Dr Braganza will be able to quantify this in more specific detail—that the Australian region is likely to see fewer cyclones, but there’s a likelihood that they’ll be more intense rather than less intense. Dr Braganza is our lead in this space and I’d rather he answer these detailed questions that you might have.
Dr Braganza: For tropical cyclones, the bureau, as Dr Johnson has pointed out, has consistently communicated that we have potentially seen a reduction in the number of tropical cyclones in our region, in particular in the east. We haven’t communicated that we’ve seen any significant change in intensity. Categorising changes in tropical cyclones is difficult. We’re limited to the satellite era. Prior to the satellite era, categorising tropical cyclones for severity and even whether or not they’re a tropical cyclone in the mid latitudes becomes difficult. There are data limitations in trends in tropical cyclones. The bureau has been entirely consistent in how it’s described those and entirely transparent in the data limitations. We have not communicated that we have seen large changes in tropical cyclones that are due to climate change. We don’t communicate around these individual weather events that they were caused by climate change. For tropical cyclones there are multiple aspects to the weather event. When we talk about intensity, we’re often talking about wind speed. Wind speed is just one aspect of a tropical cyclone. There’s also rainfall intensity and there’s storm surge intensity. Due to sea level rise and increased warmth in the atmosphere, we expect increased heavy rainfall and increased storm surge activity from all such events, not just tropical cyclones. There are also events such as east coast lows and others. Observational data is what it is.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t expect you to comment on this, because you don’t have the table in front of you, but I’ll just go through chapter 12 and table 12.12, emergence of climate impact drivers in different time periods. That’s with regard to the future. The white colour indicates that there’s no confidence in what they’re saying or what they’re projecting. In terms of already emerged and ‘worst case scenario’ in the future by 2050 and by 2100: mean precipitation, no confidence in the data. No trend has emerged. River flood is the same. Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood is the same. Landslide is the same. Aridity is the same. Hydrological drought is the same. Agricultural and ecological drought is the same. Fire weather is the same. Tropical cyclones is the same. Coastal flood is the same. These are often taken advantage of by politicians and the news media; there’s no evidence for their comments attributing them to climate change caused by humans.
Dr Braganza: I’ll have to take that on notice since I don’t have the material in front of me. Some of the phenomena you’ve called out again in terms of establishing observed trends is limited by sample size. You’re talking not about weather events necessarily; you’re talking about impact events such as the size of a flood following heavy rainfall. There are possibly data limitations involved, but I would have to see exactly the material that you’re referencing.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ov82xAtxkAU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-04-03 17:26:432025-04-03 17:26:46Setting the Record Straight with the BOM
Last week at Senate Estimates, I asked the Australian Federal Police (AFP) about the measures that are in place to protect Australians that are in a country that is guided by a Christian influenced Constitution. The AFP clarified that while they don’t monitor social media, they will review evidence to determine if any hate crime offence has occurred.
Greens’ Senator Shoebridge challenged whether our Constitution is really influenced by Christianity, however the Chair ended this line of discussion, stating that the preamble of our Constitution referenced “Almighty God”. (It’s worth noting that the country was overwhelmingly Christian when the Constitution was drafted.)
The AFP took on notice my question about the total number of arrests that have been made to date, however so far, there have been two charges for displaying terrorist symbols and ten for advocating terrorism. My question regarding deportation of non-citizens convicted of hate crimes was also taken on notice.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you and your people for appearing here today, Mr Kershaw. According to our Commonwealth Constitution’s opening sentence Australia is constituted as a Christian country. What’s being done to charge those preachers in mosques of preaching hatred and threatening violence and use of physical force against Christians here in our country and bringing such hate preachers to justice?
Mr Nutt: Senator, I can take that one. Obviously, we’re very concerned where online hate speech and other actions of hate occur in the community. We obviously work in partnership with our state and territory colleagues, who are often first responders to certain offences. The AFP does not monitor the internet. We certainly review any allegation that relates to hate speech targeting any protected group against the Commonwealth offences that are available to us and we assess the content in those circumstances. That often involves obtaining legal advice. These offences change over time, in terms of what an offence may look like, decisions of court and those sorts of things, so we always ensure that, at the time, we are looking at not only current but past conduct and that we evaluate that conduct against not only the offences but the standards and decisions of courts in the jurisdiction where the offences occurred.
Senator ROBERTS: Have any such preachers of hate in Australia been charged, and, if not, why not?
Mr Nutt: I don’t have statistics relevant—
Senator ROBERTS: Can you get them?
Mr Nutt: I’m happy to take that question on notice. I take it you are just referring to the AFP, because that’s all we can respond to.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Chair, I have a point of order. I think in the circumstances this country finds itself, to leave on the record uncorrected the statement from Senator Roberts that the Constitution establishes Australia as a Christian country is unconscionable. Can I say the preamble to the Constitution references the ‘blessing of Almighty God’. As far as I can remember Christianity does not have a monopoly on the concept of ‘Almighty God’, and we shouldn’t allow that on the record.
CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, order.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a Christian God.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Maybe for you, Senator.
CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, thank you. You’re welcome to go and post those thoughts on Facebook. Senator Roberts is able to make his views known, and people can take them at his word, knowing his past reputation for—I’m not saying that you are misleading the parliament, but you have your views and they’re well known, and I think people can take your statements together with your previous statements. Senator Shoebridge, I don’t think anyone would be concerned at all about statements about the Constitution in this Senate. People say a lot of different things that aren’t true from time to time. People can just read it. It’s a document. I think we can move on. Senator Roberts, do you have any other questions?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I do. There have recently been faith based crimes committed in Australia involving fire bombings, graffiti painted on buildings, cars damaged and hate symbols displayed. How many arrests have been made, and what is being done to identify the criminals and bring them to justice?
Mr Nutt: Again, I’m happy to take those matters. Again, we can only speak on behalf of the AFP. Certainly, there are Commonwealth offences not only in the recent legislative amendment on 8 February, which has been described as the hate crimes bill, but other offences including in the prohibited hate symbols and other measures act. This legislation is available to our state and territory colleagues as well, and they can use those offences where state offences don’t apply.
Since 8 January 2024, when the prohibited hate symbols act came into effect, we have not charged anyone in relation to prohibited Nazi symbols under 80.2H of the Criminal Code Act 1995; however, we have charged two individuals in respect of the prohibited terrorist organisation symbols—that is, the intentional public display of proscribed terrorism organisation symbols—and we’ve also issued a direction under section 80.2K for the display of a prohibited terrorist organisation symbol. We have not charged anyone in terms of the trading of symbols, but we do have a number of investigations on the books with respect to prohibited terrorist symbols generally.
In terms of advocating terrorism, which, again, is the current version of the offence which came into effect in December 2023, we haven’t charged anyone. This is around advocating terrorism under section 80.2C of the Criminal Code. However, under the previous version, which was available between 2021 and 2023, we charged 10 persons for advocating terrorism under section 80.2C of the Criminal Code. As I mentioned, there was some updated hate crimes offences that came into effect on 8 February this year. Those offences are yet to be utilised by the AFP.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this question is for you. Will noncitizens convicted of hate crimes be subjected to deportation?
Senator Farrell: I’ll have to take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Back to the AFP. Do AFP officers need to get permission from a higher authority before making an arrest, or may an AFP officer exercise their discretion to make an arrest for a crime unfolding in front of them?
Mr Kershaw: Normally, depending on the nature of the event—if it’s a public order matter and some other particular matters—a senior officer can direct someone to be arrested, but there is also what we call the ‘Office of Constable’, which is an independent office that goes way back in the day to the UK, where an individual officer is held liable if they make the arrest. It’s their decision, independent of anyone else. So you could have a situation where one officer may gather some facts and say, ‘I’m okay to arrest that person,’ and another officer may say: ‘I’m going to use a summons. I’m not going to arrest them. I’m going to treat it differently or give them a caution.’ We, as senior officers, have to respect that and understand that. Discretion is really important, and we teach that and we train that with our officers.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there an ongoing training program for AFP officers in relation to rapidly evolving legislation relevant to the issues I’ve raised today? Mr Nutt alluded to a number of pieces if legislation that have come in, in recent years.
Mr Nutt: There are others at the table, in terms of those who are responsible for our legislative reform area. But our legislative reform area provides guidance to staff, which then gets incorporated into relevant training programs. We also work closely with the Attorney-General’s Department, which has responsibility with respect to Commonwealth legislation, and it provides materials not only to us but also to our state and territory partners on guidance in the application of Commonwealth offences, particularly new ones.
I won’t speak on behalf of the Attorney-General’s Department, but when we have new legislation that relates to areas of mutual interest with our state and territory police we provide that advice to them by essentially circulating the Attorney-General’s Department’s material. In certain circumstances—for example, in the espionage and foreign interference arena—we develop a training course and provide it to the state and territory police to assist their officers and for them to incorporate it into their own training program. We aren’t responsible for training state and territory police.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question, Chair. There has been a lot of violence displayed on the internet and on TV—news et cetera—for the last 12 months or so. When will Christian, Jewish and other followers of faith be able to feel safe in our own country, knowing that the police will protect them from harm?
Mr Nutt: Perhaps where I’ll take that question is that we’ve had some success with a relatively new offence relating to the possession and communication of violent extremist material. This offence focuses on material that portrays terrorist acts. It is also material that aids—in terms of education—in the carrying out of violent acts in the advancement of a religious, political or ideological cause.
Since this offence was introduced, it has been quite effective in the early identification of individuals who are consuming and potentially acting on violent extremist material. You may note that in the last week we had our first conviction under these provisions. We were very concerned about the violent extremist material that that individual had. We’re concerned because of the nature of the material and how accessible it is—building on what the commissioner has already said, in terms of the role and responsibility of internet service providers and the like in preventing the spread, distribution and access to violent extremist materials—and more broadly around end-to-end encryption. When it comes to our young people and vulnerable people more generally, we have noted the digital algorithms that may come into play of people’s internet activity and developed what has generally been considered to be echo chambers where someone looking up something may be pushed along or drawn along a path. The result being increased exposure to violent extremist material. We’re quite concerned about that as an issue.
Senator ROBERTS: To build on your answer—and thank you for the answer—I’m guessing the AFP does a lot more intelligence work these days as a proportion of its overall crime fighting than it used to because of the internet.
Mr Nutt: It’s always a mix.
Ms Barrett: I’ll also take the opportunity to reference Special Operation Avalite, which we stood up in December. That specifically targets antisemitism in this country. We have charged six people since we stood up that special operation. But I want to take this opportunity to thank the community. When we stood up the special operation, we went particularly to the Jewish community and asked them to assist us and to work together in partnership with us in relation to how we could specifically target the right areas. So I want to take this opportunity to thank the community for their partnership with us.
Senator Farrell: Senator Roberts asked a question earlier and I took it on notice. The question that you asked the Attorney-General needs to be directed to the Department of Home Affairs.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s the quickest answer I’ve ever got on questions on notice.
This is a great session to demonstrate how far Estimates has fallen. I asked a perfectly simple question: if a person followed the TGA’s COVID-19 “vaccine” schedule, how many shots would they have had by now? Watch as they bob and weave to avoid answering this simple question.
Part of the reason for this is to use up time. The TGA session attracts a lot of interest, and my time is limited, so the longer they can draw out the answer, the fewer questions they have to answer.
I then asked about a new study showing that the COVID-19 jabs produced spike proteins for almost two years after injection, despite being told that the vaccines stayed in the injection site and passed out of the body in a matter of hours.
Professor Lawler tried to discredit the research, which was conducted by Yale, and refused to acknowledge that the spike proteins from the “vaccine” were being produced for years after vaccination, despite the paper stating exactly that. A substantial amount of my time was spent on them saying very little that they could be held accountable for later.
I also asked about other studies linking vaccines with autism and received a similar response: the link between vaccines and autism has been discredited—nothing to see here, move on. The link between autism and vaccination has been well established, even with the small number of papers that have survived the bullying from big Pharma to protect their sacred cash cow.
I will not stop pursuing the truth about vaccine harm.
Note: This video combines two separate sessions into one video file.
Transcript 1
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are all to do with the TGA. Technology is marvellous, isn’t it? Potentially hundreds of doctors and constituents are watching. The TGA approach to COVID has been based—correct me if I’m wrong—on two original shots, then boosters to maintain currency, because MRNA technology offered waning protection over time. If a person had taken the recommended COVID shots at the time they were recommended, from March 2021 until now, how many COVID injections would the person have had?
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure, necessarily, whether that’s a TGA question. The role of the TGA is very much to—
Mr Comley: I think we have an appropriate officer joining the table, Dr Anna Peatt, who I think can help you on this because I think she’ll need to go to the nature of ATAGI’s advice for vaccines for individuals. I think it would also go to the question about different categories of individuals receiving different recommendations over that period of time, reflecting the risk profile for those individuals. Dr Peatt, would you like to, perhaps, have a crack at this?
Dr Peatt: Yes, I will. It’s actually quite a difficult question to answer because the eligibility for COVID-19 vaccines has changed over the course of the pandemic. So, really, you can’t actually answer the question unless you know the specifics of the individual that you’re referring to. Someone who was aged 75 years or over at the start of the pandemic may have had upwards of eight vaccines over that course, but it really depends on the individual circumstances. In Australia we don’t have vaccination mandates at the moment, so it also comes down to people’s individual choices. But, ultimately, it comes down to vaccinators’ advice.
Senator ROBERTS: So eight in total, most likely. Can you confirm the TGA is still recommending boosters every six months for immunocompromised people and every 12 months for adults under 64.
Prof. Lawler: I can’t confirm that, because the TGA’s role is not to recommend immunisation. The TGA’s role is to assess the safety, quality and efficacy of therapeutic goods.
Senator ROBERTS: But you do monitor the injections, the results and the DAENs, don’t you? Do you have a role—
Prof. Lawler: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Good.
Prof. Lawler: No. That’s correct, but that’s not the same as what you asked previously. The difference is that the role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration is to assess pre-market therapeutic goods for safety, quality and efficacy, and, where appropriate, to undertake post-market monitoring. That’s why we undertake pharmacovigilance activity and assess adverse events. That is not the same as monitoring and recommending specific immunisation schedules. That’s the role of ATAGI.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. But surely you would monitor the number of doses that people have because, as I understand it, don’t you monitor DAENs? Isn’t the monitoring super critical, especially when you have provisional authorisation for these injections?
Prof. Lawler: As I think we provided previously, the vaccines that we’re discussing are not provisionally registered. They have transitioned to full registration. But, as I said, the role of the TGA is to monitor adverse events as and when they occur, and as they are reported.
Senator ROBERTS: Last week, I understand that Yale School of Medicine released a preprint of a study titled ‘Immunological and Antigenic Signatures Associated with Chronic Diseases after COVID-19 Vaccination’. That study found that spiked protein remained in patients who had received at least one COVID vaccine for, in one case, 709 days and counting. When did the TGA realise that spiked protein from the mRNA technology could stay in the body for years?
Prof. Lawler: Can I clarify, because I have previously indicated there are quite a lot of studies out there, is that the Bhattacharjee article from Yale last week? I think it is.
Senator ROBERTS: Last week, Yale School of Medicine released a preprint of a study titled—
Prof. Lawler: Thanks. So that is, as you say, an article in preprint. I would like to reflect on that article. The first line of the abstract reads: COVID-19 vaccines have prevented millions of COVID-19 deaths. And the intro says: The rapid development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines have been pivotal in mitigating the impact of the pandemic. These vaccines have significantly reduced severe illness and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additionally, vaccinated individuals experience a lower incidence of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 … or long COVID, thus highlighting an additional potential benefit of receiving the COVID-19 vaccines. It might seem like I’m not answering your question in reading those first few lines out, but I think it’s really important that a feature of the public debate on this matter has been the convenient picking out of individual findings from papers. I think it’s really important to note that. In terms of the paper itself, it was a small study, with 42 cases that reported post-vaccination syndrome after COVID vaccination and it had 22 controls with no symptoms. There are some challenges with the article. There was a very small sample size, which included insufficient subgroup numbers to adequately assess the effect of previous infection. There was a lack of analysis of potential confounders, such as other medical conditions and medication use, and a lack of standardised case definition for PBS—noting that the symptoms of PBS are general and are associated with a range of other conditions. I think that there is some really interesting information in that article. I particularly like the introduction where it clearly indicates the benefits of vaccination. But I would also say that it is challenging, potentially, to draw too much of an inference from its findings.
Senator ROBERTS: Professor Lawler, I don’t know which question you answered but let me ask my question again. When did the TGA realise spiked protein from the mRNA technology could stay in the body for years?
Prof. Lawler: We will inform you when we have evidence that that is the case.
Senator ROBERTS: So you are not aware of it at the moment?
Prof. Lawler: We will inform you when there is evidence that it is the case that spiked protein persists in the body for years. I think one of the things that is most notable—
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. You’ve answered the question. For clarity, if a person has spiked protein in their system years after injection, something must be making that spiked protein and renewing it in their system. Is that correct?
Prof. Lawler: I might ask Professor Langham to respond to that.
Prof. Langham: I think what Professor Lawler is trying to say is that we are not aware of any robust evidence that supports the presence of spiked protein being in the system of recipients of the COVID-19 vaccine for years. When we do undertake reviews of relevant studies—and I might add, this as an ongoing process that the TGA undertakes for every single product that is registered on the ARTG—our robust and thorough review of evidence is such that should there be a finding that we would consider scientific, then that absolutely would be accepted. That is the case for the question that you are asking. We are not aware of any scientific and robust findings that demonstrate prolonged circulation of spiked protein in the human body.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. If a person already has spike protein in their system, and they need more mRNA technology—more spike proteins—and if, for that person, those are long lived as well, could there be people walking around with dangerous levels of spike protein as a result of following ATAGI’s guidelines? Surely you’ve considered this.
Prof. Lawler: Thank you for the question. As we discussed previously, one of the roles of the TGA is to undertake ongoing post-market pharmacovigilance. As a result, we continually receive and accept reports of adverse events. We use those to work toward the identification of safety signals. We take more of a phenomenological approach to identifying risky safety profiles, as has been highlighted previously. We’re firmly of the view that the risk-benefit ratio of these vaccines is overwhelmingly positive.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. The Yale study examined 64 vaccinated subjects. One in 64, in this case, retained spike for almost two years and counting. Extending that sample to Australian consumers, doesn’t that indicate, certainly, that tens of thousands of Australians are dealing with spike protein build-up in their body? Does even the possibility of that concern you?
Prof. Langham: I think what we’ve been trying to say is that not all of the research that is published is of a high level of scientific quality.
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Ms Langham—
Prof. Langham: I’m sorry, Senator. We’ve been here before. It’s Professor Langham, thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Professor Langham—I mean that sincerely. I wasn’t trying to cast any aspersions. Professor Lawler just read glowingly, in response to one of my questions, about aspects of this study.
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure that ‘glowingly’ would describe by situation. I think there was a balanced argument. However, one of the things we do undertake when we scientifically review a paper is to look at the rigour of it. It is acknowledged within the paper that there are certain limitations to the study. Some of the findings include the fact that there were potential differences in the immune profiles of individuals with PBS and that PBS participants had lower levels of spike protein antibodies. There was serological evidence suggestive of recent Epstein-Barr virus reactivation. But I think it’s quite important—and it’s actually quite challenging to convey this in this forum—to note that the presence of a study saying something should not be taken as meaning that without a robust analysis of the rigour of that study. It’s important to note that this was a small case study. There were 42 cases and 22 controls. That means the ability to extrapolate from that in the way you suggested is actually really limited and potentially misleading. I don’t mean it’s deliberately misleading; it can lead to misleading outcomes.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand from the previous Senate estimates and from this one. Are you saying that spike proteins are harmless?
Prof. Lawler: No, I don’t believe we said that last time or this time.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s why I asked the question—for clarification. The Yale study found immune cell— in this case T cell—exhaustion. Do you accept the science that mRNA technology has caused T cell exhaustion in some consumers, leading to a condition that causes chronic tiredness, brain fog, dormant conditions like Epstein-Bar and cancer becoming active again, and in general an increased susceptibility to new infection?
Prof. Lawler: Part of the challenge in responding to that is that we’re responding to a definition outlined within the study as a post-COVID-19-vaccination syndrome that is characterised by a wide range of symptoms which have been, as far as I can determine, selected by the authors. They include such things as you’ve mentions, like exercise intolerance, excessive fatigue, numbness, brain fog, neuropathy and others. But the authors themselves note that PBS is not officially recognised by health authorities, and there’s no consensus definition of the syndrome. One of the things I was trying to say—and, again, I wouldn’t characterise it as a glowing endorsement of the article—is that it is encouraging that even small studies are looking at these things. One of the things that has been levelled at the TGA previously is that we are blind to science or not interested in hearing new ideas. It’s actually very encouraging to see this kind of research, but it needs to be taken within the context of rigorous research methodology.
Senator ROBERTS: ‘Long COVID’, a phrase that Dr Skerritt used at estimates in May 2022, was the theory tested by Yale in a literature review entitled ‘The long COVID puzzle: autoimmunity, inflammation, and other possible causes’. That was published in May 2024. This studied viral persistence, inflammation, autoimmune damage and latent viral reaction following exposure to COVID, naturally or by injection. Minister, is your government ignoring a ticking time bomb with these mRNA vaccines, one that you are making worse by still recommending that people take these products? You’re still recommending it.
Senator McCarthy: We certainly, through the health minister, look out for all Australians in relation to their care, health and wellbeing, but I will refer to officials in terms of the technical aspects of your question.
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure if I’m answering your question here, so I’m happy to hear it again if I’m not. One of the things that we do find that has been supported by multiple studies—in fact, studies that are cited within the Yale article—is that COVID vaccination actually leads to a decreased incidence of both the post-acute sequelae of COVID and also the prevalence of long COVID. So we know that those are not only protective for hospitalisation and death, as are their indications within the Register of Therapeutic Goods, but also protective for some of the long-term sequelae of COVID infection.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s move on to vaccine harm generally. An article in Science, Public Health Policy & the Law—there’s an interesting combination; science, public health and law—titled ‘Vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: a study of nine-year-old children enrolled in Medicaid’ found: … the current vaccination schedule may be contributing to multiple forms of NDD; that vaccination coupled with preterm birth was strongly associated with increased odds of NDDs compared to preterm birth in the absence of vaccination; and increasing numbers of visits that included vaccinations were associated with increased risks of ASD. For those at home, an NDD is a neurodevelopmental disorder such as autism or OCD, and ASD is autism spectrum disorder. This study of 41,000 nine-year-olds in Florida came out this month and finds, with statistical certainty, that childhood vaccines are associated with neurodevelopmental disorders and autism. Have you seen this paper? And, if not, why not?
Prof. Lawler: I’m familiar with the journal that you outline; I’m familiar with the nature of the articles that are provided for publication and the level of peer review that occurs. I’m not familiar with that journal article specifically, and it would probably be inappropriate of me to comment on it without it in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: The autism vaccine link is the most contentious issue in medicine right now, based on the number of people affected. Is this wilful ignorance on your part? Prof. Lawler: That is an interesting question. It’s not a contentious link. There was an article some years ago that drew links between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism. That has been serially and profoundly debunked; it’s been retracted from the media. There’s no evidence currently that there is a link between vaccination and autism. Unfortunately, the continued promulgation of such a link is suspected to be one of the drivers of vaccine hesitancy and falling vaccine rates.
Senator ROBERTS: I would argue, based upon the timing, that the COVID shots, the mandating of COVID shots and the adverse effects of the COVID shots would have done a lot of damage to the credibility of vaccines in general. If I give you the link, Professor Lawler, will you undertake to review the study and come ready to discuss the connection between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, at the next estimates?
Prof. Lawler: I’m very happy to receive any link and read any article, and to come back and have a comment. I do have with me Dr Sophie Russell, who’s the acting director of the Pharmacovigilance Branch.
Dr Russell: Thanks for the question. I’ll just make one small comment about the Yale study. The Yale study that you refer to was not able to properly account for previous COVID-19 infection due to insufficient case numbers. We would, of course, be happy to provide on notice a broader critical analysis, but I’ll reinforce what Professor Lawler has said—that, to date, the TGA has not found a causal association between any vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorder—and I would like to reassure you that we are continually monitoring for those particular adverse events in COVID-19 vaccinations.
Senator ROBERTS: In that paper, entitled ‘Vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: a study of nine-year-old children enrolled in Medicaid’, I’ve seen a graph. The multiplier for ASD is 3.14—the vaccinated have 3.14 times more ASD than the unvaccinated; for hyperkinetic syndrome it’s three times; for epilepsy or seizures it’s 4.2 times; for learning disorders it’s 9.8 times—almost 10 times; for encephalopathy it’s 7.7 times; and, for at least one of the listed neurodevelopmental disorders, it’s four times. Let’s move on—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just before you do, in a couple of minutes I’ll be seeking to rotate the call, as I understand Senator Rennick has some more questions. You still have the call, but I’m just giving you some early warning that I’ll be seeking to rotate in a few minutes.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand from previous testimony that the TGA has a lab with more than 100 staff, which is a lot. Can you tell me what steps you have taken to monitor spike protein activity amongst Australian consumers of the mRNA technology used in COVID?
Prof. Lawler: I’ll ask Dr Kerr to join us at the table. I would probably contest the comment that that’s a lot of staff. We have staff that are appropriate to the role of ensuring qualities and standards within our therapeutic goods.
Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t casting aspersions that way, Professor Lawler; I was saying that that’s a lot of staff to do some of the work that I’ve just raised.
Prof. Lawler: We have a lot of work to do. I think the numbers are quite appropriate.
Dr Kerr: May I have the question again, please?
Senator ROBERTS: I understand from previous testimony that the TGA has a lab with more than 100 staff. Can you tell me what steps you have taken to monitor spike protein activity amongst Australian consumers of the mRNA technology used in COVID?
Dr Kerr: The subject of our testing is actually the vaccine itself. We have spent a lot of time ensuring that the vaccine complies with the quality requirements. We do look at the expression of the protein from the vaccine in vitro, but we do not take samples from Australians to test for the COVID spike protein. That is not our role.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t monitor it in that way?
Dr Kerr: We’re not a pathology laboratory. We don’t take samples from Australians—from humans.
Senator ROBERTS: So the answer to my next question: have you been actively testing people to check spike protein levels and to test for antigens indicating myocarditis, Guillain-Barre, Epstein-Barr—which is also called herpes 4—and the other 1,240 other known side effects of mRNA technology, as provided by Pfizer? Have you been testing for anything to do with that? These are known adverse events from Pfizer. Have you been testing?
Dr Kerr: I might defer to my colleague Dr Russell.
Dr Russell: As Professor Lawler highlighted earlier, we take a broader approach to postmarket safety issues. Published literature and clinical testing are all part of our assessment. When we are looking into safety signals in the postmarket space, we’re looking at that in the Australian context. We are looking at the number of cases that are reported to the TGA and the number of cases that are reported to the World Health Organisation database; we’re liaising with our comparable international regulators and looking at published literature. There’s a variety of areas that we look to, to consider the strength of the evidence between a clinical condition and vaccination, and that informs our regulatory actions.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, but how do you know about the incidents if you’re not actually testing?
Prof. Lawler: Sorry—the incidence of clinical episodes?
Senator ROBERTS: Adverse events, yes—actively checking people for spike protein levels.
Dr Russell: Just to clarify, I’m not aware of any evidence that correlates spike protein levels with a clinical syndrome or diagnosis. What we are looking for in the postmarket space is clinical symptoms or conditions that are caused by the vaccine.
Senator ROBERTS: Wow. Thank you.
Prof. Lawler: If I could just add to that, we’ve endeavoured to be clear previously—and I won’t on this occasion read out the SQoNs that we’ve answered—that our pharmacovigilance program, in keeping with the standard and accepted practice of regulators around the world, is based on clinical adverse events. As Dr Russell has highlighted, there is not a correlation that is currently identified between spike protein levels and clinical events. Our adverse event monitoring process, our pharmacovigilance process, in keeping with the actions and practice of regulators globally, is to capture, analyse, understand and, where necessary, respond in a regulatory fashion to safety signals identified through clinical events. So those clinical events are identified. As I’ve mentioned, we have many events—I don’t have the number in front of me, but certainly over 100,000—of variable severity that we have analysed and responded to, and we have made significant regulatory changes in response to that. The clinical approach that we take to adverse event monitoring is entirely in keeping with the pharmacovigilance practices of global regulators.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Professor Lawler. So you don’t do testing, so you presumably rely upon adverse event notifications. Ahpra have ensured those reports were not made. You can’t possibly be relying only on the few doctors with the courage to stand up against Ahpra—or was ‘rare’ the outcome you worked back from? Did you just assume it was rare and work backwards to justify it?
Prof. Lawler: It’s unfortunate that Ahpra isn’t here to respond to that. I think it’s pretty clear that—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s well known.
Prof. Lawler: Sorry, Senator. What’s well known?
Senator ROBERTS: It’s well known that Ahpra has been suppressing doctors’ voices.
Prof. Lawler: I would make the distinction if I may—and, again, Ahpra is not here to respond and defend itself against that comment—that what you are characterising as misinformation around vaccine and the disease is very different to the reporting of adverse events. I would also contend that the volume of adverse events that were reported would indicate the threshold for reporting adverse events is quite low, and that’s exactly where we want it to be. We want to be detecting adverse events.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am due to rotate the call, but if there’s time we we’ll come back to you. We have about 25 minutes, so can I just get an indication of who has further questions?
Senator Rennick, Senator Kovacic and Senator Roberts, you have further questions?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please.
Transcript 2
Senator ROBERTS: I want to go back to continue the discussion we had about testing, or the lack of testing. In estimates in May 2022, I asked whether the mRNA from the vaccines, the injections, transcribed into the patients’ own DNA, permanently modifying their DNA. In light of the work that has been done since, including the latest Yale study that I quoted, could a plausible theory be that the mRNA technology does indeed transcribe and the mRNA technology does permanently alter the human genome in some people?
Prof. Lawler: We did have an exchange with Senator Rennick earlier around the incorporation of DNA and RNA into the human genome. There was a comment made around it being down to a series of highly improbable steps. The challenge that I think we face—and I’ll ask Dr Kerr to add to that—is that there is a point at which a plausible theory requires supporting evidence. In the absence of that supporting evidence, it needs to be rejected. We’ve had 50 years of biotechnology in this field, there have been many billions of doses of these vaccines and other vaccines of similar technology administered, and there’s been no evidence of such incorporation. As to the plausible theory, there are some mechanisms that you could arguably say lead to that in very unusual circumstances, but there is no evidence and no real-world data to support that. Dr Kerr.
Dr Kerr: Thank you. I’ll add to Professor Lawler’s statement that there’s a very rigorous regulatory framework that operates globally to ensure that any residual DNA in biotechnology products or the mRNA vaccines is adequately controlled and the risks are adequately managed.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will you review the legal position of the TGA, specifically the issue of them committing malfeasance in office due to their wilful ignorance of harms from the pharmaceutical industry products they promote?
Senator McCarthy: I reject, outright, your question in this regard, and I’m sure the government does have great faith in the TGA.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I want to move on to a major anti-hydroxychloroquine study published in Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy under Dr Danyelle Townsend. It has been retracted after its dataset was exposed as unreliable, bordering on outright fraudulent. The paper, titled Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis, found that treating hospital patients with HCQ, hydroxychloroquine, resulted in an increased mortality rate and led to health authorities banning hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID. This was the reverse outcome to what many practitioners were experiencing prescribing hydroxychloroquine for COVID. Minister, did your government issue restrictions against using hydroxychloroquine for COVID on 24 March 2020—I know the Liberal Party was in office at the time. Did the government issue restrictions against using hydroxychloroquine for COVID on 24 March 2020 to make room in the market for the vaccines, despite a body of evidence saying hydroxychloroquine was effective?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll defer to the officials.
Prof. Lawler: I was not in this role at that time; I had a different role in a different place. My understanding, though, is that the decision on hydroxychloroquine was based on a position supported by global regulators that there was a lack of efficacy in this and, similarly, concerns that individuals seeking to use the treatment might potentially perturb them and deter them from validated effective treatments. I’m certainly not aware that there is any underlying motivation to benefit any other treatment on a commercial basis.
Senator ROBERTS: So it was an internationally agreed position?
Prof. Lawler: In terms of our established relationship with regulators, it is my understanding that it was a fairly agreed position that hydroxychloroquine was not an effective treatment for COVID.
Senator ROBERTS: So now it’s a ‘fairly agreed’ position. It didn’t rely on the science; it was just fairly agreed?
Prof. Lawler: Senator—
Senator ROBERTS: Were there any studies done—any basis for this in fact, in data?
Prof. Langham: It absolutely was an evaluation of the science and the concerns for public safety that led to changes in the restriction in the prescribing of hydroxychloroquine. There was no supportive evidence for its efficacy and, as there was a concern that people were—and absolutely were—moving towards taking hydroxychloroquine in the false belief that it was going to help them with COVID, there were fewer people that were being vaccinated and there was also a greater risk of a poor outcome. That restriction was removed on 1 February this year.
Prof. Lawler: I also highlight that we’ve answered this question about hydroxychloroquine before, in SQ22- 000147 and also SQ21-000687.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on. In Senate estimates in May 2021, Professor Skerritt, your predecessor, the former head of the TGA, said of the COVID vaccine injection technology: … the idea is to introduce sufficient spike protein to activate the immune system so that it mimics a COVID infection so that your B cells and T cells can start to mount an immune response to protect the person from catching COVID. He also said: … it’s the messenger RNA that’s translated into protein which is a spike protein. Messenger RNAs are inherently unstable. In fact, that’s why the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require this little lipid coat, this little lipid nanoparticle. … … … And the lipids are hydrolyzed, destroyed by the body fairly rapidly … Is this still an accurate statement of the technology behind COVID MRNA vaccines?
Prof. Langham: The specifics of your concern around that statement?
Senator ROBERTS: Is it accurate? Is Professor Skerritt’s statement accurate still?
Prof. Lawler: The process of immunogenicity as described by Professor Skerritt absolutely is. There’s the central dogma that MRNA is translated to protein. It’s the mechanism by which proteins are created. The MRNA is coded for spike protein. It’s created within the cell and expressed on the cell’s surface. That then engenders an immune response through antigenic presentation. That is the standard process for vaccine utilisation. As Professor Skerritt highlighted, the MRNA is inherently unstable and readily broken down. That’s why it’s encapsulated with a lipid nanoparticle which contains four different types of lipid. That enables its introduction to the cell, where it can exert its cellular effect.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true, as he said, that the lipids are hydrolysed and destroyed by the body fairly rapidly?
The Office of the eSafety Commissioner does commendable work in protecting children and adults from bullying and, most importantly, removing child abuse material. I praised the Office for this work.
However, in my opinion, the eSafety Commissioner has brought the office into disrepute with her personal vendetta against Twitter/X and her attempt to become the world internet police.
Last year, the Commissioner finalised investigations into 9,500 pieces of violent and extremist content. I asked what these were. The answer provided was that the Commissioner was taking down material from anywhere in the world, detecting it in part because they actively searched for it, even without a complaint.
Given that the Commissioner is positioning herself as the world internet police at our expense, I asked what benefit removing the 9,500 pieces of material had for Australians.
The answer relied on one incident, and there was no proof it actually caused a terrorist incident. I asked why there was no explanation of what the other material was, such as a transparency register so we can see what material they are requiring to be taken down to check for political bias. The question was ignored.
I also asked what direct benefit her actions had in addressing terrorism and violent material. The Commissioner answered regarding child material, which I had already praised.
The Commissioner is avoiding scrutiny of her takedown notices for violent and extremist material, and I believe it is because they follow a political bias.
One Nation calls for the eSafety Commissioner to stand down.
The Federal Police have finally dropped their vaccine mandate for workers, yet won’t apologise to the people who have been persecuted and lost wages for years.
It’s been known from the very start it didn’t stop workers getting COVID, and it didn’t stop transmission of COVID to others. That hasn’t changed, so why this change four years later?
It’s not good enough! One Nation calls for an apology, backpay, compensation and immediate rehiring of anyone who lost a job because of a vaccine mandate.
Transcript
CHAIR: I also note the time. Can we give Senator Roberts the call for a moment? Senator Roberts, do you have questions for the AFP?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I do. Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for appearing tonight. Just before the last break, Commissioner, did you say you revoked the COVID vaccine mandates on your police yesterday?
Ms Van Gurp : I can answer that. Thank you for the question. You might recall last time we appeared at this committee back in November, we did disclose that we had undertaken a review of the COVID Commissioner’s Order 10 policy, which related to COVID vaccines. That review, as of November, had been completed and supported by our enterprise operations board. I mentioned at our last hearing in November that the next phase for us to do, as per the legislation, as per the Work Health Safety Act, was to undertake genuine workforce consultation. So throughout December and January we have undertaken that genuine consultation with the workforce, which included comments back that were supportive and not supportive. In consideration of that consultation, the commissioner, yes, he has determined that Commissioner’s Order 10 is to be revoked, and that was announced to the workforce. Our internal website has a range of frequently asked questions and information for staff to address the issues that were raised across that consultation process.
Senator ROBERTS: Am I accurate in saying they were revoked yesterday?
Ms Van Gurp : No. The Commissioner’s Order 10 was signed off as revoked by the commissioner on 13 February. It was announced to the workforce this week.
Senator ROBERTS: Why did you revoke the vaccine mandates? I know you have been through a process—I don’t need to hear about that again, with respect—but what was the reason they were revoked?
Ms Van Gurp : Throughout the process since the Commissioner’s Order was put in place, we did undertake regular reviews looking at that policy. As we talked about before in this forum, it was an important policy for us at a time to protect both our workforce and the community, particularly the vulnerable communities that we are working with across the Pacific and other areas of the globe. But the most recent review in relation to reflecting on the health advice from our Chief Medical Officer as well as ATAGI and others, we determined that that risk posed didn’t necessitate a specific Commissioner’s Order anymore because, rather than it being a global pandemic, the status of COVID had been downgraded, so we made that determination through that internal review and through doing an updated risk assessment treatment plan.
Senator ROBERTS: Given that nothing has changed arguably in recent years—certainly in many, many, many, month many, months—why did it take long to revoke the vaccine mandates?
Ms Van Gurp : As we have talked about here previously, while for some other agencies the advice had changed around the risks of the community, we were conscious that we have a workforce that we need to be able to readily deploy at any time and we are deploying to vulnerable communities, so our assessment was not just to follow the general community advice; it was to undertake our own internal assessment, so we held that policy in place for a longer period of time to protect both our workforce and the community, but we have determined now is the time to revoke that policy.
Senator ROBERTS: Given the injections did not stop people getting COVID and did not stop people transmitting COVID, why were the mandates implemented?
Ms Van Gurp : Based on the health advice both from government and our Chief Medical Officer, it was to minimise the risk to both our members and to the vulnerable communities, so acknowledging, yes, of course, Senator, you are correct—the COVID vaccine didn’t prevent people getting it or prevent people transmitting it but it did mitigate that risk.
Senator ROBERTS: So was that on the evidence of the Chief Medical Officer and ATAGI health agencies?
Ms Van Gurp : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Did they provide you with the evidence? I am asking: on what evidence?
Ms Van Gurp : I will have to take that on notice, but essentially we considered the advice coming from ATAGI and others externally. We considered the risk to our people by undertaking our own risk assessment treatment plan internally and that was in consideration of the way in which we deploy staff, where we are deploying to, the nature of our operations et cetera. So, for some time, our internal position was that we needed to maintain that vaccination requirement that the safety of our members and for the safety of the communities were dealing with. But as I said, we have revised that risk assessment treatment plan now and have determined that Commissioner’s Order 10 can be revoked.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could I have a copy of the advice from the Chief Medical Officer and ATAGI, please?
Ms Van Gurp : I will take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Also in your own deliberations within the AFP, I would like to know what drove the conclusion, particularly your risk assessment. I would like to see the risk assessment.
Ms Van Gurp : I will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: The inefficacy of the COVID injections in stopping transmission was known well before yesterday. Why did it take so long to revoke?
Ms Van Gurp : As I mentioned, our decision to have that Commissioner’s Order in place was not just based on ATAGI and other advice; it was our internal position as well in consideration of our own risk assessment treatment plans. We went through a thorough process to make sure that, before we revoked it ,we were being thorough in our assessments. As I previously talked about, we did an internal review that Deputy Commissioner Gale’s team led. That review came to our internal enterprise operations board for consideration. We supported the position of the review and then, as per the WHS Act, we undertook workplace consultation prior to making a decision, and that is a requirement under legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: Could I, on notice again, have any evidence that you considered within the AFP in making the decision and on why it took so long?
Ms Van Gurp : Yes, Commissioner. I’m happy to take on notice to provide that plan.
Senator ROBERTS: I haven’t been promoted yet!
Ms Van Gurp : Senator, sorry!
Senator SCARR: It’s coming now—just hold off!
Ms Van Gurp : It’s past my bedtime!
Senator ROBERTS: It’s past my bedtime too. I have two more questions, very briefly. Did you mandate the AstraZeneca shots that were later withdrawn?
Ms Van Gurp : Our Commissioner’s Order 10 required that staff had to have two vaccinations. We didn’t mandate which vaccination that needed to be. But I’m happy to take it on notice if you need more clarity around that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Commissioner, will you apologise to police who were basically forced to take the AstraZeneca shot?
Mr Kershaw : I don’t know what evidence you have there, Senator. I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: They were withdrawn from use in the UK and other countries, I believe, on the basis of a court case in Britain. They were also withdrawn in this country, although I understand the federal health department did not withdraw them until quite some time later. I’d like to know why they were mandated.
CHAIR: Do you mean that type of vaccination, Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, the AstraZeneca brand.
CHAIR: I’m not going to answer for the commissioner, but I think he has taken it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, he has. Thank you all for appearing.
CHAIR: I hope you’re enjoying whatever regional town in Queensland you seem to be joining from. I’m sure it’s a fabulous place.
The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has received a Ministerial directive to investigate wage theft allegations affecting coal miners in the Hunter region. Upon inquiring about the investigation’s status, Mr Steve Ronson, the Executive Director of the FWO shared that there are currently 18 cases under investigation, involving 25 workers and 17 employers, with 2 self-reports also being considered. All complaints are being thoroughly investigated, and the process includes holding meetings with various stakeholders.
A dedicated email address has been established for individuals to contact the FWO regarding these issues. So far, meetings have been held with Coal LSL, the Mining Energy Union, and the Independent Workers Union of Australia. Mr Ronson mentioned that the amounts to be calculated have not yet been assessed, with some claims dating back around 10 years. It’s been estimated that the total claim could potentially reach up to $1.3 billion. He also expressed his willingness to accept a submission from One Nation, which has been advocating for this investigation since 2019, marking it as the largest wage theft claim in Australia.
Interestingly, there has been no liaison with the Fair Work Commission, although other entities are welcome to submit material. Early findings from the investigation may emerge by mid this year, but the final report is expected by mid-2026. Status reports might be discussed through the estimates process. Mr Ronson clarified that while underpayments can be investigated beyond the 6-year period under the Statute of Limitations, enforcement is limited to this timeframe. He committed to securing any identified underpayments through the investigation.
Stay tuned for more updates as this significant investigation progresses.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS:Thank you for attending, everyone. First of all, I understand the Fair Work Ombudsman has received a ministerial directive to investigate underpayments of casual black coal miners working under enterprise agreements; is that correct?
Ms Booth: We have been asked to conduct that investigation. On the last occasion, you’ll recall, Mr Ronson gave you a thorough rundown. Since that time our enforcement board has approved an investigation plan. I will turn to Mr Campbell to give you any further updates.
Senator ROBERTS:Before he does so, would it be possible to get a copy of the ministerial directive, please?
Ms Booth: I’m not sure I would describe it as a ministerial directive, although others might be more aware of the protocol in these matters. I believe it was a letter.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I have a copy?
Ms Booth: I see no reason why you shouldn’t. I’ll hand over to Mr Campbell and Mr Ronson to give you more details.
Mr Campbell: Is there a particular aspect of our inquiries that you’re interested in, or are you looking for a general update?
Senator ROBERTS: I’d specifically like, please, an overview of the status of the Fair Work Ombudsman’s activities, and could you in particular describe the process the Fair Work Ombudsman is using to conduct its investigations.
Mr Campbell: I’ll ask Mr Ronson to assist.
Mr Ronson: I can give you an update on the status of the investigation. The Fair Work Ombudsman is currently investigating 18 black coal mining industry matters that involve 25 workers and 17 different employing entities. We’ve also received two self-reports from the sector. All the requests for assistance that we’ve received are being investigated, and as part of our project plan we’re meeting with a whole range of stakeholders. We’ve begun meeting with them to talk about the investigation, to enhance and increase awareness and to encourage those in the sector to come forward. We have a dedicated email address to receive any allegations or information from any member of the sector or the community. So far, we’ve had some very constructive and positive meetings. We’ve had two meetings with the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation, we’ve met with the Mining and Energy Union, we’ve met with the Independent Workers Union of Australia, and we’ve got a whole range of other stakeholder meetings lined up in the next couple of weeks.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I assume that there’s a dedicated process that casual coalminers can now use to lodge complaints about underpayment with the Fair Work Ombudsman?
Mr Ronson: That’s correct. There’s a dedicated email address we’ve set up for the whole project so that anyone in the sector or anyone with information relating to the sector can feel confident that they can go straight through to contacting us through that email, or they can give us a call—whichever way they want to make contact with us. Of course, there’s still the anonymous report function as well, which is available to all members of the community.
Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned the Independent Workers Union of Australia. I take it that some of the submissions, or complaints, have been lodged through that and some of the others have been individually lodged, for individual work.
Mr Ronson: That’s right. Probably two-thirds have come through the agency of the Independent Workers Union of Australia and the other third are just individual workers in the sector who have requests for assistance that we’re looking at.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I must say that I appreciate your succinct and direct answers. Can the Fair Work Ombudsman provide the range of possible underpayment amounts currently being looked at by the Fair Work Ombudsman?
Mr Ronson: It’s hard to assess at the moment what potential underpayments, if any, exist. Some of the allegations date back at least 10 or 11 years. There are some individuals who’ve worked in the sector for many years. If the allegations are upheld and if the evidence is obtained, there could be significant underpayments owing to certain workers. But at this stage it’s too early. We’ve requested a series of documents, a lot of information from various companies, that will assist us to begin, if you like, the assessment of these particular claims.
Senator ROBERTS: How many employers—not only mine owners but the labour hire firms—are subject to investigation so far? How many?
Mr Ronson: All up, it’s 17.
Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned that—okay. Will the Fair Work Ombudsman advertise to coalminers in the black coal mining sector, encouraging them to lodge and apply to the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to underpayments they believe they may have been subject to?
Mr Ronson: By ‘advertise’, do you mean increasing awareness, as in media statements?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes: letting them know you’re open for business and you’re aware that this is an issue.
Mr Ronson: Yes, that’s definitely an option available and one we’re considering. There are some other ideas that we have as well about enhancing awareness. For example, there’s nothing to prevent us writing to all labour hire providers and employing entities in the sector. This is one of the suggestions that has been put to us and one we’re currently considering.
Senator ROBERTS: Would that be a wise move in terms of trying to get to the miners? Some of these labour hire firms—some—have been deliberately suppressing this?
Mr Ronson: That’s right—good point. In terms of former workers, that’s a different sort of ‘audience’, if you like. That’s one we’re turning our minds to in thinking about how we ensure people who either are in the industry now or were formerly in the industry are aware of this investigation. The second point I was making, yes, was in relation to employers. That’s something we’ve done in the past. We’ve written, for example, to the ASX Top 100 companies and encouraged them to review their status, and if they self-identify they can self-report any potential noncompliance.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that some of the miners are not aware of it, but it’s a major issue, because we estimate that about 5,000 miners at least have been the subject of Australia’s largest wage theft case, and it’ll cost, ultimately, around $1.3 billion—they’re rough estimates. So I think these people need to be told that there’s an option for them to seek justice and repayment.
Mr Ronson: Yes. As I say, it’s something we’re definitely turning our minds to, and we’re considering what’s the best way to get the word out, if you like.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s hope you can get that out fairly soon. The Fair Work Ombudsman would be aware that One Nation has pushed for investigation into this issue and that One Nation released a detailed report in February 2024. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman taking submissions on how the alleged underpayments have occurred, and would the Fair Work Ombudsman accept One Nation’s report as a submission? We can provide data, companies involved, amounts, enterprise agreements and underpayment.
Mr Ronson: Yes, sure. We welcome all and any information and any submissions.
Senator ROBERTS: So we would make submissions in the same way anyone else would?
Mr Ronson: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Would One Nation be involved in any follow-up discussions on the nature of the issue and its resolution?
Mr Ronson: Yes, if there is information that’s material and actionable, by all means, we’ll be in contact.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, the Mining and Energy Union, which is what’s left in the coalmining sector after the CFMEU and the Mining and Energy Union split, are not seeking back pay. They seem to be hiding it because they were involved in agreeing to the enterprise agreements and signing off on enterprise agreements that were paying much less than the award. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman inviting submissions from other organisations and individuals? If so, who specifically has been approached?
Mr Ronson: To date, as I said before, we’ve met with the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation, and we’re asking that agency to provide us with any relevant information. We’ve met with the Mining and Energy Union; we’ve extended the same invitation. We’ve met with the Independent Workers Union of Australia. As you know, they’re actively involved, and they’re assisting our investigation. We also intend to meet with the Queensland Labour Hire Licensing Compliance Unit; RCSA, the Recruitment, Consulting and Staffing Association, which is responsible for labour hire; the Minerals Council of Australia, with which we have meetings lined up; and safe work bodies in New South Wales and Queensland.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you be covering more than the wage theft case and the specific amounts of the wage theft? In other words, will you be covering loss of other entitlements, protections and safeguards?
Mr Ronson: Our jurisdiction only extends to entitlements or conditions that are actionable or have been created under the Fair Work Act and the regulations, so it’s only what is within our remit.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman consulting with the Fair Work Commission on the issue?
Mr Ronson: Not to date. There’s been no need at this stage. I’m confident that we said at our last hearing that we don’t have the power or the capability to question any approvals of any agreements that have been made in the past. Others can take that issue up.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So only the Mining and Energy Union; its predecessor, the CFMEU; and employers, such as mining companies?
Mr Ronson: I’ll defer to the chief counsel as to who in particular can question agreements.
Ms Volzke: I think Mr Ronson has given a reasonable list. I would just say more broadly that one of the issues that I raised at the last estimates is just to remember that we still have that statutory timeframe of six years that applies under the Fair Work Act as well. Obviously, that won’t preclude us from investigating, but it’s important that the miners that we’re looking at also bear that in mind.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I’m pleased to say that it wouldn’t preclude you investigating. It may, at the moment, preclude addressing the issues that are raised in the investigation, but it would not preclude the investigation. The premise for my next question is as follows: the black coal award does not allow for casuals. Enterprise agreements were made, and some are still current, but the agreement’s pay rates are demonstrably less than what should be paid under the award if the award allowed for casuals. To an ordinary person, paying casuals less than the award casualised rate—that’s a full-time rate plus 25 per cent—is plainly wrong. That’s the pub test, as people say. And yet the Fair Work Commission endorsed the enterprise agreements. I assume the Fair Work Ombudsman must somehow determine which instrument prevails, being either enterprise agreements that pay less than the casualised award rate or an award rate that incorporates a casualised 25 per cent add-on to a full-time rate. Does the Fair Work Ombudsman have an idea as to how this may be resolved?
Mr Ronson: That’s the $64 question, if I can confirm it. I think, as with previous evidence we’ve provided, there remains uncertainty regarding the legal consequences of the Black Coal Mining Award’s lack of provision for employees in these roles as it hasn’t been authoritatively determined by a court. So it remains an open question.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the Fair Work Ombudsman be issuing a report or reports on its findings of the investigation? If so, what would be the anticipated timeline for such reports? I think the minister made some comment as to [inaudible].
Mr Ronson: At this stage we’re more than happy to provide status updates in this forum as we go along, but we’re hoping that we’d have early preliminary findings towards the middle of this year or just after the middle of this year. I think I said last time, and I think it’s still the case, it could be at least until mid-2026 before we’re in a position to provide a final report. But we will keep this committee posted.
Senator ROBERTS: Would you be in a position to provide interim reports as the investigation progresses?
Mr Ronson: It’s probably easier if we provide status reports, like I have today. The thing about how long an investigation takes is it all depends—
Senator ROBERTS: It depends on the [inaudible] and what you find. I get it. Would any reports you provide be public and unredacted, except of course for retaining confidentiality of workers allegedly underpaid?
Mr Ronson: I see no reason why it wouldn’t be. A report that we provide would be as fulsome and comprehensive as we could publish.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re not expecting names of individuals to be disclosed.
Mr Ronson: No.
Senator ROBERTS: We would expect them to be redacted. Would the reports indicate the employers involved, the organisations involved, the employers and organisations under investigation and any findings that the Fair Work Ombudsman has in relation to the specific employers?
CHAIR: Just before you answer that question, Senator Roberts we’re running an hour and a bit late. I don’t want to cut off your questions, but if there are some that can be on notice that would be helpful. Otherwise, I will come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. The way Mr Ronson is answering the questions directly, it won’t be long at all. I’ve only got a few more to go. And I have to move on too.
CHAIR: No worries.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Ronson?
Mr Ronson: The best way of answering your question is: it’s the long held practice of the Fair Work Ombudsman to provide reports of all its major investigations. We’ve published all of them and they’re available on our website. It is our practice and it would be our expectation to do so again.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If the Fair Work Ombudsman were to conclude that underpayments had occurred, and based on the Fair Work Ombudsman’s past experiences, does the Fair Work Ombudsman have ideas of scenarios for compensation for any worker underpayments?
Mr Ronson: Well, we have ideas. As to whether they’re actionable or realisable, that will be determined in due course.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. This is something Ms Volzke raised. What is the effect of the statute of limitations and how would that apply to someone lodging a complaint today? Can they still lodge it?
Mr Ronson: Yes. As the chief counsel answered, it doesn’t preclude our investigations. The provision in the act only relates to enforceability in the event of proceedings, but there’s no reason why we can’t go back historically and look at historic underpayments and, if the allegations are upheld and there is an entitlement owing, to seek to secure that underpayment.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the Fair Work Ombudsman investigating beyond the statute of limitations to ascertain full amounts possibly underpaid?
Mr Ronson: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Chair, I want to express my appreciation for Mr Ronson being direct. It enabled me to get through my questions. I also want to communicate to the secretariat that I’ll be on the road, so I won’t be able to ask the Fair Work Commission questions in the hearings, but I will put them on notice. And it’s the same with the coal long service leave.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/A5_eE4rV_cU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-03-06 09:58:012025-03-06 10:53:49Investigation into Wage Theft for Coal Miners in the Hunter
The Clean Energy Regulator is a $115 million dollar agency dedicated to implementing the UN’s Net Zero plans on Australia. I pressed for transparency regarding executive salaries and the total cost to taxpayers, expressing surprise at the reluctance to readily provide this information.
I also challenged the effectiveness and necessity of the carbon market, describing it as a concocted market driven by regulations rather than genuine demand. It’s essentially a made up cost inflicted on Australia. These are the kind of agencies we could simply get rid of and Australian’s lives would get better.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. A similar question to the others in the alphabet soup of climate change and energy agencies: as simply and specifically as possible, what does the Clean Energy Regulator do? Could you tell me the basic accountabilities and the uniqueness of those accountabilities?
Mr Binning: As I stated previously, we’re an economic regulator for the purpose of accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. We do this by administering a range of schemes on behalf of the Australian government.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you say you were an accelerator or a regulator?
Mr Binning: A regulator. We have two outcomes currently within our corporate objectives. The first is to contribute to a reduction in Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions, including through the administration of market based mechanisms that incentivise reduction in emissions and the promotion of additional renewable electricity generation. The second is to contribute to the sustainable management of Australia’s biodiversity through the administration of market based mechanisms.
Senator ROBERTS: Is your uniqueness the latter?
Mr Binning: Our uniqueness is that we manage or administer the various government schemes, particularly where they involve the formation of a market.
Senator ROBERTS: The carbon dioxide market or carbon market?
Mr Binning: Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How many employees do you have?
Mr Binning: We have around 400.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the breakdown of permanent and employees and contractors?
CHAIR: Are we going to the annual report again?
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know. We’ll find out.
Mr Binning: A lot of that information will be contained in our annual report. Our chief operating officer will just come up. Perhaps if we move to the next question, then she can follow up.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all employees, including casuals and contractors?
Mr Binning: Ms Pegorer will be able to help you out with that detail.
Ms Pegorer: Can I just confirm your question was with regard to the number or the breakdown of our staff?
Senator ROBERTS: Permanent, casual and contractors, please.
Ms Pegorer: I don’t have that level of detail with me, unfortunately. I do have the number of contracting staff that we’ve had from January this year until October and the number of FTE, but I don’t have the number of casuals or non-ongoing.
Senator ROBERTS: Can we get them on notice, please?
Mr Binning: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all of those people: permanents, casuals and contractors?
Mr Binning: Again, we don’t carry that data in that form with us, so it’s best we take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total budget for the Clean Energy Regulator, including any grants or programs you administer?
Mr Binning: Our departmental funding is around $115 million. Our administered revenue associated with the programs that we run is in the order of $37 million. However, I would just note for the record that where we have our greatest impact is actually in the issuance of certificates that then carry value in a marketplace, so both with renewable energy and with the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme we issue certificates that are of material value and which are then financial instruments managed through our registries.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s fair to say, isn’t it, that this is not a market meeting people’s needs; this is a market to meet regulations and global regulations as well—concocted needs, if you like. I’m not diminishing your work.
Mr Binning: No, I probably wouldn’t quite characterise it in that way. We administer schemes that are made by government, so if you take, for example, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme acting in conjunction with the safeguard mechanism, it then forms both the supply and demand side. Safeguard mechanisms are required through the regulations to manage their emissions within their baseline or source unit certificates. Then the ACCU generates a supply of Australian carbon credit units, and they facilitate trade in order to meet their obligations.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s no open market as such. There’s no clamouring of citizens for carbon dioxide credits. They’re a concoction of Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt in 2015, just before Christmas, and bolstered by Chris Bowen in September of 2022 with the extension of the safeguard mechanism.
Senator Ayres: I think you are asking the official for, at best, an opinion.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s your opinion?
Senator Ayres: The truth is that these schemes are administered by this agency in the best interests of keeping costs down for Australian electricity consumers and efficiently managing the process of reducing emissions across sectors, and it’s judged by successive governments that, to be in the interests of doing that in the most efficient way possible, that kind of capability is retained in the agency who’s in front of you today.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand that. We’ve got a scheme that’s been concocted that’ll add more cost to energy—
Senator Ayres: It wasn’t concocted.
Senator ROBERTS: Hang on. It’ll add more cost, and now we’ve got a market in place due to regulations to try to bring it down.
Senator Ayres: No, I don’t agree with that.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question, then. No-one can identify a fundamental need of people. There’s no market other than the concocted market, the fabricated market.
Mr Binning: The only thing I would note in addition to the requirement for people to comply with the various government regulatory structures is that there has over recent years been a reasonably strong emergence of a voluntary market both for Australian carbon credit units and for renewable energy certificates. On the Australian carbon credit side we see in the order of a million units surrendered per annum, and on the electricity side we see very significant surrenders of certificates in the order of 10 million over and above the 33 million that is the regulated target. A lot of what has driven that are the various objectives, particularly across corporate Australia, for voluntary emissions reduction and meeting their own targets and the desire to source credible renewable energy of high integrity to do that, so the market is both performing its regulatory functions and facilitating voluntary participation.
Senator ROBERTS: I notice peppered through your statement there—and I thank you for the statement—are the words ‘regulated’, ‘comply’ and ‘carbon credits’—I call them ‘carbon dioxide credits’. These are all to make the best of a concocted market that’s only there because of regulations. It’s only there because nowhere in the world, as I understand it, has carbon dioxide been designated a pollutant. I just make that point. Final question: what is the total salary package of everyone here at the desk, particularly executive level—what band?
Mr Binning: As I think other agencies have done, our executive remuneration is in our annual report.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that the complete cost including on-costs?
Mr Binning: That’s the salaries associated with those. If you are seeking other information related to our salaries, we will take it on notice and come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: I want the total cost that the taxpayer pays for you, for example, not just what you get in the hand but everything as part of the package.
CHAIR: Again, I would suggest that you have a look at the annual report and, if it doesn’t give you sufficient detail, that you then place a question on notice for further detail from the officials.
Senator ROBERTS: Just one final question, building on the last one: why is there so much reluctance to share the salaries? Surely you would know what you cost.
Mr Binning: We report executive remuneration as part of our annual reporting cycle. That’s the data that I bring to these committee meetings. If there is other information that you’re seeking and it’s information that’s generally publicly available, we would be delighted to supply it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: But you would know your total costs to the taxpayers?
Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, it’s a pretty unfair line of questioning. The official has said—
Senator ROBERTS: What’s unfair about it?
Senator Ayres: The official has said the remuneration details. It’s pretty unfair to characterise it as the official not answering your question, is what I mean.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t characterise it that way. You’re fabricating now, Senator Ayres.
Senator Ayres: What he has said is that information is now publicly available in their report, which you could have read on the way here. In addition to that, if there is more information that he can provide, he will provide it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Senator Ayres: You can’t ask for more than that.
Senator ROBERTS: No, and I made the observation that I’m surprised that people don’t know this or can’t readily divulge it. That’s all. Thank you, Chair.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/qWp7hgU1QKk/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-20 14:59:142025-02-20 14:59:20Clean Energy Regulation: Questions on Costs and Market Impact
After five and a half years of holding government departments and agencies accountable, and doing our own research, we continue to pursue Australia’s largest case of wage theft. More than one BILLION dollars of underpayments involving as many as 5,000 workers. Our research has led to miners submitting complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO). For example, a miner has been underpaid $211,000 and some miners have had at least $41,000 stolen per year of employment.
In this session with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), I asked Mr Furlong, General Manager of FWC, how many applications for regulated Labour Hire Agreements were currently under the Commission’s consideration. He stated that 55 applications had been submitted, with 11 Orders made—9 in the mining industry and 2 in the meat processing industry.
I then asked a series of questions about the relationships between Awards, Regulated Labour Hire Agreements, and Enterprise Agreements. Mr Furlong confirmed that, under the Labor government’s recent legislation, it’s standard for casual workers performing the same job as full-time workers under a Regulated Labour Hire Agreement to receive an additional 25% in pay as compensation for entitlements they do not receive. Mr Furlong agreed to look into which Awards would have applied in the absence of Labour Hire Agreement Orders and provide that information on notice.
I’ve raised this issue at every senate estimates hearing since late 2019 and finally the Fair Work Commission and Minister seem to be taking this issue seriously. Until recently, bureaucrats and Ministers have been in denial of what has been happening right under their noses and that raises questions of integrity.
Australia’s largest wage theft case has been possible only with the participation of the relevant union bosses in the CFMEU/MEU, labour-hire firms, mine owners and the FWC’s approval.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’m interested in exploring the nature of labour hire arrangements and their relationship with associated awards, and also partly the CFMEU administrator. What’s the total number of labour hire arrangements currently before the commission to date?
Mr Furlong: I might start here and then ask Ms Scarlett to assist. My understanding is that to 30 September we’ve received 55 applications for regulated labour hire authorisation orders. And of that—
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘regulated’?
Mr Furlong: Of that number?
Senator ROBERTS: No, what does the term ‘regulated’ refer to?
Mr Furlong: That’s the term—
Senator ROBERTS: ‘Come before you guys’?
Mr Furlong: given under the loopholes mark 1 changes. In terms of the number of orders that have been made, there are 11. Nine of them, I understand, are in the mining industry and two are in the meat-processing industry. Ms Scarlett, is there anything you’d like to add?
Senator ROBERTS: That number was how many?
Ms Scarlett: It was 55. As Mr Furlong has said, 11 labour hire arrangement orders have been issued since the commencement of the provisions.
Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of orders?
Ms Scarlett: Regulated labour hire arrangement orders. Of the 55 applications, 11 orders have been made, a number of applications have been withdrawn and the remaining matters remain before the commission.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the breakdown of these labour hire arrangement orders for each award that would otherwise have covered the employees? You might have to take that on notice.
Ms Scarlett: Yes. I’m not sure that we can go to the award. The regulated labour hire arrangement orders apply where there is a covered employment instrument such as an enterprise agreement in place. So it’s not necessarily an assessment of the award which applies, rather whether an enterprise agreement is in place that would cover the work of the labour hire employees if they were working in the business.
Senator ROBERTS: The enterprise agreement would be in an industry or work site that is covered by an award, but the enterprise agreement supersedes the award; is that right?
Ms Scarlett: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: So would there be any such sites that only have an enterprise agreement and no back-up award?
Ms Scarlett: I don’t believe there would be, but I’d need to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please do. I’d like to know the connection to the award, or to the award that would be in place if the enterprise agreement wasn’t there?
Ms Scarlett: I understand.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you advice whether there would be a general expectation that anyone working as a casual should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Ms Scarlett: The regulated labour hire arrangement order provisions provide for a 25 per cent casual loading for regulated labour hire employees.
Senator ROBERTS: Casuals.
Ms Scarlett: Casuals.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you advice if there is specific legislation, regulation or policy that requires that a casual employee should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? I know that it’s a community expectation and it’s a right almost, but is it enshrined in law, statute or policy?
Ms Scarlett: I’m not aware of a specific provision in legislation that requires a 25 per cent loading.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you able to check that?
Ms Scarlett: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ll take on notice to check it? It is fairly normal that awards require casual employees to receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? Can you point to any award that does not require a casual employee to be paid 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Mr Furlong: I can’t point to an award, but I’ll happily take it on notice. There are 155 modern awards, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, so I’d like to know if that’s normal.
Mr Furlong: Can I clarify the question so we make sure that we provide you with the information that you require?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, sure. Is it fairly normal that awards require casual employees to receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? That’s the first part.
Mr Furlong: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: The second part is: can you point to any award that does not require a casual employee to be paid 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Mr Furlong: We’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Furlong. In applying the better off overall test, the BOOT, to enterprise agreement applications, would it be the normal expectation of the Fair Work Commission, having regard to pay rates of casual workers, that casual employees should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Mr Furlong: I will ask Mr Corcoran to assist you, Senator.
Mr Corcoran: Each application is considered on its own merits by the member. They take into account the circumstances in their entirety. It’s not a line-by-line assessment that the member will make; the better off overall test is a global assessment.
Senator ROBERTS: A global assessment. If an award did not allow for casual employment, would this create the circumstance in which casual employees working under enterprise agreements subject to the set award would be paid less than full-time employees and/or be paid a rate that would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent?
Mr Corcoran: A casual employee wouldn’t be paid less than a full-time employee, I wouldn’t have thought, in normal circumstances.
Senator ROBERTS: A casual employee would be paid less than a full-time—
Mr Corcoran: I thought they would not have been paid less.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry. And they’d be paid full time plus 25 per cent?
Mr Furlong: With some of these questions, I return to the correspondence I provided you on 11 January this year regarding information published on your website but also relating to the better off overall test and the Chandler Macleod Northern District of NSW Black Coal Mining Agreement 2015. I’m not too sure if you still have access to that correspondence.
Senator ROBERTS: I do. It’s sitting on my desk—with an intent to reply.
Mr Furlong: This series of questions has been covered in that correspondence. I’m happy to table it, if that would assist.
Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s fine; I know exactly where it is on my desk. Can you envisage a circumstance in which, if a union objected to an enterprise agreement because the pay rate of casuals would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent, the Fair Work Commission would ignore the objections of the union and endorse the agreement despite the union’s objections?
Mr Furlong: As we’ve discussed several times, the better off overall test, as Mr Corcoran said, is a global assessment to ensure the employees are better off overall. It is always determined by a member of the commission. Members, as you’re aware, are independent statutory office holders who are required to ensure that, in their decisions, they are satisfying the obligation, functions and prescribed content of the enterprise agreements before they can be satisfied and then ultimately approve the decision to make the agreement operational. If a party to that agreement or someone who has a valid interest in that agreement is unsatisfied, is concerned with that agreement application, they can seek to have the agreement overturned through the mechanism of an appeal; that is their right. The other thing I’d like to add here—
Senator ROBERTS: Just on the answer to that question: would the commission ignore the objections in assessing the enterprise agreement? Would the commission ignore the objections of the union as part of that? I’m not talking about passing it and then objecting to it; I’m talking about objecting as they’re processing it.
Mr Furlong: Prior to the application being made?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Furlong: It would be the subject of deliberation of a member before the tribunal.
Senator ROBERTS: It’d be pretty unlikely, though, wouldn’t it?
Mr Furlong: I can’t speak on behalf of our members and their independent decision-making.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you ever seen a member overturn a union objection?
Mr Furlong: As we’ve discussed, my role is to provide administrative support to the president of the commission to ensure—
Senator ROBERTS: It’d be pretty unlikely, wouldn’t it?
Mr Furlong: I can’t answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: Alright. I cut you off there.
Mr Furlong: I was just going to say that if an agreement has reached or passed its normal expiry date, then a party to that agreement can seek to have the agreement unilaterally terminated. They will then fall back to the underpinning award—or they can have the right to negotiate a new enterprise agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the extra detail; it goes outside what I’m looking for. In the process of getting approval for an enterprise agreement from the Fair Work Commission, if a union objected to an enterprise agreement because the pay rate of casuals would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent, the Fair Work Commission would hardly ignore the objections of the union and endorse the agreement despite the union’s objections.
Mr Furlong: It’s a case-by-case basis, on the information provided to the members in the consideration of whether or not—
Senator ROBERTS: What would be the likelihood? Have you heard of any?
Mr Furlong: As I said, it’s not my role to comment on cases determined by members of the commission. It’s my responsibility to provide the president with administrative support, as the general manager, to ensure the commission can operate effectively.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you for your opinion.
Mr Furlong: I can’t comment on cases that come before the commission.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to. I’m not asking for your opinion on the member making the decision. I’m asking: would it happen, and has it happened?
Mr Furlong: I don’t have any oversight of particular cases that move through the tribunal side of the commission.
Senator ROBERTS: Would anyone else care to comment? It seems to me to be almost impossible; I won’t say it is impossible!
Mr Corcoran: I would say a member would always consider the views of the parties, but ultimately the member must be satisfied that the requirements of the act have been met.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have some questions for the minister; I think most of them will be pretty simple, Minister. I table this letter from the Independent Workers Union of Australia; it’s the letter that was sent to the CFMEU administrator, copied to you, me and Senator Cash. I think these questions will be fairly simple, given your background, Minister. Why is the CFMEU administrator not here at Senate estimates?
Senator Watt: They’re not a public official. I think pretty much every person who attends estimates is either a minister or a public servant. The administrator is not a public servant. There are probably other reasons but that would be one of them.
Senator ROBERTS: Who pays his salary?
Senator Watt: He’s being paid by the CFMEU in the same way that officials of the union have traditionally been paid.
Senator ROBERTS: That explains that. What responsibilities does the CFMEU administrator have with or to the Fair Work Commission? I imagine he’d have to deal with them a fair bit.
Senator Watt: Mr Furlong might be better placed.
Mr Furlong: Under the registered organisations act, I am the regulator of registered organisations.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re overseeing it?
Mr Furlong: I oversee all the registered organisations, employer and employee alike.
Senator ROBERTS: Could the CFMEU administrator authorise payment of the underpaid miners from the CFMEU mining division using CFMEU funds?
Mr Furlong: I can’t speak on behalf of the administrator. I don’t think you were here for this section of my evidence: the administrator operates independent of government. He will make decisions on behalf of the union as he sees fit.
Senator ROBERTS: Can he investigate wage theft from casual miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley?
Mr Furlong: In representing the interests of his members, he can look into the underpayments. It’s a core function of trade unions to do that.
Senator Watt: Noting that the administrator is the administrator of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU. To use the colloquial, his members are members of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU, not, for example, members of the maritime division and certainly not people who are now members of the Mining and Energy Union. His only responsibility is for the Construction and General Division, and its members.
Senator ROBERTS: The government said it needed the parliament to create the CFMEU administrator to deal with alleged CFMEU illegality and criminality, didn’t it—amongst other things?
Senator Watt: I might look back at what we said. We had a debate this morning about it. It’s not possible for me to go into the intention of the administration because of the High Court litigation. I’m sure you can look back at what was said in the second reading speech.
Senator ROBERTS: That was my impression, so correct me if I’m wrong. Now, management of this is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. You said it would be a matter of immense public importance.
Senator Watt: I think there has been a lot of public interest in this issue.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes—so wouldn’t it be better to have him subject to parliamentary scrutiny and Senate estimates?
Senator Watt: I’m looking around at our lawyers. I might get Ms Godden, the departmental chief counsel, back up, if that’s okay. I know departmental people don’t normally appear at the table for this. Senator Roberts, I don’t know if you were here this morning but we had a discussion about issues that we could answer questions on and issues that we couldn’t because they might involve the High Court case. I don’t want to say anything which will interfere with that, and I know you don’t want me to either. Could you ask the question again, so I can get some advice on whether I can answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is the government said it needed parliament to create the CFMEU administrator to deal with the alleged CFMEU illegality and criminality. Now the oversight of the CFMEU administrator is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and yet it was said to be a matter of immense public importance.
Senator Watt: I have no doubt it’s a matter of great public interest. I was saying before to Senator Payman that either the legislation or the scheme of administration requires the administrator to provide a report to me every six months, which I’m required to table in the parliament, so there is a form of parliamentary accountability through that. That was considered to be the appropriate amount of reporting for a role that is completely independent of government.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I know you’ve been very patient during the day, but this is—
Senator ROBERTS: Given a report in the media on 12 April this year—I mentioned this in a speech in the Senate, but there was no answer to it—is the real reason for the CFMEU being placed in administration to stop John Setka taking over Labor in Victoria, as he reported? And why wouldn’t constituents be suspicious of the arrangement?
Senator Watt: As I said in response to an earlier question, I’d really like to be able to answer that question but it’s probably not wise that I do given the High Court litigation.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.
Senator Watt: But I’m told you might want to have a look at paragraph 11 of the revised explanatory memorandum, which provides some reasoning for the legislation.
At the recent senate estimates in November, I spoke with Dr Antonio Di Dio, Director of Professional Review Services, asking why the current system was still biased against doctors. He denied this was the case, even though the agency maintains a 100% conviction rate of doctors in a system that does not allow merit appeals or the ability to challenge the facts used against a doctor.
Dr Di Dio conceded that the agency had not undergone a review, despite it being suggested many years ago during an inquiry. Senator Gallagher added that a review was unnecessary, asserting that the system was functioning well, despite evidence to the contrary.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS:Thank you. Thank you for being here. Annual reports of the PSR, directed to the health minister, make no attempt whatsoever to disguise the fact that PSR operates in part as a debt recovery system from doctors of Medicare funds. Given that admissions have earlier been made before Senate estimates that committees are not chaired by a judge, that merit review on appeal is not allowed, and that no cross-examination of the committee’s case ever occurs, why is it not reasonable to conclude that PSR operates similarly to a robodebt scheme for doctors, with doctors who’ve come before it having as little meaningful defence as did robodebt’s victims?
Dr Di Dio: That’s certainly not my view. When a practitioner is referred to PSR, a small minority of them are referred to a PSR committee. Last year it was 12 out of 109 referrals. When a practitioner appears before a PSR committee, the committee process is one in which peers interview and discuss with the practitioner under review whether or not, in their view, inappropriate practice has occurred. At every stage of that committee process, numerous times per day, the committee may say, ‘We have found preliminary concerns with this matter and invite your response.’ In other words, the entire process is made up of taking into account the practitioner’s response, over and over again. Furthermore, the practitioner, of course, is invited to bring their legal representative. In terms of a merits review, there is no formal merits review process as that term is commonly known. However, there are opportunities during and after the committee process to respond to the committee’s findings. For example, at the end of a committee, despite having opportunities to respond verbally all through the process, the practitioner under review also is invited, either themselves or through their legal representative, to make final comments about anything that has come up during the committee process. Furthermore, after the committee process is completed, there is a draft report issued by the committee to the practitioner under review, inviting comment and submissions to that draft report. So those committee findings are still deemed preliminary findings, because they are still awaiting further response and information from the practitioner under review.
Senator ROBERTS: That sounds wonderful, but it does not discuss the fact that the PSR’s case cannot be scrutinised in terms of evidence. You omit that. Why do you repeatedly omit that? Every time we come to Senate estimates, you omit that. That’s fundamental to justice.
Dr Di Dio: The PSR process is one in which, in order to elicit whether or not inappropriate practice has occurred, people’s medical records are reviewed.
Senator ROBERTS: But your data is not open to scrutiny; your case is not open to scrutiny. The facts cannot be disputed—cannot even be challenged.
Mr Topperwien: There are no facts found until the end of the committee process. There are no findings of fact until after the committee process, after all of the evidence has come in. Yes, the committee receives billing data from Medicare, but that’s open to inquiry and investigation as to how accurate that is, and that comes up often in hearings as to whether that data is accurate. And it’s open, then, for the practitioner to put on evidence to counter that data. And that happens regularly at committee hearings. The hearing is an investigation. It isn’t a prosecution. So the committee is inquiring into the information that the committee has already received in the way of the billing data and gets the patient records to see how they match up to what’s been billed as to whether the doctor has fulfilled their obligation to keep adequate and contemporaneous notes of what they did, and to then investigate, ‘What was this practitioner’s conduct in connection with the provision of these services?’ It’s only after they’ve conducted a full inquiry investigation, asked lots of questions, and looked at all of the evidence, that they then may find facts, which may show that the doctor has engaged in inappropriate conduct.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back. I don’t want an answer to this just yet, but I want to say that there has never been a comprehensive review of the process, despite a 2011 Senate inquiry saying there should be a comprehensive review within 12 months. So let me continue. Many of the annual reports of the PSR director, to the health minister, contain the assertion that the goals for care planning must accord with the acronym SMART, specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-based—notwithstanding that no explicit allusion to specific SMART goals appears in the care planning MBS descriptor. Given that, essentially, all doctors who appear before PSR committees who do care plans are found guilty, and given that merit review of the committee’s case is never allowed, how can the committee’s finding of all doctors’ care plans as being unacceptable be valid?
Mr Topperwien: The committee examines random samples, usually, of the practitioner’s care plans. The practitioners who are examining those are practitioners who themselves do care plans. They are experts in what the general body of their specialty or profession do in their practice. And the reality is the law requires adequate records to be kept, and care plans that are meaningful. And, quite often, the sorts of care plans that committees see are blank templates. There’s nothing in them other than the patient’s name with goals that are totally meaningless. And so those sorts of care plans are ones on which they will find, ‘This is not a care plan that’s adequate and of any use to this patient. It is not a clinically relevant service that’s been provided.’
Dr Di Dio: Senator, if it helps, I do care plans every couple of weeks in my practice. I could take you through what one should like. But I think what you really want to know is: this is a peer review scheme, and so what the people on committees determine is what the general body of peers would be considering is appropriate or not.
Senator ROBERTS: This is an apparent peer review scheme, but it’s not. You claimed in the past that it is peer reviewed, and we’ve given examples where it’s not. Your predecessor, I think, offered to have a conversation with me—on the basis that it was not to discuss a specific doctor’s case; he made that clear. I accepted that offer straightaway, and I said, ‘That’s no problem at all.’ Soon after, he left. So we’ve never had that. Would you be willing to give us a briefing and have an exchange on that?
Dr Di Dio: I think you’ll find that the person who had that conversation with you was me, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: No, it wasn’t.
Dr Di Dio: Right. Well, Senator, I can further discuss—
Senator ROBERTS: Are you willing to have a meeting with us and give us a briefing?
Dr Di Dio: Senator, in order for me to do that, I need to get the appropriate permissions from my own minister, but, should that be the case, I would be very pleased to discuss with you or anybody else how the PSR system works—on the condition, of course, that it does not discuss any particular case or any particular practitioner. I can refer to some correspondence that I’ve had with you about this in the past, if you wish.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Dr Di Dio: We most recently corresponded with you on 21 March of this year and confirmed that we’d offered to meet with you in the context of providing general information about the PSR scheme and would happily provide that general information, and additionally on any questions you may have on procedural fairness. We said the discussion would not be able to include any specific matter or case before us and that I was not able to meet with any other person being reviewed or their legal representative or anyone else.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that still apply?
Dr Di Dio: Well, yes, because—
Senator ROBERTS: Good. Okay, let’s accept it, and we’ll set up a date.
Dr Di Dio: Well, nice to hear back from you, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Good. Many doctors, and all the medical defence organisations, complain emphatically that committees routinely make up rules in passing their judgement. Why is this not solid evidence of dysfunction, injustice and systemic injustice?
Dr Di Dio: I meet regularly with the medical defence organisations, most recently less than two weeks ago, and I present regularly to thousands of doctors in toto, various colleges and representative groups. That is not the impression that I get, talking to hundreds of doctors around the country. We attempt to do what we exist to do, which is to protect the Commonwealth from paying from inappropriate health care and to protect citizens from potential harms from inappropriate health care through a process that we consider to be as fair as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: And we applaud that. We just want procedural fairness and justice. Minister, when will this government review this broken system? It’s got to be changed.
Senator Gallagher: Well, I don’t accept that it is broken, Senator Roberts. That’s your assertion. The department provides advice to the minister about the operations of all parts of the health portfolio, and we are very confident in the processes and the leadership that’s being provided through the Professional Services Review system.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s been no review since the 2011 Senate inquiry saying there should be a comprehensive review within 12 months—no review. Clearly, it was a problem back then.
Ms Shakespeare: Senator, there have been reviews of aspects of the PSR scheme on several occasions since then. I am happy to—
Senator ROBERTS: Could I have, on notice, those reviews and the dates, please, and the topics and the scope?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/3gQ2vzRnzRs/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-01-23 17:44:002025-01-23 17:46:22Doctors Versus The System
Coal-fired power stations and nuclear power stations each have about 40 hectares of footprint, with a very narrow target transmission lines straight to the cities. In contrast, solar and wind installations are scattered and located away from the main cities, taking up enormous amounts of space. Their energy density is very low, requiring a vast amount of land to produce the same power, and they aren’t on consistently. This increases transmission costs and the amount of land that regions must devote to solar, wind, and now batteries, causing significant angst.
Around the world, every country that has increased the proportion of solar and wind has also increased the cost of electricity for consumers and destroyed their manufacturing base. For example, look at Germany.
A surface coalmine must pay a bond for every hectare uncovered each year, and if it is rehabilitated properly to a superior standard than it was originally, they get their money back. However, there is no such bond for solar and wind companies to set aside funds for decommissioning their complexes at the end of their life. This needs to change!
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Your predecessor said, ‘Australia’s random renewable energy push needs to be overhauled and a nationwide stocktake is required to determine what should be built and where it should go.’ Are you committed to that overall overhaul?
Mr Sheldon: That is an observation or recommendation made by Mr Dyer, and I think that’s been built into the review that Mr Duggan has just been talking about. So all those action plans and so on are designed to ensure—
Senator ROBERTS: When’s that coming out? I’m sorry, I missed it.
Mr Duggan: The action plan has been agreed by the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council, so that’s now a public document. So we’re in the process now of implementing. The full response to the review was published on 19 July.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So that’s been included in their recommendations?
Mr Duggan: Yes, that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Dyer also said, ‘The sort of granular planning required for a once in a generation transformation to secure the nation’s energy supply still had not happened.’ Is that now in the report as well— granular planning?
Mr Duggan: Yes, this was a recommendation to governments. As you would know, a lot of the detail, the specific planning around land use and specific locations of related transmission, sits with the state governments and involves a very big input from the local governments. So a lot of the argumentation around that recommendation was to point to some of the best practice that already exists and to encourage that to be taken up by the other states and territories.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s a lot of pain in the regions now, because they’re bearing the brunt of solar and wind disturbances.
Mr Duggan: What the report highlighted was that, certainly where best practice is not happening, there was an opportunity to improve the way projects are being delivered to the betterment of communities. That’s absolutely correct.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems like it’s hell for leather, just do whatever you want. And there’s a lot of cash flying around, which is inducing councils to bypass some of their own ordinances, as we understand it.
Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, the government inherited the last government’s framework and commissioned Mr Dyer to do this report because it’s in the interests of rural and regional communities and of an effective rollout of generation and transmission capability that we improve the governance and consultation processes and all of the things that are included in Mr Dyer’s report. That’s what’s motivated the government to commission this report. On those nine recommendations, I think Mr Duggan said three of them are directed towards the Commonwealth, because there are multiple participants in this process, but they have, essentially, all been adopted. It’s our job now to operationalise that effectively in a way that addresses, I think, many of the issues that you raise.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that, Minister. Are you aware that a coal-fired power station and a nuclear power station have about 40 hectares of footprint, and that’s it, and a very narrow target transmission corridor straight to the main users, which are the cities and the provincial cities? Solar and wind are scattered and away from the main cities and they take up enormous room. Their energy density is very low, which means that you need an enormous amount of land to produce the same power. And even then you can’t produce it regularly. So that increases transmission costs, and the amount of land the regions are devoting to solar, wind and transmission, and also now to batteries. It’s causing a lot of angst. Are you aware of that?
Senator Ayres: I’m certainly aware, on one hand, that, with the processes for approval and consultation with these projects, we were operating with the last government’s processes, and we are working to improve those. I’m also aware that you’re trying to make a broader point, I guess, about the merit or otherwise of the approach that is being taken by the government and the states and Commonwealth in terms of building an energy system for the future. I appreciate that you’re not one of the coalition MPs here, but I think it’s hard to make an argument about community consultation on one hand, and then do a press release that says: ‘We’re going to turn up with seven nuclear reactors in your neighbourhood, whether you like it or not. We’re not going to tell you how much they cost, or how many of them we’re going to build—but, Muswellbrook, here you go, whether you like it or not, a nuclear reactor’—
Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you. A coal-fired power station would be fine—
Senator Ayres: That will be very expensive. What we know, and I think the evidence that you’ve heard today shows—and I understand you don’t agree with it; I think you’ve demonstrated over time that you are impervious to the facts and evidence that are provided by the agencies—
Senator ROBERTS: I do the contrary, Minister. I love evidence.
Senator Ayres: That’s your right, I understand that. But the shift to the cheapest form of energy is what the government is interested in here. Claims are made—some of them very wild claims, and some of them somewhere between misinformation and disinformation—about the scale of land that is required for these projects. I understand that people make those claims and some people retweet them and repost them—pretty irresponsible in my view. But we have commissioned the Dyer report for a reason; that is, to improve the processes. The minister believes, and the government believes, that adopting those, together with the appointment of Mr Mahar and other steps that the government is undertaking, will improve the effectiveness of the consultation process as we get on with one of the most important nation building things that government can do, and that is to deliver the lowest cost, most reliable energy system as we upgrade our energy system so that we can have manufacturing jobs and low cost, reliable, renewable energy and storage for households and business into the future. It’s a decades-long pathway and we’re determined to do it in the most efficient way possible for the Australian people.
Senator ROBERTS: There are two things I would remind you of, Minister. One is that the energy density drives the cost, and physics does not change the very low energy density of solar and wind, whereas coal and especially nuclear are very high energy density. The second thing is that, everywhere around the world, every country that has increased the proportion of solar wind, has increased the cost of electricity for consumers and destroyed their manufacturing base. Have a look at Germany. Something that Mr Dyer was very passionate about was rehabilitation bonds, so that these wind and solar companies have put money away for decommissioning the complexes at the end of life. A surface coalmine has to pay a bond for every hectare uncovered each year, and then, at the end of the life of the mine, if it’s rehabilitated properly, to a superior standard than it was originally, they get their money back. There is no bond for solar and wind. What work have you done on putting reforms to government that would ensure there is money put away to clean up the environment, not just leave a toxic wasteland? Specifically, what have you done with the government?
Mr Sheldon: Can I just clarify that question? Is it: what work has the AEIC done to raise that issue with government?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Sheldon: I think Mr Dyer raised that. It was in his annual report in 2022 that he raised this issue about performance bonds in relation to wind farms in particular.
Senator ROBERTS: And what work has been done in following up?
Mr Sheldon: It’s certainly one of those issues that does get raised with us. It’s not in the top 10 or so issues that are raised with us in the complaints that we receive. We’re like a small ombudsman. We receive complaints. It’s an issue that does get raised. During the time that I’ve been in the role, from 2 April this year, it has been raised a few times, but it’s certainly not the top issue. In terms of what is happening, I think since 2022, when Mr Dyer raised the issue, what I’ve observed in the time that I’ve been in the role is that, in different jurisdictions, there’s certainly work done to increase transparency. One of our roles, I guess, in the AEIC is to promote more transparency around these projects.
Senator ROBERTS: What, specifically, have you done?
Mr Sheldon: It’s not our role to implement policy. We’ve identified issues and we certainly monitor them. New South Wales, for example, has recently worked on its renewable energy plan, which includes standard clauses and so on around the landholders in relation to this sort of issue. We’re monitoring that, but we don’t have responsibility for implementing it, as a complaint handling body. If we identify good examples, we’ll identify them as part of our role.
Senator ROBERTS: So what are you doing, specifically, to make sure that the bonds come into place?
Mr Sheldon: We don’t have a role to implement putting that in place. It’s certainly something we can raise as an issue. We have a range of mechanisms to do that. One of them is the annual report, which, obviously, comes out every year, on a calendar year basis. And part of what’s always been appended to that annual report is a series of observations that have really been built on the observations of the commissioner over many years—which is where the observation was made in 2022. That’s a place where we can raise that with officials that do have policy responsibility for these sorts of matters. That’s generally how we do it. We also have a website where we would raise things. We have reporting obligations to the minister. So, if we identify an issue, we obviously include that in our observations or reports.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, can I ask if you have much more to go? We’re running terribly behind.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to make a comment to the minister. Minister, this is a comment, but there’s no reflection on the people at the table with you right now, because they’re interim—well, you’re not in interim, but Mr Dyer was a thorough professional—
Senator Ayres: We’re all interim in one sense or another, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Dyer was a thorough professional, who did his job extremely well. We happily endorsed him in Senate estimates. He was effectively an ombudsman, and a very good one.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/QF7b9AHNXWQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-01-23 16:38:292025-01-23 17:43:27Renewable Energy: Land Use and Cost Concerns
