Grilling Climate Change at Senate Estimates

, ,

Senate Estimates is a great chance for me to grill these climate agencies and get very specific about the evidence that they base their policies on.

This year, we saw yet again that they love to duck and weave, but won’t actually provide me with the evidence. I talked about this on Marcus Paul last week.

Senate Estimates Sessions: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/category/senate-estimates/march-2021/

Transcript

[Announcer] Now on “Marcus Paul in the Morning” Senator Malcolm Roberts.

[Marcus] All right, 17 minutes away from eight o’clock. Good day, Malcolm. How are you, mate?

[Malcolm] I’m very well, thanks, Marcus. How are you?

[Marcus] Good, good, good. Now I see, you’ve got the Bureau of Meteorology, and also Malcolm Turnbull, and also the CSIRO in your sights this morning. Who do you want to pick on first?

[Malcolm] Let’s go with the CSIRO.

[Marcus] All right. What do you have to say about them? Of course, this argument about renewables costing us, what, 13 billion bucks a year or $1,300 per household.

[Malcolm] That’s in addition to the electricity bill, that’s the additional cost per household, $1,300. Marcus, there’s some really simple figures to understand. The median income in Australia is $49,000, so after tax, what’s that, 30 something?

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] The chief executive of the CSIRO is paid a total per year, every year of $1,049,000.

[Marcus] Not bad.

[Malcolm] The group executive in charge of overseeing the climate area, the climate research, is on $613,000, more than the Prime Minister of Australia.

[Marcus] Yeah, not bad.

[Malcolm] I put to them very basic questions about their so-called science, they refused to answer. These were the first time that I had asked questions about these pieces of information that they gave to me last Senate estimates. I’ve never had an opportunity to ask them questions before about this. This is the first time. They refused to answer. The basic things were that they gave me five new references, in senate estimates in October, I asked them questions about this.

They refused to answer. They refused to answer a representative of the people. And the papers that they provided to me, Kaufman 2020, for example, this is the sort of crap that CSIRO dishes up, when the authors of that paper input their data on climate into their calculations, they omitted the first data point and put it in in reverse order, complete false. The second reference they gave me directly contradicts the claims that the CSIRO says that it’s supposed to be supporting.

The third reference said they made conclusions on one data point, and they took it out of context and went against the CSIRO’s own advice to me last October. So what I’m saying to you is we are paying someone $1,049,000 a year, we’re paying someone else $613,000 a year, people in Australia cannot afford this nonsense, and now we’ve got no evidence whatsoever.

The CSIRO has admitted that they have never said to any politician that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger to our planet. That’s what politicians are saying. Why is this, Marcus, people are paying dearly for destroying manufacturing all because of this rubbish?

[Marcus] All right, now tell me about the Bureau of Meteorology.

[Malcolm] Well, here we go again, another government bureaucracy that’s claiming about climate. When they measure data, temperature, rainfall, et cetera, at a weather station, they also have metadata about the weather station that tells you, for example, how many times a station has been moved, because when it moves, it can have an effect on temperature and other recording devices. Townsville has been moved eight times.

The Bureau of Meteorology’s metadata says it’s been moved once. Metadata as well at Rockhampton moved four times, the Bureau says it’s been moved once. Cairns moved six times, the Bureau says it’s been moved twice. Charleville been moved four times, the Bureau says twice. The Bureau of Meteorology and its own peer reviewers fail to detect and discuss these glaring inaccuracies.

How can we rely on the Bureau of Meteorology which says temperatures are increasing, but they haven’t increased since 1995 globally, which is about almost 30 years, and our temperatures today are lower than in the 1880s and 1890s in Australia. I mean, we’re being fed this nonsense, people are paying for it, it’s destroying our manufacturing capacity all because of atrocious governments and people won’t hold these people accountable.

[Marcus] Well, there are some grave consequences, as you say, for these glaring errors and policies devised on numbers that are given by the Bureau of Meteorology, along with the CSIRO. So there we go, I’m glad we got you there asking these hard questions, Malcolm, but you don’t seem to get much support from those that are in power.

[Malcolm] That’s a really good point.

[Marcus] Why don’t you?

[Malcolm] Angus Taylor is the Minister for Energy.

[Marcus] Yes.

[Malcolm] He admits now, two or three weeks ago he admitted that he is afraid, he’s scared of what’s happening, with our reliability of power supply, security of power supply, the cost of power. He’s admitted all this. I know for a fact, in conversations with Angus Taylor, that he’s a sceptic about us affecting the climate, but he is peddling this nonsense.

Mark Butler, the former spokesman from the Labour Party, I’ve challenged him to a debate, ran away from me. I challenged The Greens 10 and a half years ago, and every day since I’ve been in the Senate, sorry, almost weekly since I’ve been in the Senate this time they’ve failed to provide the evidence.

There’s just a whole lot of groupthink. I wrote to about 20 MPS in senior positions, Labour, Liberal, National, and Greens, not one of them was able to provide me with any evidence that we have to have these policies, not one.

[Marcus] Now let’s move to Malcolm Turnbull. Hang on, there, Malcolm Turnbull, of course, former Prime Minister of Australia, claims that the demand for coal is declining, but no one has told Africa they’re building 1,250 more coal plants by the year 2030. Mines are devastating the landscape in the Hunter Valley. Well, is that true?

Reportedly more about his opposition perhaps to the Mount Pleasant coal mine and the extension plan for it which happens to be near Malcolm Turnbull’s own interest including a grazing property. The mining industry is shortening lives by reducing air quality, and taxpayers, of course, you say are left with huge environmental remediation bills covered by mining bonds. Now last week, I don’t know what was going on in the New South Wales government with the Liberals and Nationals appointing Malcolm Turnbull to this role.

You know, zero net emissions by 2050, we had Matt Kean at the centre of it all, and for some reason, somehow both John Barilaro and the Premier of New South Wales went along with this. There were a couple of dissenting voices, but Malcolm was apparently tipped to take this job. Then there was a massive back flip whether it came from pressure from the media or from One Nation’s Mark Latham. I’m not sure. I think it’s a mix of all of those.

[Malcolm] I think you’re right. Malcolm Turnbull has a lot of personal interests, of benefit to him and his family, from pushing their renewables bandwagon. He’s got no evidence, never has had any evidence for pushing their renewables. He’s got no evidence for having to shut down coal mines. And he himself attributed the dumping of his new job to Mark Latham and the right-wing media, but you know, that’s typical Malcolm Turnbull. He can’t look at his own policy and he can’t look at himself, and he’s become a pariah.

[Marcus] Yeah, look, I understand what you’re saying, I get that, but let’s be honest, he’s half right.

[Malcolm] In what way?

[Marcus] Well, of course, he’s right.

[Malcolm] In what way?

[Marcus] Well, until people down the road from us 2GB and the Telegraph and a few others started jumping up and down about it this was gonna go through. I mean, I would tend to think that unless there was a by-election just around the corner in the upper Hunter, perhaps this bloke, Malcolm Turnbull, might’ve gone on.

[Malcolm] Well, I’m not gonna argue with that, I think that you’re making some pretty good comments, but Malcolm Turnbull himself blamed Mark Latham for standing up and speaking the truth. That’s the pressure that Mark brings. Mark’s a very good speaker, he gets his facts and he went straight into bat. Barilaro and Berejiklian are the ones. How could they possibly sign off on this man, Turnbull, being put in this position? But think about this, Marcus.

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] Australia’s total electricity coal-fired power station capacity in this country was 25.2 gigawatts in 2017. So it’s less than that now with the closure of a couple of coal-fired power stations in Victoria, it’s less than that. China alone opened 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired plants last year alone, so almost double what our total capacity is. The world has opened up 50.3 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity last year alone. India is opening up on average around 17 gigawatts. India itself and China are opening up combined about three times our total capacity of coal-fired power stations.

[Marcus] And the argument, of course, is, Malcolm, I do need to go, the argument, of course, is that if they don’t get our coal, they’ll get it from elsewhere.

[Malcolm] Correct.

[Marcus] Yeah, all right, mate, thank you for coming on. I appreciate it.

[Malcolm] Okay, mate, you’re welcome.

[Marcus] Talk soon.

[Malcolm] See you, Marcus.

[Marcus] See you, mate. Bye-bye. There he is, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. Of course, David Lazell…

/by

What is APRA doing about anti-competitive banks? Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Senate Estimates

, ,

De-banking is the process of blocking a certain person or business from having accounts at banks. Banking is central to everything we do. If a person or business is de-banked, they are essentially shut out from society. The banks claim that they have de-banked certain businesses based on their money laundering risk, but anti-money laundering enforcers AUSTRAC have said that no one should be de-banked based on this.

Digging a bit further we find that many of the business being de-banked; bullion dealers, third party ATM operators, cryptocurrency exchanges and cash transport; we realise that many of these are direct competitors to the banks. Something smells fishy to me here. APRA needs to do a better job of investigating and not just take the banks word for it.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts] Thank you all for attending today. Last October, I raised with you the issue of de-banking and use the case of Paul Thomas’ cash in transit business commander security and AUSTRAC and AML compliant organisation that had their business accounts closed by Westpac and then was refused business banking across the whole banking sector, Wayne Byers, chair, you promised to look at it, look into it, two weeks after estimates, Westpac gave notice that they were now closing his personal account with St. George bank, which he’d had for 30 years. A joint account, they’re also closing his joint account he has with the business partner and ending withdrawal rights he has on a major, on a joint venture, sorry a joint mortgage account he has with a relative. Did you look into his case, as you said?

[Witness] So I think the issue is one in which you have a bank that has been found to not be adhering to its AML responsibilities. The bank has therefore looked very closely at it’s frameworks, it’s standards, its controls around detecting and preventing anti money laundering and has made some decisions about whether it thinks customers, including, probably the case you’re referring to, but, can be safely banked and allow the bank to satisfy itself that it is meeting its obligations and they have come to the decision that is a customer that they don’t think they can meet those obligations.

[Senator Roberts] He’s AML compliant.

[Witness] Yeah. I can only tell you that’s their decision.

[Senator Roberts] So it looks like Westpac really got him, well and truly. Now all banks use the same risk management company. Being de-banked by one bank means being de-banked by all the banks, even the Coba banks. So what is this man Paul supposed to do now? His customers need him to resupply their non-bank ATM’s in clubs and pubs. Where is the appeal mechanism in these de-banking cases? Who do they turn to? We’re seeing a bank competitor here being de-banked. Wiping out a competitor.

[Witness] So I’m not sure if your reference, Senator, to all banks use the same risk management company?

[Senator Roberts] Same, same company that assesses their risk for money laundering and so on.

[Witness] I think there’s more than one and, and ultimately it’s an individual bank’s responsibility. It can’t outsource that responsibility. Yes there are suppliers of systems that help banks do that, but there’s more than one. So it’s a difficult, it is a difficult question. And I don’t pretend, I don’t pretend that there’s an easy answer to it. But banks do have their obligations, they have to adhere to them. And they do need to, and it’s quite clear there will be significant penalties if they do not.

[Senator Roberts] And APRA has its responsibilities too because these banks are shutting down whole industries potentially.

[Witness] Yes, but in this particular case where we’re dealing with a bank that is seeking to comply with the law that’s administered by another agency, it’s difficult for us to intervene in that issue.

[Senator Roberts] Well AFCA refused to hear these cases. They don’t hear anti money laundering cases. So I wanted to discuss this issue with AFCA at estimates, but they refuse to attend estimates. The concept of anti money laundering, sorry, the concept of being held accountable for their actions was too much for them to handle apparently so I repeat my question. What do these businesses and their employees do now?

[Witness] I don’t have a, I don’t have a, an answer to that question other than to, other than to try and seek to understand what are the issues of the nature of the business that has caused the concern.

[Senator Roberts] Could, could my office contact yours?

[Witness] Yeah Absolutely.

[Senator Roberts] When I look through the company–

[Chair] Senator Roberts needs to be the last question.

[Senator Roberts] When I looked through the companies that are being de-banked, I see their competitors of the banks, remittance companies, Bitcoin and digital currency vendors, gold bullion dealers, cash handling companies that supply non-bank ATM’s with cash. Why is APRA allowing the banks to increase their market power by de-banking their customers?

[Witness] Well, it’s not, we’re not allowing banks to do, or disallowing banks from doing anything. The issue that is at the heart of this, and as you say, it’s not just this particular company, but it’s remittance services and other things is the potential for cash transactions, or transaction sorry, to be occurring anonymously. And that make it difficult therefore for the banks to satisfy their obligations to AUSTRAC and therefore they have to make a business decision about whether they wish to bear that risk. And in many cases, in the light of the experience of two major banks who’ve had very large penalties levied on them. Clearly they are making sure they are compliant with the law.

[Witness] Senator can I just add one little one.

[Chair] Very, very quickly.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you, chair. Even Paul, Jeff Devic at AUSTRAC has said don’t de-bank these people in the name of AUSTRAC. If this is in response to AML legislation, why have you not asked treasury to review that legislation to correct this unintended consequence? And isn’t this unconscionable conduct?

[Witness] Well senator, we can comment on what’s in our purview. And as the chair has indicated, we don’t make directions for banks to have particular customers or not have particular customers but they do have to adhere to the laws that abide all entities.

[Senator Roberts] Isn’t it unconscionable conduct to wipe out a competing industry?

[Witness] Well unconscionable conduct is an issue for ASIC, not for APRA.

[Chair] We do need to move on Senator Roberts.

/by

How much does the U.N. cost Australia? DFAT at Senate Estimates

, ,

SIMPLE QUESTION: HOW MUCH DOES THE U.N. COST AUSTRALIA?

I could not believe no one in government could give me a total cost on what we pay to the UN, its subsidiaries and how much we spend in complying with their dictates.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts] And thank you all for attending today. My questions are about the United Nations. So I don’t know who will answer those questions. In total, how much does Australia pay to the United Nations or subsidiaries each year, in dollar terms? Do we need to take that on notice?

[Minister Payne] No, I don’t think we do, I think someone’s coming down from upstairs. We will unfortunately get into questions of definition about which subsidiary agencies and all the rest of it, we may need to… in order to give a completely comprehensive answer, we may need to take it on notice, that there’ll be a number of things that we can say that are general level that I hope will be what you’re after Senator.

[Senator Roberts] I’m after a comprehensive level, yeah.

[Minister Payne] Well if you need comprehensive Senator, I’ll ask officials to do their best at the table.

[Senator Roberts] Yes.

And then if parts of it needs to be taken on notice, we’ll return to the committee.

[Senator Roberts] Of course. – Thank you.

[Justin Lee] Thank you, Senator. Apologies. I just had to come down the stairs. Justin Lee, first assistant secretary multilateral policy division. Senator, can I just ask you to repeat the question?

[Senator Roberts] Yes. In total, how much does Australia pay to the United Nations, or its subsidiaries, each year, in dollar terms?

[Justin Lee] Thank you, Senator. The key contribution that Australia makes is our assessed contribution to the United Nations and that’s based upon the size of Australia’s economy. Australia contributes 2.21% to the UN regular budget.

[Chair] The question was in dollar terms.

[Justin Lee] Yes. And that equates to, in 2021, around $82.2 million, is our assessed contribution to the UN. We also make other contributions for example, to UN peacekeeping. And that is also based on an assessed contribution to the United Nations. And in 2019/20, which was the last year, we had a figure out for that. Australia provided $212 million in assessed contributions to support UN peacekeeping missions. Senator that is not the total of course though, of our contribution to the United Nations. And I don’t have a figure because that is provided by a range of contributions that may be made through the development corporation programme. It may be made through contributions to UN specialised agencies. They would be looked after by other Australian government agencies as well. So getting the total contribution that Australia makes to the UN, and all of the subsidiary agencies, requires a collation of data from across government, which we don’t have.

[Senator Roberts] I’ll be happy to take that on notice. Thank you. This is a very important issue for our constituents because they’re concerned at the cost and the impact on the country. The next one is along the same vein. In total, how much does it cost Australia to comply with, or to implement, UN dictates in the form of various forms, treaties, agreements declarations, protocols that are expected of the UN members?

[Justin Lee] Thank you, Senator. I don’t think that we would be able to provide a figure on that because if Australia, Australia of course seeks to adhere to its international obligations, including treaty reporting processes, a lot of that would be the responsibility of Australian government agencies and, and to to calculate that, you would need to look at the the staff costs, the time costs. Sorry, I, I… I just don’t think that we would have that figure or be able to collect a figure, on implementation of international obligations in that, in the way that you portray it.

[Senator Roberts] It would be. Thank you for your openness. It would be enormous. I’m thinking of the compliance with the UN Kyoto protocol. That’s cost a lot of farmers to lose their property rights. That’s been estimated by some people to be either a 100 or $200 billion. So it’s rubbery but it’s a difficult thing. Compliance with the water act, which puts compliance with international obligations as it’s, one of its primary aims, right through. Compliance with the UN Paris agreement, particularly when other nations don’t have to wreck their economy to comply because their goals are so easy. So manufacturing the UN Lima agreement, a declaration from 1975 and the governance impacts from the UN Rio declaration in 1992. So just take it, but I am. I am wondering if anyone has figured out the cost to this country in dollar terms, the cost to our economy the cost to a loss of our governance and sovereignty.

[Justin Lee] Senator, I think the only other way to portray it though is the, is the benefits that, that Australia gets from these arrangements and these agreements.

[Chair] With respect, I understand that but this isn’t the forum for arguing somebody seeking costs. And if somebody else wants to ask a question about the benefits, then that’s up to them. But time is very limited. I’m sorry.

[Senator Roberts] So that, that leads to my third question which is given the globalist approach of the UN, what value is there for Australia to constantly pay out money directly and at huge indirect cost to our governance and our economy?

[Justin Lee] Oh, well, I think the answer to that would be the benefits that we get from those, those arrangements, both in terms of having, having rules that are that guide many things that, that guide the Australian economy. If we look for example, all the work that we have been doing around rules that guide international aviation, international shipping, telecommunications, all of those rules are set by the United Nations. That means that we’ve got a global economy that we can participate in that sets equal rules between countries which Australia is a, is an open trading economy and an economy of our size can, can benefit from. Similarly, we have international organisations dealing with global challenges. So the roles that the WHO is playing in response to COVID. Dealing with, dealing with those challenges that we want addressed in the world, by making contributions to those, we get benefit from that. So we appreciate that there are costs, both direct costs and obligations that Australia has to adhere but we also get a number of very significant benefits.

[Senator Roberts] And I’d put it to you that the benefits, for example in aviation, they could be done by a country hosting the other countries of the world to come up with a convention on that. So that doesn’t have to come from the UN. And we’ve shown that in the history of our planet. What would it mean to Australia, if Australia chose to withdraw from the United Nations? If we exited.

[Minister Payne] Senator, I can assure you that there is no consideration of that, that our engagement in the international system, and indeed Australia’s security and prosperity has been underpinned for a very long time, by what is known as the rules-based international order in the institutions that were created to support that. What we have seen in the last 12 months, frankly, the impact of COVID around the world. We’ve seen what happens when those systems can click into gear. And can support the countries and the communities that need them. The international cooperation that we have through those UN agencies and organisations is very important to that management. COVID-19, as I was saying, has really exposed the magnitude of the consequences if those global institutions are not working as well as they should, that does not mean, and I think the prime minister and you, have probably engaged on this before. It does not mean, as the prime minister said in his Lowy speech last year. He said, ‘We can’t be an indifferent bystander to these events that impact our livelihoods, our safety and our sovereignty. We must, as we have done previously, cultivate, marshal and bring our influence to bear to protect and promote our national interests.’ So what we seek, is an international system that respects the unique characteristics of individual states within it. In our case, Australia. That still provides a framework for cooperation on security and prosperity. Mr. Lee, Dr. Lee has advanced international aviation I think, if I was, if I was hearing correctly as a, as an example of that, but there are countless others, Senator, where we understand that working cooperatively with others is an important part of our national interest. It’s in our national interest, it allows us to pursue shared regional and global objectives. And it is a centrepiece of our international engagement. Now, we did a lot of work on this last year, a lot of work. And that has crystallised and firmed the government’s views on these matters.

[Senator Roberts] Well, thank you and I respect your right to have an opinion. I also have a different opinion.

[Minister Payne] As I do yours, Senator.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you. I know you’ve shown that in the past.

[Minister Payne] We’re in a very good democracy. Sorry. I took some of those minutes. My apologies.

[Senator Roberts] I do acknowledge the prime minister said, I think these words, on the 3rd of October, 2019 when he addressed the Lowy Institute in Sydney, ‘Unaccountable’ he spoke of, ‘The unaccountable internationalist bureaucrats or bureaucracies.’ I think those were the words. And then promptly gave, advocated to give World Health Organisation more power. I would argue with you about the World Health Organization’s benefits, because I think it contributed to the rampant spread of COVID, but nonetheless. How many funding arrangements between Australia and the UN are open-ended?

[Justin Lee] I, I’m not…

[Senator Roberts] They get ratcheted up automatically, or they’re they haven’t got a closing date.

[Justin Lee] Yes. I, I’ll try to take that on notice. But my, my initial reaction would be that we would have no open-ended commitments, or any commitment that we make would be on the basis of an agreement or an understanding. But I can take that on notice.

[Senator Roberts] I think there is some updates to our laws or our requirements, or our commitments that are made automatically if the UN document or protocol is, is changed. Are you aware of any of those?

[Justin Lee] You could be, I’m not sure Senator, you could be referring to what I mentioned earlier, which was our assessed contribution. And there is a committee that looks at our assessed contributions and adjusts that contribution according to changes and our national circumstances, our size of our economy, debt ratios and the like in comparison to other countries. That is still part of a committee which we participate in. But ultimately we would abide by the finding of that committee and at the end of that process. So there is that sort of process. And that was what I was referring to earlier about the calculation about assessing.

[Senator Roberts] It may be, I’ll finish up now, but it may be in the human rights area. Or the rights of the child area, where changes in the UN requirements are automatically fed through to us and we have to comply with them. So that may be something to consider, but I believe that’s the case.

[Justin Lee] I can take that on notice.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you, if you could. And, you know, from my, my questioning. I really question the need to stay in the UN and the advantage to this country because of the governance impact on our country, the sovereignty impact on a country and the economic impacts on a country. So, you know, I recognise and acknowledge that this country’s current government is not thinking about exiting the UN, but we certainly are. So a lot of our constituents want to.

[Minister Payne] Senator, can I also say, I understand the reform issues you’ve raised and we are strong supporters of the reform processes that have been underway in the UN and acknowledged, more to do. And I did raise that with the secretary general last week, in a conversation on a number of regional issues. But also in passing on the year-end reform questions.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you very much.

/3 Comments/by

Should we let bad banks keeps abusing virtual AGMs? Australian Securities and Investments Commission at Senate Estimates

, ,

Annual General Meetings of large companies have almost always been held physically. This changed with COVID when the use of Virtual AGMs was authorised. Virtual AGMs were necessary when the country was plagued by lockdowns, but now as restrictions ease big companies such as banks are desperately trying to hold on to them.

Virtual AGMs allow the big banks to shut down investor questions and avoid scrutiny on important topics like the huge salary bonuses of top executives. AGMs that used to take an entire day because of questions from investors are now being sailed through in just a couple of hours.

I believe in the free market and to have that we must have confidence in the stock market. Physical attendance at AGMs for those investors that want it is a fundamental part of maintaining that confidence in the stock market and the companies in it.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts] And thank you all for attending today. The corporation’s coronavirus economic response determination number three, 2020, provided the basis for virtual AGMs. ASIC have replaced that determination, which expired this week with order 21-056 MR, which takes a no action position on virtual AGMs. Does this mean that corporations can run a virtual AGM with no restrictions coming from ASIC?

[Commissioner Melina] Senator, hopefully I can help you with that. In relation to this, there is a bill that parliament is considering about a full-time permanent change to the law to allow virtual AGMs, but that bill is still in committee and being considered.

[Senator Roberts] That was the rule of the Senate to extend it.

[Commissioner Melina] Yes, exactly, exactly. So in light of the fact that the pandemic, whilst we’ve operated very effectively nationally in the pandemic, but there is still some uncertainties about the pandemic for companies whose balance dates, for example, after December 31, this year, they have five months to have their AGM. In light of that fact, we think that it is reasonable given that there are still some restrictions of movements for companies to temporarily, until we hear, and it is temporary, but until we hear how parliament intends to pursue that matter, have an opportunity to, if they need to hold a virtual AGM to comply with various restrictions, wherever they may be located. Now, it is only a no action position. We don’t have the power to amend the law in this area or make any more permanent situation. But we are intending to give guidance to companies about what’s important. If they do need to take advantage of having a virtual AGM to ensure really the safety of their shareholders, their employees, and their staff. We are working to ensure that we give enough guidance about what’s necessary, so that people have an opportunity to ask questions of the chairs.

[Senator Roberts] So you’re saying this is temporary.

[Commissioner Melina] Temporary, absolutely.

[Senator Roberts] When will it expire?

[Commissioner Melina] We intend to revisit it once we, one, if the pandemic conditions change dramatically and two, once we hear more how the Senate and the parliament are considering this particular issue.

[Senator Roberts] So why couldn’t you’ve extended it until September 30th?

[Commissioner Melina]Well, we weren’t feeling comfortable about doing that because we were, my understanding and please correct me because I’m not so familiar with parliamentary time-tabling but my understanding was it’s possible that this bill could be determined before then. I understand the committee that is considering it is due to report at the end of June. So we did want to take our lead from the decisions of parliament. We’re not interested at all in-

[Senator Roberts] So the intent is temporary, but there’s no deadline.

[Commissioner Melina] And we could announce in a month or two, you know, it’s no longer applicable, but we want to give companies the opportunity to plan. These events do require a bit of logistics.

[Senator Roberts] Were you happy with the outcome of the trial of virtual AGMs?

[Commissioner Melina] Generally, there were some instances where we received complaints about how those, on some occasions, how questions were dealt with, but generally we were reasonably happy, and we’re able to go back and talk to chairs and companies about the particular issues.

[Commissioner] Senator, I just wanted to emphasise what Commissioner Melena just said, that the dialogue, the ongoing dialogue, which we had with the director community and the corporate community was very constructive so that we saw improvements taking place, as this was operationalized by companies in that initial no-action period.

[Senator Roberts] Okay my experience and the feedback we’ve got is quite the opposite. Companies are using virtual AGMs to disenfranchise activist shareholders. And these tactics include sending activist shareholders a wrong entry code. So they can’t access the virtual meeting room. Accepting questions on notice and then not reading them out, not calling on shareholders who they know will ask difficult questions and switching off shareholders, who were asking difficult questions. So this is why virtual AGMs went to an inquiry. So you’re basically invalidating the process.

[Commissioner Melina] Well, Senator we would be very happy to take those points on board and review them ‘cos that sort of feedback is very helpful.

[Commissioner] Yeah, we are interested in following up that sort of feedback.

[Senator Roberts] It does become a great way to manipulate annual general meetings and shareholders. American shareholder organisations are stating just that. So I understand the benefit for small companies to have virtual only AGMs, if shareholders agree before every AGM. But are you really saying that 100% virtual is acceptable for large companies like the banks and Crown Casino, who featured strongly in complaints to my office? And in addition, it seems like some of these companies want to shut down the problems, but that only defers it, because they eventually pop up, and then it becomes more embarrassing.

[Commissioner] Senator the points that you’re raising, we will certainly take on board, but just to confirm and this is explicit in your question. This is a temporary relief, we’re waiting on parliament. And certainly we will take those points on board but it strikes me that these are issues for Parliament’s consideration.

[Senator Roberts] Okay, thank you. Going to Banking Code of Practise. The enforceable code provisions, particularly, how close are we to seeing which provisions of the Banking Code of Practise will be enforceable?

[Commissioner Hughes] Morning Senator. Sean Hughes-

[Senator Roberts] Good morning.

[Commissioner Hughes] Commissioner at ASIC. Thank you for your question. The current version of the code, which we approved in January, which came into effect on the 1st of March does not contain any enforceable provisions. The changes that were approved by us in January are essentially minor in nature. We are however waiting to see the outcomes from the ABO’s triennial review of the code, which commences in June, that will also include a consideration of the small business threshold definition with the reviewer recommending an increase of that definitional threshold from $3 million to $5 million. At that point in time, I’d suggest Senator that we would revisit to the issue of enforceability in relation to any provisions of the code.

[Senator Roberts] So what date after June?

[Commissioner Hughes] So they’re commencing the triennial review in June.

[Senator Roberts] So at the moment, ASIC doesn’t have any provisions it wants to see as enforceable?

[Commissioner Hughes] The position in relation to enforceable code provisions, Senator is that the relevant body in this case, the ABA needs to apply to ASIC to say whether any provisions should be made enforceable. No such provisions were nominated to us and having considered it, we didn’t believe that any needed to be made enforceable at this point in time. As I say the changes that we approved in January were relatively minor and technical in nature. We would prefer to revisit the question of enforceability post the triennial review in June.

[Senator Roberts] So basically at the moment ASIC is waiting for the banks to tell them what to do.

[Commissioner Hughes] That’s not the case at all Senator. We have not identified any enforceable provisions in relation to the minor and technical changes to the code made in January.

[Chair] Senator Roberts, two more questions.

[Senator Roberts] Yes, exactly that, two. Going to unconscionable conduct. My question relates to this week’s judgement of the full bench of the Federal Court in the Kybolt Case which saw a substantial change in the definition of unconscionable conduct. Unconscionable conduct is contained in section 12CB of the ASIC Act. Will ASIC assist Corporate Australia to meet the lower standard of proof this offence now carries by way of a regulatory document or note or report?

[Commissioner Hughes] Senator I’ll take that question as well. We are aware of and have followed the decision of the High Court in relation to that proceeding that was commenced by the ACCC. And we’re revisiting the extent to which that may have an impact in enforcement actions that we are running. But as you rightly point out, Senator, that’s a very fresh judgement from the High Court. And I can’t make predictions as to what we will do in relation to future litigation matters at this stage.

[Senator Roberts] Will you be assisting Corporate Australia though to understand this component?

We will certainly continue to inform and educate Corporate Australia as to the impact of that decision. As I know, the ACCC will do, and we will be discussing with colleagues across the law enforcement agencies the benefits and the implications of that judgement .

[Senator Roberts] Last question. Well, it’s not a question, actually it’s a statement. May I compliment ASIC for its enforcement history on unconscionable conduct cases against the major banks. And I look forward to this judgement making your job even easier.

[Commissioner] Thank you, Senator.

[Commissioner] Thank you, Senator.

/by

How can small business operate with so much red tape?

, ,

Small businesses are going under across the country because of the amount of red tape they have to get through to earn a dollar. I was proud to have removed some paperwork requirements for them with my amendments to the recent IR reforms but the Fair Work Act is still six inches thick.

How can we really expect smaller operators and employees to be across the mountain of complex laws that govern how we go to work? The Fair Work Act must be simplified. Small Businesses are the backbone of this country but they are starting to crack under the weight of red tape.

Transcript

[Chair] Senator , we’re gonna move on to Senator Roberts

[Man] I’m done.

[Chair] Senator Roberts.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you chair and thank you for attending today. This is the Fair Work Act. I’ll refer to it in a minute. The root of many complexities, what can be done to reduce industrial relations complexity for small business. And is there a better way for small business and for workers?

[Witness] We believe there’s great scope for simplification. My predecessors had quite a bit to say about that. And I think Senator O’Neill might’ve been referring to some work I did on that subject for the Fair Work Commission about how to make the regime work better for small businesses, his Honour Justice, Iain Ross asked for some views within the current law about how you would make it more small business friendly. So there’s quite a, quite a range of options there. The agency has done a piece of work on that and I’ve got some of the things around loaded rates and streamlining the enterprise bargaining process for businesses and workforces that are inclined to do that. There’s quite a number Senator and some reports around.

[Senator Roberts] I know your predecessor committed to taking part in, in simplifying industrial relations in the country. I had a lot of respect for your predecessors as senators around this table have said–

[Woman] Can I just clarify adviser?

[Man] Yes.

[Woman] Thank you, Yep.

[Witness] I presume that was what you were referring to earlier Senator. And that was with the Fair Work Commission.

[Senator Roberts] And I note the Japanese miracle after the Second World War, Peter, I’m sorry, W. Edwards Deming was introduced by Macafa.

[Witness] Yes, can’t measure what you can’t manage and can’t manage what he can’t measure I think was one of his phrases.

[Senator Roberts] Yes, but the key to Deming’s work was that instead of focusing on the level of production and tinkering with the process, focus on reducing variation and when people reduce variation in the process, the process becomes more efficient. And this introduces a whole lot of variation and destroys because of the complexity. So we need to get back to simplicity. I mean, it’s proven in every industry, so what else needs to be done to support small business and workers?

[Witness] We think there’s some scope to look at reg tech, we’d use some technology tools.

[Senator Roberts] Red tech?

[Witness] Regulatory technology to help businesses navigate the rules. It’s, it’s interesting that small business men and women can create, conceive and grow their own business but really feel they need expert advice to navigate that pile that’s in front of you. And it seems to be why, why does it need to be so hard? Why can’t it be more surefooted? So there’s been some ideas put forward around reg tech, helping with that simplification even having annexures or a stripped down version of awards for smaller enterprises. They’re the sorts of ideas that the agency has, has brought forward previously and some of which are in that report.

[Senator Roberts] It’s very difficult for workers to find their entitlements in here and know when they’re getting ripped off. This is harmful for workers. It’s led to a decline in union membership in this country, I believe. And it’s led to small businesses not knowing what they’re doing and being frightened all the time of breaking the law. I believe it’s led to large businesses, large companies being very poorly managed because they focus on rules rather than on the core workplace relationship between employer and employee. So I can’t see how this favours anyone. We’ve had senior officials of the largest unions in the country. We’ve had employer groups all saying that this needs to be tackled for the sake of Australian business, not just small business, but especially small business.

[Witness] Well our view Senator is if it’s easier to get it right, that’s in everybody’s interests.

[Senator Roberts] Especially the workers.

[Witness] Absolutely. It would help inoculate against employees under payment, if there’s ability of employers to be able to understand and make it easier to do the right thing and know what that is, we think that’s in everybody’s interest.

[Senator Roberts] And the other thing, another thing about this is that it focuses on trying to prevent the bad doing things. Whether it be poor workers or, you know bad workers or bad employers. I mentioned this to COSBOA’s head, Peter Strong.

[Witness] Yes.

[Senator Roberts] And he said, of course, what a wonderful idea, focus on the positives, to enable good workers and good employers to get on with severe punishments for those who break the law. So simplify the law, make it focused on enhancing the employer, employee relationship, and then punish anybody who goes against it, really severely. At the moment, this is a game for lawyers to just act out in courts and workers and small business are left in the dust because they haven’t got the deep pockets for lawyers. On the point of improving small businesses, what can be done to support medium sized businesses as well?

[Witness] Well, we think the proposition we’ve put forward is that if you can have a framework that’s small business friendly and built with smaller employers in mind, that’ll improve the prospects for larger businesses If you build it from the ground up was the argument that was put forward, rather than build for assuming there’s 10 people in a workplace relations team.

[Senator Roberts] So you’re coming back to the primacy of the workplace relationship.

[Witness] And keep that as understandable, as straightforward and simple, so it can be implemented and people can focus on the success of the enterprise that’s in everybody’s interest

[Senator Roberts] Now this is based on reinforcing the IR club, the lawyers, the consultants, the um–

[Witness] Yeah. I must confess in the report that Senator O’Neill mentioned, I did refer to the club that thrives in the complexity.

[Senator Roberts] So it needs to be, needs to be made for workers and employers.

[Witness] Yeah, I think so, and that people can confidently navigate it knowing what the right thing is and that’s in everybody’s interest.

[Witness 2] And, and.

[Witness] sorry, Senator.

[Witness 2] And just on the medium business side, our definition of what a small businesses is, is up to a hundred employees on an FTE basis. So we actually do get well into that sort of middle territory as well.

[Senator Roberts] And the Fair Work Act defines a small businesses as 15 or less full-time equivalent.

[Witness 2] It’s, that one’s different.

[Witness] I mean, we also had some ideas around the fair dismissal code, you know, addressing it, just making sure it was, it’s functioning as, as was understood to be its intention when it was introduced. And even some structural reforms where there’s, you know might be a small business division within the Fair Work Commission that has processes that are right sized for smaller workplaces. And perhaps the club is less necessary, less necessary to be involved. So, I mean they’re just some of the ideas that have come forward, both from the agency and referring to the report that said–

[Senator Roberts] Well the Industrial Relations Club is focused on perpetuating its power and control.

[Chair] Senator

[Senator Roberts] can I just make one comment about Kate Carnell please? She reached out to people, including us. She came with solutions, not problems and she was always proactive and she always was happy to listen and engage and meaningfully listen.

[Witness] It’s a good formula.

[Malcolm] Thank you, Chair.

/by

Australian Signals Directorate

, ,

Transcript

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you Chair and thank you all for being here. I have a few short question mostly about elections. My questions are about the Australian Cyber Security Centre, in Senate estimates on the 19th of February 2019, Tom Rogers, the Deputy Director of the Australian Electoral Commission said, “We work very closely with our partner agencies, the Australian Cyber Security Centre from the Australian Signals Directorate,” and then he went on and then said again, “We work with them closely and we are very confident,” pause and then, “That there has been no breach of the AEC systems,” is that an accurate statement?

[Rachel Noble]

It absolutely is, we work very closely with the Australian Electoral Commission and actually as we do with all State and Territory electoral commission equivalents, particularly focused together in partnership in the lead up to an election, during the election and then post the election, where we’ll partner on looking for any cyber security or threats to the proper running of the election.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you. Last night, the Australian Electoral Commission advised they have never used the Scytl software they purchased and instead used a bespoke system. They further commented that the internal code had been audited and reviewed. Has your office conducted a code level and server level audit of the Australian Electoral Commission election software?

[Rachel Noble]

Unless Ms. Bradshaw knows the answer to that specific question or Mr. Hanmore? No? We might have to take that level of detail on notice, Senator.

[Senator Roberts]

Okay. So, if you don’t know who did this mysterious audit, and do you also know if the software passed the audit? So, if you could, let us know that.

[Rachel Noble]

I could take that on notice, yes.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you. During the election period, is the Australian Cyber Security Centre responsible for securing the data systems used by the Australian Electoral Commission?

[Rachel Noble]

Our functions, which are set out in the Intelligence Services Act allow us to provide advice and assistance, the ultimate accountability and responsibility is for the organisation, in this case the Australian Electoral Commission itself.

[Senator Roberts]

So, are you saying then that the Australian Electoral Commission itself secures the data systems that it uses?

[Rachel Noble]

[Rachel Noble]

That’s right.

[Senator Roberts]

[Rachel Noble]

Thank you. Last question, are you 100% confident the software and systems available to the Australian Electoral Commission for the 2022 election are fit for purpose?

We will partner, continue to partner with them but it would be unwise to sort of project into the future, we will, as I said in the lead up to that election, during and after, be working in, you know, the contemporary environment both based on the state of their systems that they in place at the time, our understanding of the threat environment that we will provide to them and we’ll work in a contemporary, agile and current environment at that time, but it would be unwise for me to provide guarantees about what may or may not happen in the future.

[Senator Roberts]

So, you don’t work with them on a regular basis more just around the elections?

[Rachel Noble]

That’s right, We’ll stay in partnership with them like we do all Australian government entities at all times, so, if we become aware of a specific threat to any Commonwealth or State and Territory or private entity for that matter, we will reach out with them and engage them on that, so, we’ll do that at any time throughout the year but we will have a particular, dedicated, focused effort with them, pre, during and after an election on top of that.

[Senator Roberts]

Okay, so, you will assess the situation at any time, and any time you might hear some potential threat and you get involved, but other than that you will only get involved just before during and after the election?

[Rachel Noble]

That’s right.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you very much.

[Rachel Noble]

Thank you.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you, Chair, see, it was less than five minutes.

[Chair]

Senator Patrick, you could take a leaf out of Senator Roberts’ book in relation to timeliness, but over to you.

/by

Is the Government considering mandatory vaccination? Questioning the Department of Health Senate Estimates

, ,

Even though the government says they don’t want to mandate vaccination, they haven’t ruled out attaching it to everyday activities. That means they won’t rule out that you might have to be vaccinated to go to the pub which sounds as good as mandating it to me.

I believe in the vaccine being available to anyone who wants to take it, but it should be every individual’s choice whether they take it or not. I do not believe they should be government mandated. Where do you stand?

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you chair. And thank you all for attending. What percentage of the population, that will, will receive a COVID 19 vaccine? Do you expect or plan?

[Brendan Murphy]

Well, we were, our target at present Senator, is to vaccinate all the adult population, the over eighteens off by the end of October, give them a first dose. So that’s I think approximately 20 million, I think?

About, about 20 million going on.

Yeah. Now we may then go on and vaccinate children. If we have vaccines that are registered and approved for children. And if they prevent transmission and that helps us with herd immunity, but there are no vaccine. There’s no trial data on children at the moment. So the vaccines are only registered for adults.

Or 16 to 18 in the case of one. But no nobody under 16 has a registered product at this point.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Will that include the elderly, the frail?

[Brendan Murphy]

Absolutely. Unless there is a medical contraindication which is very rare. So if someone is very close to end of life it may be decided that it’s not appropriate. But in general, absolutely. That’s what we’re doing in residential aged care. Vaccinating a lot of very elderly and very frail people.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Do you have the constitutional or legislative power in your opinion, to impose mandatory vaccination?

[Brendan Murphy]

The government policy is very clear that we’re not. We’ve never imposed mandatory vaccination in Australia. We take the approach that we want to encourage, promote and provide the evidence for vaccination. There have been situations where, for example, with flu vaccination last year in aged care where there was a public health order that the States and territories made. That decided that you couldn’t enter a facility unless you had proof of flu vaccination. But that was that’s very different from, from making, from mandating a vaccine. It just means that you have to make a choice about whether you go into an aged care facility. And obviously for childhood immunisation similar rules have applied. With again, mostly enforced by the States and territories, with no jab no play and government policy with no jab, no pay. But none of those have said that you are by law required to be vaccinated.

[Malcolm Roberts]

In the States?

[Brendan Murphy]

Yeah, In the States. Nobody can force a medical intervention on another citizen. We can do a lot of things to encourage, promote. And in some cases to restrict situations of risk if you’re not vaccinated. But we have never taken the view that we can force a citizen to have a medical intervention.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And you won’t be taking that view.

[Brendan Murphy]

I, I can’t imagine. That’s not, we wouldn’t recommend it.

[Witness]

There is absolutely no proposal from the government to make any COVID vaccine compulsory for anybody.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So are there any policies or plans or ideas or has it been discussed to make something unavailable without the vaccine? Effectively making it compulsory?

[Brendan Murphy]

Well, again, there has been discussion at HBPC. About whether, and Professor Kelly can comment on that, whether, at some stage we might use the same approach that we used for flu last year. To say that if the COVID vaccine is really effective at preventing transmission, that to say that to work in aged care or to enter a facility you need to have a vaccination. But HBPC has decided that; A, there isn’t enough evidence on prevention of transmission at the moment. And, B it would be silly for such a public health order to be introduced until such time as all of those workers and community members who might visit aged care have had the opportunity to be vaccinated. So that is, that’s a live matter for consideration that will be reviewed as the evidence evolves.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay.

[Witness]

No, I’ll just be very clear here though, that the current position of the government is that this vaccine is voluntary and not withstanding that the HPCs work and the, and the health departments work. But the government’s position is very clear, that the vaccine is voluntary.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. And thank you, Dr. Murphy. I’ll just jump outside of vaccines for a minute. To understand the overall context, and then come back to vaccines. What are the main factors in managing a pandemic? I’ll just test my own knowledge with you first. Is isolate and arrest the vaccine, which is called a lockdown, I understand. Then there’s number two is, identify the location and the spread to get on top of the quickly. What’s that? testing, tracing and quarantine. Then there are attempts to reduce the transmissibility through restrictions like masks, gatherings, criticism, movement of people, sorry, not criticism, movement of people. Then the fourth one would be cure and prophylactic areas to try and prevent, to try and cure people of the virus. For example, antivirals. Number five would be vaccine. Have I, have any, have I included any that are wrong? Have I missed any?

[Brendan Murphy]

Well you’ve missed international borders, which is probably…

[Malcolm Roberts]

Isolate and arrest.

[Brendan Murphy]

Yeah, well, certainly that has been one of our most successful interventions. Was to prevent the importation of a virus from, despite all the impact that it’s had on our citizens overseas. It has been one of the most singularly important parts of our success in controlling COVID.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So there’s just isolate and arrest, which I include international borders. Identify the location and spread through testing, tracing, quarantine. Reduce the transmissibility through restrictions. Cure and prophylactic approach and vaccine.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That seems pretty complete Professor Kelly?

[Professor Kelly]

individual behaviours.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Sorry?

[Professor Kelly]

Individual behaviours. So the hand hygiene, cough into your elbow, that sort of stuff.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Thank you.

The following line of questioning occured after the end of the attached video clip (see HANSARD)

[Chair]

The last question.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Sure. Can I get, on notice, an assessment of the characteristics of the virus? We were told initially it was a respiratory disease and we shoved ventilators at people. Some people were telling us that it hinders the blood absorbing oxygen or uptaking oxygen. We were told about various treatments. Perhaps you could tell me, on notice, what are the characteristics you measure to assess the virus’s mortality and
transmissibility, and any other characteristics of the virus, and perhaps rank it relative to, for example, the decreasing order of impact. We’ve had the Black Death, the Plague of Justinian, smallpox, the Antonine Plague, the Spanish flu, the third plague, HIV/AIDS and now COVID-19, which is a fraction of the population affected. Is it possible to get that summary?

[Brendan Murphy]

We can certainly provide it. This virus is now well studied. Essentially, as we’ve said on many occasions, for most fit, young people it’s a relatively mild disease, but 126,000 people have died in the UK, a very similar country to us. We have avoided a very large death rate by controlling this virus, and we’re very proud of that achievement, Senator. Whilst it may be a mild disease, that means it transmits wildly. Older people and people with underlying conditions are at risk of getting severe respiratory disease and dying, as they have done in their millions around the world.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

/8 Comments/by

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

, ,

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

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

Transcript

[Chair]

Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

You’re referring to the clause on Waiver Agreements,

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

We’re relying on the hours and yeah

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

Sorry.

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

I can’t speak for what employers do, but

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

Sorry. The last three occasions we verified people

[Malcolm Roberts]

When you verified someone was done.What was real?

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

Is anyone raised that with the government?

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

But you collect names and dates?

[Witness]

We collect names and dates of birth.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And you collect money

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

No, we do know about it

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

The current directors?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes.

[Witness]

Senator,

/by

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

, ,

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

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

Transcript

[Chair]

As well, Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

I got to take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Chair]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

This is to do with reporting.

[Chair]

I understand-

[Malcolm Roberts]

Under that policy,

[Chair]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

So again.

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yep.

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Thank you.

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

Is that a question of treasury?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

Senator, I’ll take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

/by

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

, , ,

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

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

Transcript

And you have the call Senator Roberts.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Tom Hamilton First Assistant Secretary, Foreign Investment Division]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Tom Hamilton]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

So can you get me the numbers?

[Tom Hamilton]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

And none were rejected?

[Tom Hamilton]

I don’t have that number Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Could you get me that number please?

[Tom Hamilton]

We’ll take that notice Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Minister Simon Birmingham]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Tom Hamilton]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Simon Birmingham]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

Yeah, that’s right.

[Malcolm Roberts]

No formal consideration of further changes yet.

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Chair]

Senator Roberts, we want move rather soon.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Can I have the last question?

[Chair]

Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

[Simon Birmingham]

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

[Witness]

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

[Malcolm Roberts]

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

/by