Labour Hire Scams and Union Corruption

,

During my questioning of the Fair Work Commission, I highlighted the fact that when Coal LSL included casual coal miners, it opened the door to labour hire scams and in collusion with the corrupt CFMEU, cost individual miners up to $40,000 per year. 

Labor is now attempting to stifle competition to remove miners’ choice regarding union membership as the RED Union gains traction by supporting thousands whose union fees have historically funded the Labor Party. 

I also detailed a series of breaches by the labour hire company and BHP, leading to a compensation claim by Mr. Simon Turner, which the Minister dismissed.

Transcript | Session 1

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Furlong and your team, for being here again. My first set of questions relates to my recent Senate second reading amendment to a recent Fair Work Act amendment bill. The Senate amendment required the government to conduct an investigation into massive wage theft in the coal mining industry. I’ll read the relevant portions: ‘Clause B—the Senate requires the government to investigate claims that casual miners working under enterprise agreements in the black coal mining industry are and have been underpaid. Clause C—if underpayments are found to have occurred, facilitate the reimbursement of the underpayments’. In regard to this, which is Australia’s largest wage theft case, totalling possibly over $1 billion and involving thefts of up to $40,000 per year per miner for many years and stealing from more than 5,000 miners, we believe, are you aware of the Senate’s second reading amendment requiring the minister to investigate the wage theft?  

Mr Furlong: Senator, I can’t speak to the veracity of the claims that you’ve just made there.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s not my question.  

Mr Furlong: What I can say is that I am broadly aware of what you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Has there been any discussion between the minister and the Fair Work Commission or any Fair Work Commission officials?  

Mr Furlong: No, nor would it be appropriate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Between the department and the Fair Work Commission or any Fair Work Commission officials?  

Mr Furlong: Not that I’m aware of, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department received from the Fair Work Commission or made to the Fair Work Commission any instructions on this matter?  

Mr Furlong: No, nor would it be appropriate for us to instruct the department on anything.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has Minister Burke or the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations discussed with you or Fair Work Commission officials the nature of the investigation the Senate required him to make into the wage theft case involving central Queensland and Hunter Valley miners?  

Mr Furlong: No, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have any of his staff raised it with you?  

Mr Furlong: I might have to take that on notice. There may have been conversations at the officer level, but I’m certainly not aware of any. I haven’t participated in any.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Do you expect any role in the investigation?  

Mr Furlong: As we’ve traversed at estimates previously, the role of the general manager, my role, is to assist the president in sharing the functions that the Fair Work Commission perform in an efficient way, essentially. Will there be a role—I can’t envision that there would be a role there for the commission, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not for anyone from the Fair Work Commission?  

Mr Furlong: Well, it’s hard to talk in the abstract on this. In terms of the context, the letter that I sent to you from 11 January contained a significant amount of information about the operations and the functions of the Fair Work Commission that relate to the making and the approval of the enterprise agreements, including the application of the better off overall test, the approval of agreements, the process and the legislative checklist that we’ve discussed a number of times. The letter was four pages, but there were 28 pages of attachments that I provided to you to hopefully assist with your understanding of the legislative regime and the role of the Fair Work Commission in relation to this issue.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, yesterday evening you seemed uninterested in the investigation of workers’ wage theft—the biggest in Australia.  

Senator Watt: That is a completely unfair characterisation of what I said. I’ve actually got—part of my career has been spent assisting workers to recoup underpayments. I invite you to have a look at my record on those issues. What I was pointing out was that you have raised pretty much the same issues over and over again at estimates hearings over a number of years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and we’ll see why. It’s sad that you have not understood why I’ve continued to raise that. Obviously, my communication needs to improve with you, Minister Watt. Here’s a second chance. What would you expect for a fair and independent investigation? What would the process look like?  

Senator Watt: You asked me the same question yesterday, and I said a fair and independent investigation is obviously one that is fair and independent. I’m not trying to be a smart alec in saying that, but we respect the independence of the Fair Work Commission. We’re trying to redress the imbalance in the Fair Work Commission that existed under the former government when they only appointed employer representatives. We’re trying to make it a more even-handed organisation that does have both employer and employee representatives on it. It’s established as an independent organisation and it should be able to operate independently.  

Senator ROBERTS: Having said that the Fair Work Commission should operate independently and given Mr Furlong’s responses, what would you think a fair and independent investigation would look like?  

Senator Watt: I can’t add anything to what I said today and yesterday.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, are you aware that the CFMEU, or MEU or whatever it’s called today, has applied, apparently, under the Fair Work Act same job, same pay provisions for a new enterprise agreement covering a few hundred miners at just two mines?  

Mr Furlong: Yes, I’m aware.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. CFMEU/MEU notices in central Queensland and Hunter Valley mines have even used my figures for the amount of underpay per miner per year—up to $40,000. This vindicates my work over the last five years—work that the CFMEU/MEU had, in fact, denied and continues to deny, doesn’t it? Their notices are saying that miners are being short-changed $40,000. They’re making that submission.  

Senator Watt: I’m happy to—  

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to Mr Furlong initially.  

Mr Furlong: My initial response to that is that it’s challenging for me to conflate different circumstances in very different cases.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, perhaps you could answer that.  

Senator Watt: What I was going to say is that the Mining and Energy Union has a long and proud history of fighting for mining workers’ underpayments. They were absolutely pivotal to the changes to the law that this government made that you voted against that were about closing loopholes in the labour hire sector which were particularly being abused against mining workers. That has resulted already in at least one case that I’m aware of where those workers have now had their pay rates raised by tens of thousands of dollars. So, yes, the Mining and Energy Union does have a long history of raising these issues. I’ve campaigned with them on it myself, and I think other Labor senators have as well. We’ve now changed the law, and that’s addressing the issue.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. I remind you that I used to be a coalface miner for several years in the Hunter Valley, central Queensland and North Queensland. I also was a very proud member the Miners Federation, because it looked after mine workers extremely well. Minister, do you know that the CFMEU, now the MEU, in its application for improving two enterprise agreements, does not seek back pay? Can you explain why they don’t seek back pay?  

Senator Watt: I’m not a representative of that union, so I can’t explain why they included some things and not others in their claim. You’d have to ask the union.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would it be possible that the CFMEU/MEU is aware of its support for the previous wage theft and that’s why it’s afraid to raise back pay?  

Senator Watt: Well, I’ve already—we had a bit of a chat yesterday about conspiracy theories, Senator ROBERTS. Again, I can’t tell you why a union makes a particular claim and not others. What I do know is that the application that the MEU made involving the Mount Pleasant mine in the Hunter Valley through the Fair Work Commission has resulted in significant wage rises for those workers.  

Senator ROBERTS: But they’re not seeking back pay. Minister, your use of labels is a refuge that’s commonly used by the ignorant, the dishonest, the incompetent or the fearful. When you use a label, it shows everyone that you haven’t got the data or the logic or the argument to refute me. So thank you very much for using a label. I’m very happy for you to use a label.  

Senator Watt: You’re entitled to have full confidence in your argument, Senator ROBERTS.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister and Mr Furlong, are you aware that the Independent Workers’ Union of Australia has lodged three claims for back pay with the Fair Work Ombudsman?  

Mr Furlong: I’m not aware of that, but you have—  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister?  

Senator Watt: Fair Work Ombudsman or commission?  

Senator ROBERTS: Fair Work Ombudsman.  

Senator Watt: I’m not aware of that, but they’re entitled to do whatever they want.  

Senator ROBERTS: Many miners have joined with the Independent Workers’ Union of Australia in the process of lodging claims with the Fair Work Ombudsman. Are you aware that’s happening?  

Senator Watt: No, but people have got a right to join whatever organisation they want. I might just clarify. My understanding actually is that the Mount Pleasant case in the Hunter Valley is ongoing, but agreements have been reached between mining contractors and workers to lift pay on the basis of the laws that were introduced.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s only taken me five years. That’s great to see.  

Senator Watt: Well, if you want to take credit for a Labor government law that you voted against, you’re welcome to do so.  

Senator ROBERTS: You were so embarrassed, Minister—  

Senator Watt: But the record shows that you voted against those laws.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, speaking of conflicts, are you unavoidably conflicted on this matter because of the many millions of dollars from the CFMEU paid to your Labor party?  

Senator Watt: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, does the $48 million from Abelshore, a 100 per cent owned Glencore subsidiary that went from—does the $48 million from Abelshore to the CFMEU in two recent years further conflict you and your party?  

Senator Watt: No. I told you I wasn’t even aware of that yesterday.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does it still conflict you, even though you’re not personally aware of it?  

Senator Watt: I have no idea what you’re talking about—it’s a bit hard to be conflicted when it’s something that you don’t even know about.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue then. On whom can workers rely, Minister?  

Senator Watt: A Labor government which has fixed the laws and delivered secure jobs and better pay.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, they can’t rely on large, entrenched unions in monopoly positions, meaning their union bosses have no accountability to members. We’ve seen the CFMEU, MEU, SDA in recent years, HSU and Craig Thomson—they did deals stealing workers’ wages and cutting workers’ wages. This is the unions themselves—the powerful unions.  

Senator Watt: I think it’s well understood that you’re not a big fan of unions and that you’ve voted against every piece of legislation we’ve ever tried to introduce to lift workers’ wages and provide unions with the ability to negotiate on behalf of their members. It’s okay in a democracy to be anti-union. You’re antiunion. I’m not. The Labor government supports the role of unions in negotiating workers’ pay, but you don’t have to agree with us.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, it’s poor form to mischaracterise someone and misrepresent someone. I have strongly supported unions—  

Senator Watt: You just rattled off—  

Senator ROBERTS: or honest unions, because I think it’s the worker’s right to be involved—  

Senator Watt: Well, everyone can have a look at your voting record, Senator ROBERTS, and see how supportive you’ve been of the unions.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll proceed with that. Can workers rely upon employers such as some of the labour hire firms?  

Senator Watt: I don’t think you can generalise, but I think there have been many examples where labour hire firms have exploited their workforce and have been assisted in that by host employers. That’s why we changed the laws to overcome the loophole that labour hire firms and host employers were using to cut people’s pay. Again, Senator ROBERTS, you voted against us.  

Senator ROBERTS: And we’ve discussed why. Can they rely upon Chandler Macleod, which is a subsidiary of Recruit Holdings and has contracts for supplying casual workers to your government?  

Senator Watt: I’m not going to comment on individual companies, Senator ROBERTS. I don’t know enough about the individual company’s record to comment on them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can workers rely upon the Fair Work Commission that approved the illegal enterprise agreements?  

Senator Watt: I think workers can rely on the Fair Work Commission to be an independent organisation, now that we are restoring some balance to it, and that it will operate within the law.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

Transcript | Session 2

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’ve been going through the list of entities or groups of entities that workers can possibly turn to. So far we haven’t found one that they can turn to. What about government? Can workers rely on government?  

Senator Watt: Is that a general proposition?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m looking for people who can support workers.  

Senator Watt: Senator ROBERTS, you’d have a lot more credibility on this if you had ever voted with the government for any of the changes we’ve made to protect workers. We passed some legislation recently. It was in the name of the bill: it was called the secure jobs, better pay bill. Have a guess what it was about: secure jobs and better pay. Have a guess how you voted: you voted no. We give you opportunities to vote for workers. We are protecting workers and you keep voting against it. You keep voting with the coalition.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you know, Minister, that miners tell me that, in their research on the Hunter Valley and central Queensland wage theft, that, when Mr Bill Shorten was workplace relations minister in Julia Gillard’s government, he made the key step that unlocked and enabled the abuse of casual workers? Did you know that?  

Senator Watt: I did not know that some mining workers somewhere said that about Bill Shorten when he was a minister more than 10 years ago. No, I did not know that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Despite the Black Coal Mining Industry Award not allowing casual coal mine workers on production, Mr Shorten apparently changed the coal long service leave regulations to allow casual coal miners to receive long service leave accruals. Were you aware of that?  

Senator Watt: No, I wasn’t in the parliament.  

Senator ROBERTS: That opened the door for the CFMEU and labour hire companies to fabricate the permanent casual rort. That’s why, five years ago, I started holding Coal LSL, the Fair Work Commission and Fair Work Ombudsman accountable. Do you understand now why I started with the Coal LSL agency?  

Senator Watt: I’m sure there would be different views on that. That’s obviously your view. It’s a view you’ve pursued relentlessly in estimates committees over many years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the compliment.  

Senator Watt: The government has done a lot of work in the meantime to assist coal mining workers, all of which you voted against, unfortunately.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, as a result of my work, mine workers watched as the LNP, in my opinion, avoided the core of the issue, but it did do a review of the coal long service leave provisions that may one day lead to improved governance within the Coal LSL. Are you aware of what the LNP did there?  

Senator Watt: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mine workers continued watching in recent years as your government—in the last two years—under Minister Burke, did its best to cover up the permanent casual rort with amendments to the Fair Work Act. Some workers think that was done to protect the CFMEU and its role in the permanent casual rort. Your government has done its best to hide this issue despite support I’ve received from senators, such as Senator Sheldon and Senator Sterle. Why should workers rely on governments—on Labor governments in particular?  

Senator Watt: Because we pass legislation called things like secure jobs and better pay that result in—  

Senator ROBERTS: Called things like?  

Senator Watt: Secure jobs and better pay.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about state governments?  

Senator Watt: We’re not going to get into state governments in a federal estimates hearing, are we— seriously.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Palaszczuk Miles state government—this is very important for accountability of unions, Minister, because I’m a very strong supporter of accountable unions. Indeed, the Palaszczuk Miles government is banning competitors to the Queensland Nurses and Midwives’ Union, such as the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland. It’s banning competitors such as the Teachers’ Professional Association of Queensland which competes with the Queensland Teachers’ Union. They’re banning or trying to ban the Red Union, apparently, in attempts to protect the Queensland nurses union and Queensland Teachers’ Union donations to the Labor Party. Are you aware that’s what’s going on in Queensland? We have legitimate unions being banned by a state Labor government.  

Senator Watt: I’m aware of the issue in broad terms, but you’ve got a—the last I heard was that you had a One Nation member of the state parliament. It sounds like a very good issue for him to raise in State estimates, and we can deal with federal estimates and federal issues here.  

Senator ROBERTS: We are dealing with this issue. The Red Unions and the new Independent Workers Union of Australia charge around half. In fact, for the Independent Workers’ Union of Australia that’s vying for members with the Mining and Energy Union in the Hunter and central Queensland, 43 per cent of the Labor affiliated union fees—because these unions—the Red Union and the Independent Workers’ Union of Australia— refuse to hand members’ money to political parties. Are you aware of that, Minister? Their fees are less than half.  

Senator Watt: I’m certainly aware that there are a number of LNP-backed groups that masquerade as unions and that have been created with a view to undermining the legitimate unions that have been fighting for workers in Queensland for a long time. I know there’s a very strong link between—  

Senator ROBERTS: Where were they when the mandates came in and teachers and nurses lost their jobs?  

Senator Watt: If we’re going to get into COVID mandates, there’s a whole other committee that you’ve been dealing with that issue in for years.  

Senator ROBERTS: And we’ll continue to. Despite the Queensland legislation, are you aware that the Red Unions continue to grow rapidly among nursing and teaching professionals, with a membership now of over 20,000 strong, expanding into New Zealand and into small business, and now it’s expanding into coal mining? Are you aware of that?  

Senator Watt: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s turn to another group that’s supposed to—the Enlighten group—and some of its members may be enlightened—that’s supposed to protect workers. That’s the business owner. Mr Simon Turner, who’s a mine worker, has informed me of the following. The company that owned and operated the mine he was employed at directed him to not report a serious safety incident in which he was critically injured. That’s a statutory breach. They failed to report the accident. That’s a statutory breach. They made him come to work while injured. They sacked him while injured. They falsely changed his onsite digital record. They failed to provide correct workers compensation—a statutory breach of state law. They failed to take the correct coal miners insurance policy—a statutory breach. They failed to provide accident pay—a statutory breach. And so on it goes. They failed to comply with the New South Wales mines health and safety act and New South Wales health and safety act. That company is BHP—the world’s largest mining company. Workers cannot rely on globalist corporations, Minister, especially corporations from globalist labour hire companies that do deals with the CFMEU and the Mining and Energy Union. Where can workers turn?  

Senator Watt: I think we’ve all known for a number of years now, Senator ROBERTS, that you’ve got a close relationship with Mr Turner. He’s obviously taken his complaint to you. He’s obviously very unhappy with the union that he is or was a member of. I don’t know the circumstances of that. It’s pretty pointless for me to speculate.  

Senator ROBERTS: That leaves one avenue left to protect workers: comprehensive industrial relations reform to simplify industrial relations law so that workers and small businesses can see their entitlements, protections, rights and responsibilities—not buried in 1,800 pages of complex law. Why won’t Labor give workers choice?  

Senator Watt: About what?  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re protecting entrenched unions that are abusing the industrial relations system because they’re members of the IR club. You’re protecting corporate employers. You’re protecting labour hire companies. Why won’t you give workers the choice to become members of the union that they choose?  

Senator Watt: I don’t agree with any of the propositions you just put.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/by

Rampant NDIS Fraud Leaves Vulnerable Recipients in Need

,

My questions to the NDIS Quality & Safeguards Commissioner was primarily about the quality and safety issues that render the system inefficient and hazardous. 

It became evident that fraud was rampant, leading to significant financial waste and leaving many recipients’ needs unmet. 

While some recipients received excessively extravagant packages with overvalued components, such as massages, fishing trips and cruises, others remained in dire need of basic assistance for eating, washing, toileting and dressing. 

Initially, the system functioned fairly well, but it has now expanded excessively, resulting in waste, unmet needs, and dangerous conditions for vulnerable recipients.

/by

Government Guaranteed Mortgages Not Under Stress!

,

Since 2020, the government has guaranteed mortgages with only a 5% deposit. 

Given 150,000 Australians were unable to afford a 20% deposit, I was concerned many of them may have been hit especially hard by the RBA’s interest rate rises.  Based on the figures provided here, it looks like most of these households are coping well so far. 

The full data put on notice should clarify this further, but if what I’ve been told here is true, it’s good news for those homeowners.

/by

Millions of Dollars Flow from Coal Company to Union to the Labor Party

,

There’s a lot of shady money flowing around our elections. One example is the weird case of nearly $50 million dollars flowing from coal mining company Glencore eventually making its way to the Labor party that wants to shut them down.

Nearly $50 million in two years flowed from Glencore’s subsidiary company Abelshore to the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU). The CFMMEU donates tens of millions to the Australian Labor party every year. Why would a coal mining company funnel millions of dollars to a union that donates to the Labor Party who hates coal mining and wants it shut down under its net-zero plans?

Pay attention to my questions at the Fair Work Commission about the unions and labour hire companies colluding to rip off hundreds of thousands of dollars from coal miners for some potential answers.

NOTE: Sometimes in the transcript these payments are mis-labelled as donations. On AEC returns these amounts are classified as ‘other receipts’ rather than donations, these may be payments for services, membership dues or any other number of classifications. No other detail is given other than that the payments are received and are listed as other receipts.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Maybe you could elaborate on some of the issues faced with getting a clear picture when it comes to donation law, a really complex situation. The returns for the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union for 2022 and 2023 show they donated huge sums to the Labor Party. The CFMMEU has received more than $39 million from a company called Abelshore, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of coal company Glencore. In 2021-22 they donated $9 million, so over two years they donated $48 million donated by Glencoreowned companies to the CFMMEU, to the Labor Party. So you have tens of millions, $48 million as I said, flying from a coal company through a subsidiary, through a union to the Labor Party but the coal company does not show up in the returns to the Labor Party. Can you explain the difficulties in finding out where the money was originally coming from on the returns that are lodged?  

Mr Rogers: First of all, I have not seen that particular return, so I would have to take it on notice and have a look but I am not aware that any of that breaches the existing legislation. Our role is to adhere to the legislation, promote the legislation, ensure that agencies are adhering to that. As you know, the whole funding and disclosure issue is the most complex part of the Electoral Act. It is highly technical. As long as those entities are meeting their obligations for transparency under the act, and I have no information that they are not—I would have to look at that specific issue in detail—as long as they are within the legislation, changing that legislation is a matter for parliament rather than the AEC, which I know you are aware of, and it is something we were discussing earlier this evening. I would have to have a look at in detail.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, we will send you a copy. It is on a register from the CFMMEU, I think I said. That is an awful lot of money to be hidden and it is not deliberately hidden. Perhaps it is inadvertently hidden. I think the intent is deliberate because it seems a bit strange that money is going from a coal company to a mining union to the Labor Party. 

/by

Is the AEC Lying About the Threat of Misinformation and Disinformation?

,

I asked the Australian Electoral Commission about their claims of misinformation and disinformation being a threat to elections. I was surprised to find that a taskforce that specifically reports on threats to the integrity of the election reported there was no interference that would undermine confidence in any results.

Why the discrepancy between a taskforce that says there are no issues and a Commissioner that says this is a big problem? Either the task force isn’t being upfront or the Commissioner is overblowing the threat of disinformation.

I also pointed at some complex shady transactions showing over $40 million in one year flowing from coal company Glencore through a subsidiary company, to the union, to the Labor Party.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS.

Senator ROBERTS: As you may be aware, Mr Rogers, I’ve got the minutes of the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce, the EIAT—sounds like something to eat—and the freedom of information request LEX 5612. I want to ask you if this response meets your expectations of transparency and accountability. Here are the first six pages. It’s almost entirely black—redacted. There are 100 more pages and most of them are a repeat of this. We’ve probably ran out of black ink trying to print the whole thing. Is this a transparent and open response for what is meant to be an ‘assurance task force’?

Mr Rogers: For a start, I don’t own the task force. I’ll put that on the table. The task force provides me advice about a range of issues. But I just want to point out—

Senator ROBERTS: It’s multi-agency, right?

Mr Rogers: That’s correct, yes. We’ve had discussions about this previously; there are security agencies involved in that process.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Rogers: We are actually talking about security issues. So I’m presuming that the agencies that make up the task force have gone through that document and are worried about releasing sensitive information and that is why it has been released in a redacted format. I’m happy to talk outside the public setting about the sorts of work they do. But, as we’ve said previously, they look at a whole range of different issues that impact on the AEC. They look at physical security, cybersecurity, and misinformation and disinformation with a particular vector about foreign interference. They are issues that they provide advice to me on. They examine a whole range of things, and I’m presuming that the agencies that make up that task force have examined that information and there are security implications or privacy implications, which is why they’ve redacted that information.

Senator ROBERTS: When every page is redacted, surely the EIAT is not dealing with 100 per cent secure information.

Mr Rogers: This is dealing with a sensitive area, which is the reason we’ve set that task force up to start with. But, again, I’m happy to talk to you outside a public setting about some of that information. But there will be privacy information there, there will be privileged information there, and there will also be security classified information there as well.

Senator ROBERTS: You have plenty of experience at Senate estimates, Mr Rogers, and you answer questions well, so I’m sure you’d be aware that freedom of information law used to redact freedom of information requests doesn’t apply to this committee. I want you to take on notice, please, to produce to this committee an unredacted version of the LEX 5612 documents, please.

Mr Rogers: The AEC doesn’t own the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce. Let me take that on notice. I’ll work with the agencies that comprise the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce. But it’s not an AEC entity as such. It is designed to be a cooperative body of the agencies represented on the task force to provide advice to me, particularly about foreign interference. So I can’t direct them to do that. Those agencies will have their own security issues that they have applied in the general clearance of that. But I’ll certainly raise it with the task force on your behalf.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Failing an adequate response from them, let’s take up your offer to discuss it, please. I understand the integrity task force—which includes AFP, ASD and so on—delivered a statement to you to the effect that there was no interference that would undermine the confidence of the Australian people in the election result. That statement has effectively been a copy-paste from the 2019 election, to 2022, to the referendum in 2023. Mr Pope, for 2022 at least—it was actually him as Deputy Commissioner of the AEC that proposed that wording to the EIAT, wasn’t it?

Mr Rogers: I don’t have the minutes in front of me. I’d have to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. If you could tell us.

Mr Rogers: To be abundantly helpful—it probably is the same words. I don’t have them in front of me, because that’s the same situation. If the situation hasn’t changed, they’re actually the words. If there had been interference, it would be an entirely different set of words that would come.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s where I want to go to next. If the integrity task force says in its statement that there is absolutely nothing to worry about, why is it necessary to hide the minutes of the meetings—completely hide them. I can understand some sensitive matters, some potential threats. Why is it necessary to hide the minutes?

Mr Rogers: Every member of that task force carries a current Commonwealth security classification. They’re dealing with information that in itself is classified. Again, I don’t own the task force. I’m not speaking on behalf of the task force. But each of the agencies has its own statutory responsibility to protect information as well. As a collective, that redaction would be the result of a security assessment done by the agencies on the task force. Whatever was discussed had some sort of security either classification or implication.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that’s your answer. But I wonder if 100 per cent of it—okay. You’ve been very keen to become the truth cop and decide what is and isn’t misinformation at elections. You’ve told us that misinformation—

Mr Rogers: No. In fact, let me be very clear. I am the reverse of the truth cop. I do not want to be the truth cop at all. We had a discussion earlier this evening. ‘Truth’ at election time is quite often in the eye of the beholder. And the determination of what truth is is not something that I wish to be involved with. However, where disinformation about the electoral process is being spread—and you and I have discussed this previously—

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I remember you discussing it with us.

Mr Rogers: Things that are legislatively and factually wrong, designed to confuse electors about the act of voting—for example, ‘You don’t have to vote’ or ‘Voting is not compulsory’ or ‘The AEC is using Dominion voting machines’ or ‘is erasing your ballot’—all of those sorts of issues. If someone says things like that that are designed to confuse voters, we correct the record. We don’t stop anybody from saying anything. But we certainly correct the record and we use the various tools at our disposal to do that, including social media and media, including at appearances like this. But I just want to be abundantly clear that the characterisation that you made at the start is the reverse of what we do.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’ll take that back, because I didn’t mean it the way you understood it. But I can see quite clearly that that is a way of taking it. What I meant to say is that you have told us about the misinformation and disinformation repeatedly. From the amount of media and commentary you’ve done on this, it appears to be a very significant focus of yours, and that’s probably entirely correct. So where did this come from if your integrity task force is telling you in the statement that there isn’t a single issue to worry about? You’re telling us it’s a risk, a big risk.

Mr Rogers: One of the reasons we can have confidence about the Australian election is the existence of the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce. Their work, the work of the AEC—the work within the AEC of our Defending Democracy Unit, our social media team and a range of other entities, the way we engage with social media organisations, the way we focus on getting correct information into the hands of voters—has actually assisted that process. We’re certainly not going to wait for a disaster to have those measures in place [inaudible] get to where we are. We are internationally renowned—not just the AEC, but Australia and Australia’s electoral system is internationally renowned—as being fair, transparent and of high integrity. That is because of the work the AEC has done and the work that our partner agencies have done in groups like the EIAT—and indeed parliament, including committees that have established legislation and inquiries into each election. So I’m abundantly proud of the work that the AEC has done to ensure that citizens have confidence in electoral outcomes. You might have seen at the end of last year there was an APS survey that was published where the AEC was ranked No. 1 for trust and satisfaction out of, I think, 20 agencies that were listed amongst citizens. That is as a result of the work of a whole range of organisations, including our partner agencies. If you don’t mind, because the EIAT is an important moment of what we do, the members of the EIAT, just because they are on the EIAT, that does not abrogate their legislative responsibilities that they have as individual agencies in any case. The EIAT exists as a taskforce but each of the agencies represented also has legislative responsibilities, not just at election time but outside of election time, and we also have a bilateral relationship with each of these agencies as well. As you know and as I said previously, we talk to the AFP on a regular basis. We talk to those other agencies. They provide us advice and we use that input to guide how we’re going. I think Australians should be very proud of their electoral system and also the work of all those bodies that I mentioned before that have assisted in creating such a high-integrity and transparent system.

Senator ROBERTS: I must say that we had a number of concerns about the electoral process and the electoral system. Many of those, with the exception of two, have been erased because of our discussions and because we now have audits as a result of me introducing legislation that the previous government then took up. I will endorse your comments with the proviso that we still have a couple of things we are not happy with, but you do have audits now. Some of the issues you are responsible for are not easy; I get that. One in particular I would like to raise with you now is maybe you could elaborate on some of the issues faced with getting a clear picture when it comes to donation law, a really complex situation. The returns for the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union for 2022 and 2023 show they donated huge sums to the Labor Party. The CFMMEU has received more than $39 million from a company called Abelshore, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of coal company Glencore. In 2021-22 they donated $9 million, so over two years they donated $48 million donated by Glencoreowned companies to the CFMMEU, to the Labor Party. So you have tens of millions, $48 million as I said, flying from a coal company through a subsidiary, through a union to the Labor Party but the coal company does not show up in the returns to the Labor Party. Can you explain the difficulties in finding out where the money was originally coming from on the returns that are lodged?

Mr Rogers: First of all, I have not seen that particular return, so I would have to take it on notice and have a look but I am not aware that any of that breaches the existing legislation. Our role is to adhere to the legislation, promote the legislation, ensure that agencies are adhering to that. As you know, the whole funding and disclosure issue is the most complex part of the Electoral Act. It is highly technical. As long as those entities are meeting their obligations for transparency under the act, and I have no information that they are not—I would have to look at that specific issue in detail—as long as they are within the legislation, changing that legislation is a matter for parliament rather than the AEC, which I know you are aware of, and it is something we were discussing earlier this evening. I would have to have a look at in detail.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, we will send you a copy. It is on a register from the CFMMEU, I think I said. That is an awful lot of money to be hidden and it is not deliberately hidden. Perhaps it is inadvertently hidden. I think the intent is deliberate because it seems a bit strange that money is going from a coal company to a mining union to the Labor Party. Let’s move on. Can I confirm that you did not refer a single case of double voting at the referendum or the last election to the Federal Police for investigation?

Mr Rogers: I don’t have the statistics in front of me. Someone does. The chief legal officer does. I will drag him forward for a moment. Mr A Johnson: I will have to look up the statistics, but we have referred several multivoting cases from the federal election, around 37, and that 76 from the referendum were referred to the AFP, but that then is a matter for the AFP because it is a criminal offence and whether they proceed with prosecutions.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is a criminal offence.

Mr Rogers: We work with the AFP on those matters and, as the chief legal officer said, we refer those matters to them. But we go through each of those cases with them in any case, and what they do with those from there is a matter for the AFP.

Senator ROBERTS: One of the concerns we have amongst the two or three concerns overall, which has dropped dramatically in number after working with you, is the physical audit of the voter rolls, doorknocking houses and confirming that voters listed at that address live there. How are you progressing on that?

Mr Rogers: I think you are referring to something that used to be referred to as a habitation review, which we used to do many years ago. We don’t do habitation reviews for a range of reasons. Frankly, we found them to be inaccurate when we did those reviews. The processes that we have in place now are far more accurate and bring a greater level of assurance to the integrity of the roll than the habitation review ever did. As you would imagine, with people walking around districts, knocking on doors, people give all sorts of answers, if they open the door at all. We had people not home. In fact, I will not go through some of the detail of some of the ways in which our staff used to be received. There were personal safety issues involved as well. But the process we have in place now, we have a roll integrity assurance system, which I think we might have discussed with you when we visited to talk about the various issues that are in place. It is a better system with higher integrity than ever was the case during the habitation review process. Also, what we are currently doing is a better use of Commonwealth funds. The habitation reviews were hugely expensive for a very poor outcome, so what we have managed to produce is a much better system, using the coordination of several datasets to ensure that people are where they say they are.

Senator ROBERTS: You have said that before.

Mr Rogers: We also manage a thing called the address register, which is complex, but that is the way that we give everyone a spot on the earth, effectively. We know where people are, not when they are moving around for the sake of it, but where their houses are to make sure that when people say they are enrolled in a spot that that spot is actually an agreed address and that they are enrolled in.

Senator ROBERTS: We get frequent reports about people voting more than once and voting instead of dead people and so on. If you will indulge me, Mr Rogers, and the CHAIR, before I get onto my last question, I am not sure if you have heard an old joke about a politician who has lost his seat in parliament. Talking to a party powerbroker, he says, ‘Comrade, to lose such a safe seat is a tragedy but losing an electorate with three cemeteries, that is unforgivable.’ You have probably heard that one.

Mr Rogers: There has been a number of variations to that. Just to give some idea of the scope of the movement on the electoral roll, from memory, every day there are about 7,000 people who move or sadly die or turn 18 that we need to somehow interact with the electoral roll on a daily basis.

Senator ROBERTS: Or get married.

Mr Rogers: There is huge movement in that roll. We are constantly managing it—people are on, people are off. We do a range of things to make sure that it is accurate. We hear stories from time to time with people on social media or they might phone up talkback radio and say, ‘I multiple voted.’ We do not have any evidence of that. It is a minuscule problem. I have said before that the problem is vanishingly small. There is a gulf between what people do and say in this regard. We are alert to it. There have been a number of studies done. There was a large study done by an academic from the new University of New South Wales almost a decade ago looking at a range of issues to do with this. It is a vanishingly small issue. I mentioned previously, to the extent that it does occur, there are some factors normally are associated with it. One is age. People who multiple vote are more likely to be over the age of 80. I am thinking back to some research here. English as a second language can be an issue, because new voters might be confused. They may have heard that if you do not vote in Australia you get a fine and they are desperate not to get a fine, so they double vote. Sometimes there is also mental confusion as one of the other factors. It is a small number. Just to also give you some comfort, we are very clear that if ever the level of multiple voting came close to the margin for those seats, we would refer that ourselves to the Court of Disputed Returns and it has never even been close to that. We watch for that, we look at it and we are very conscious of it.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. Last question—have you ever been involved in any correspondence or collaboration with the eSafety Commissioner?

Mr Rogers: Yes, we have. Well, actually, let me just craft my answer here. When I say ‘we’, we, as part of the Electoral Council of Australia and New Zealand, which is the electoral commissioners of Australia and New Zealand, have been collectively looking at an issue to do with the safety of our staff. As you know, the eSafety Commissioner has some powers about adult harm online—I’ll get that bit wrong, forgive me, but whatever those powers are—and we’ve been working with the eSafety Commissioner as a group of commissioners to make sure we have adequate protocols in place for how we engage the eSafety Commissioner in using those protocols for the safety of our permanent and temporary staff.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Thank you, CHAIR.

/by

BOM’s Climate Forecast Failure

,

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has consistently issued weather forecasts that align with their promotion of the climate change scam, which appears independent of likely weather outcomes.

In 2023, BOM came unstuck when they spent the year forecasting a hotter and drier summer, prompting farmers to reduce their cattle numbers and alter planting schedules. What actually occurred was a wet and cool summer. This inaccurate forecast by the BOM resulted in significant financial losses for farmers and graziers, and rural provider Elders saw a $300 million drop in their share price when earnings were announced last month.

Despite this, BOM and other media outlets claim that their forecasts were accurate and that Elders’ earnings reflected other issues as well.

Supporting Research

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/outlooks/archive.shtml

EYCI Report | Meat & Livestock Australia (mla.com.au)

Archive – Climate outlook maps (bom.gov.au)

Read the Transcript HERE

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you to the bureau for appearing today. I’ve handed out some documents for circulation. They’re copies of BOM forecasts versus actual. I think you’ll be familiar with them, for sure. That’s a contradiction in terms, ‘think’ and ‘for sure’. Anyway, I’m sure you’ll be familiar with them.

On 19 September 2023 the Bureau of Meteorology’s weather forecast read, ‘Warmer and dryer conditions would be more likely over spring and summer,’ linking the Indian Ocean Dipole with El Nino using the words, ‘The last time this occurred was 2015,’ which was a very dry year, especially in Queensland. The bush listened to that, and a lot of other people did too—investors as well.

On 30 November the Bureau of Meteorology predicted ‘a high chance of warmer than usual days and nights across Australia, below average rainfall likely for much of the tropics’. The actual weather: northern Queensland was flooded in December—big floods—by Tropical Cyclone Jasper; inland Queensland was flooded in January by Tropical Cyclone Kirrily; South-East Queensland was flooded in December and January.

I’ve circulated your entire forecast for 2023 split into five periods. Each period forecast, except one, was for drier weather than occurred. One was about right. None predicted more rain than occurred, much less than I would have hoped. My question is simple: is your weather model fundamentally flawed?

Dr Johnson: No, Senator, it’s not.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s costing nearly $1 billion to upgrade your computer system, the ROBUST Program as it’s called. Is that still the cost, and can you provide an itemisation? It appears a ridiculous amount of money.

Dr Johnson: Firstly, as I’ve answered to senators in this chamber over many years, the costs associated with the ROBUST Program are cabinet in confidence; they’re not for publication. As I also answered—I think it was at the previous hearing or perhaps the one before—in response to a question from Senator Pocock, the upgrade of the Australis computer system is not part of the ROBUST Program; it is a separate program of work.

Senator ROBERTS:Could you explain the Australis versus the ROBUST, and which one is—

Dr Johnson: ROBUST is a complex program to upgrade the bureau’s ICT and observing systems, fundamental ICT—

Senator ROBERTS:What’s ICT?

Dr Johnson: Information and communications technology.

Senator ROBERTS:Thank you.

Dr Johnson: It upgrades our underlying information and communications technology infrastructure, our observing networks—all sorts of things.

Senator ROBERTS:And recording devices?

Dr Johnson: I’ll get to that in a second. That includes radars, automatic weather stations, automatic balloon launchers—all sorts of things that observe the environment—as well as our underpinning technology infrastructure.

The ROBUST Program, again, has three dimensions. It has a security dimension—in other words, investment to improve the security of the bureau’s systems from threats from our country’s adversaries. There’s stability. Prior to the investment in ROBUST, many of the bureau’s systems were very old, many decades old, and we were experiencing challenges in keeping them stable and operational. And then there’s resilience so that, in the event of an outage, the capacity of the bureau to respond and have our systems back online is improved. So there are three dimensions to ROBUST: security, stability and resilience.

There is a supercomputer dimension to ROBUST, which is a second supercomputer, a disaster recovery machine. Prior to ROBUST, our disaster recovery functions were executed within a single machine in a single place. The arrangements going forward will be different. I’d rather not disclose those in detail, for security reasons, but the ROBUST program funded a second supercomputer for disaster recovery purposes. That is a different machine to the Australis machine, which has often been asked about in Senator Pocock’s questions. That was a separate program to Robust, Senator. You’re conflating two bits of technology uplift in two separate programs.

Senator ROBERTS:The total cost is a billion dollars for both?

Dr Johnson: No. As I said, I’m not going to speak about the cost of ROBUST. The cost of the Australis upgrade is roughly, I think, $44 million—something of that order.

Senator ROBERTS:Dr Johnson, you’re required to produce any information or documents that are requested to this committee. There’s no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this Senate committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence. You’re protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that’s also a contempt. If you wish to raise an immunity claim, there are proper processes around that, and it is up to the Senate whether to accept that, not you or the minister. Can you please take on notice to produce that document to the committee and the cost—

Dr Johnson: Which document are you referring to, Senator?

Senator ROBERTS: The cost.

Dr Johnson: Of ROBUST?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Dr Johnson: The decision around the cost of ROBUST—

Senator McAllister: Just take it on notice.

Dr Johnson: We’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS:Thank you, Minister. David Burton of Inigo Jones, long-term weather forecaster, uses sunspots and planetary cycles to correctly forecast weather decades in advance. He’s got a track record because he’s got investors who invest as a result of his successful forecast. He posted 12 months ago that the good rains would start after 20 November 2023. There was no El Nino, and cyclones were likely. David Burton has no computer models and uses a $20 calculator because he understands the cycles. He got the weather right; you got it wrong. Hayden Walker, another long-term weather forecaster, correctly forecasted severe storms in the areas where they did occur. Will you talk to these private forecasters to work out why their systems are right and yours was wrong? Theirs are actually history. Yours are models—aren’t they?

Dr Johnson: I reject the whole premise of your questions. Our forecasts, as I’ve indicated at the previous hearing on this subject, were remarkably accurate. I’m happy to go through them again. What we said is on the Hansard in terms of the seasonal outlook. We were very clear, as the year progressed, that we were moving out of a dry warming trend into a moistening trend. We were also very clear in our messaging that, irrespective of the ENSO status and the seasonal forecast, we know that in northern Australia, in particular, there is always the risk of severe weather—cyclones and floods—under any climatic situation. I don’t agree with the premise of your question.

Senator ROBERTS: This is not just northern Queensland, where we know that it’s prone to storms, but western Queensland and southern Queensland. We know that your bureau declares El Nino and positive Indian Ocean Dipole events. David Burton said there was no El Nino and cyclones were likely. David Burton quite often gets it right. He’s paid a considerable amount of money because David Burton’s, Hayden Walker’s and, prior to them, Inigo Jones’ and various other people’s methods have been in use for decades. Farmers, investors and businesses pay for their forecast. They have to go out into the market and sell.

Dr Johnson: I understand that, and millions of Australians rely on our forecasts every day, including farmers and folks in the business community. I just reaffirm to you, as I did at the previous estimates, just how remarkably accurate our forecasts were over the period. I’ve certainly said in previous hearings and in other forums that we acknowledge that some of the messaging that we gave during the previous spring and summer didn’t get through in a manner that we would like.

That’s not to blame the recipients of that messaging. It’s just a fact. People heard a message around an ENSO status and thought, ‘That’s it; it’s going to be hot and dry.’ We update our forecasts every week, and we regularly updated our outlooks, and those outlooks proved to be very accurate.

We also affirmed, in all those messages that, particularly during the summer and irrespective of the ENSO status, the risk in this country of thunderstorms, floods and tropical cyclones remains. In fact, at the national severe weather forum here in Canberra, I made that very clear in my own presentation: one thing that this country has taught us is that severe weather can occur at any time. We’re very clear in our messaging around that. I’m only going to comment on our forecasts and warnings. Others are welcome to comment on those made other parties, but I stand by the quality of our forecast. I did so at the previous hearing, and I’ll continue to do so.

Senator ROBERTS:Well I do agree with you—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to have to rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS:I note that your own forecast—

Dr Johnson: I’d like to have a look at this—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s produced by you.

Dr Johnson: I know, but a very quick and cursory—and maybe it’s not helpful, Chair—is that you’re comparing two different measures of data there. One’s talking about chance of exceedance and another one talks about actuals. The two are fundamentally different concepts. Just because you have a map of Australia with colours doesn’t mean to say that the two datasets are comparable. Let me have a look at it. If you have a specific question, I’d be happy to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS:Your faulty forecast caused farmers to offload cattle. The benchmark Eastern States Young Cattle Indicator sat as high as 1,192 cents per kilogram of carcass weight in 2022, but by late 2023—after your forecast hit the streets—it had tumbled all the way to 349 cents per kilogram. That’s less than a third. Do you accept responsibility for that loss to the Australian capital market as graziers sold stock because they feared overstocking in the looming dry?

Dr Johnson: Let’s just get the data right here. The Eastern States Young Cattle Indicator was about 1,200 cents per kilogram in January 22, and less than 400 cents by October 23. We released our El Nino declaration on 18 September, so by 18 September that particular measure of cattle prices had dropped somewhere by around 80 per cent. To somehow draw a conclusion that because we issued that declaration on 18 September that resulted in a run on the cattle markets, is just not supported by the data.

As I said at my previous hearings on this matter—in response to, I think, a question from Senator Davey—there are a whole range of factors influencing the decisions of primary producers. I’ve talked to a lot of primary producers and absolutely our advice and our outlooks contribute to their decision-making. But to a person to a farm business that I’ve spoken to there are a whole range of other things that they take into account in making a decision to sell their cattle. So this notion that the bureau declaring an El Nino at 18 September can explain an 80 per cent drop of the cattle prices from January 22 to October 23 is just a nonsense, frankly.

Senator ROBERTS:Thank you, Chair, can we come back?

— *** —

Senator ROBERTS:Dr Johnson, could you please repeat your dates and cattle prices? Eastern Young Cattle Indicator—

Dr Johnson: I’ll try if I can. Let me just find the brief that I have and the advice I have received. I’ve been advised of Rural Bank data that shows the Easten Young Cattle Indicator declined from approximately 1,200c a kilogram in January 2022 to less than 400c a kilogram by October 2023. As I said, we declared an El Nino on 18 September. So, just to reaffirm by that calculation, I’m advised that the cattle price had completed more than 80 per cent of its downward run by the time we declared that El Nino in September.

Senator ROBERTS:Great. Thank you very much.

Dr Johnson: That’s the advice I have.

Senator ROBERTS: The Financial Review blames the Bureau of Meteorology: ‘How the BOM’s big dry weather forecast cost millions’ and ‘Bureau of Meteorology’s botched weather call crushes Elders’ earnings’. There’s ‘BOM mistakes hit farmers but slash inflation’, and then we’ve got others there. Your botched prediction cost more than just farmers; it cost mum-and-dad investors in Elders millions, with the share price dropping 25 per cent. Do you accept that this was the fault of your forecast?

Dr Johnson: Again, I’ve already answered this question. We absolutely stand by our forecast. Our forecasts are remarkably accurate. As I’ve said at previous estimates hearings, commentary in the media, frankly, has been largely ill-informed and inaccurate, and we’ve sought to correct the record where we can. Take, for example, the Australian Financial Review article which asserted that our El Nino declaration had been linked to Elders’ earning advice. I’ve had a look at the Elders’ advice, and it was not stated or even implied in their earnings outlook. I don’t care what the Australian Financial Review reported. My reading of what Elders actually said was that it didn’t state or even imply that the bureau’s El Nino declaration affected earnings for the period 1 October to 30 September. There are lots of things written in the media. Again, we talked about this last time. If you actually have a look at the facts of what we said and when we said it, our forecasts were remarkably accurate given how complex it is and the sheer area that we’re seeking to provide forecasts for. The forecasts are not perfect; they will always contain uncertainty.

Also, the long-range forecasts can’t explicitly predict the emergence of cyclones—individual, specific events. There will be times when you’ll have an anomalous specific event, and hence why, in our public commentary, we seek to affirm to the public and to industry that there’s always the risk of severe weather in this country and there is always the risk of cyclones in the tropics and subtropics in this country. It is a forecast. It is an estimate of a point in time in the future based on the data at a particular point in time. We update it every week. I strongly encourage those who follow our services—and many millions of people do—to continue to check those updates. The situation changes all the time. We continued to update a point-in-time statement back in September as more information came to hand.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we are going to wrap up, so can you please make this your last question.

Senator ROBERTS: There are lots of people who are saying that the Bureau of Meteorology colours its diagrams to make it look hot and dry but we actually see—and this is rainfall over 124 years—no pattern or trend, no declining trend or increasing trend, just natural variation. And that’s from the BOM. Why the doom and gloom? Why depress expectations for rural output, which also depresses investment, training and employment in the bush, reduces the standard of living and increases the cost of living?

Dr Johnson: I’m not sure I understand your question, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS:Why are you so negative and preaching fear and doom when there’s nothing to suggest that, and why do you use colours to exaggerate it?

Dr Johnson: I don’t agree with your statement that we are preaching doom and gloom. We’re simply reporting the observations we’re making of the environment around us, and we’re reporting, to the best of our ability, what our guidance is for the time ahead. We do that objectively, using world-class, internationally peer reviewed, highly regarded scientific methods, and we’ll continue to do so. I think we’re entirely objective in our pronunciations and our public statements.

/4 Comments/by

Snowy Hydro is an Endless Money Pit!

The Snowy Hydro is a $12 billion pumped hydro project that connects two existing dams in the Snowy with a tunnel, to allow excess power generated by industrial wind and solar sources during the day to be used for pumping water up the hill into the top dam, where it can be released to provide hydro power for the evening and morning peak periods. This sounds like a reasonable idea except, the cost started at $2 billion when announced by Liberal PM Malcolm Turnbull in 2018.  It’s now $12 billion and that’s not including the cost of the transmission lines to take the power into the national grid, which is $14 billion at the least. I expect the final cost will more likely be $20 billion.

Additionally, the project itself and the transmission lines are being built through undisturbed National Park, which will be permanently scarred.

This project will generate 350,000 MW/h of power per annum, providing revenue of $30 million a year at current rates, which suggests they expect electricity to become much more expensive. This means the project will not recover it’s capital cost and is likely to run at a loss every day it operates. The same machinery that is used to pump water up hill and the same “headrace” tunnel used for that purpose, is the same tunnel that brings the water down and generates electricity. This means the facility can’t pump water up and generate electricity at the same time.

So, while it’s true that the generator has a capacity of 2,200 MW, it doesn’t maintain this output all day. As Snowy Hydro admitted during my questioning, they aren’t actually generating new power; they’re simply time shifting existing power. This project has encountered delays due to drilling mistakes and now faces serious obstacles to completion.

Why are we throwing good money after bad on this boondoggle? The reason is that without pumped hydro acting as a “big battery” to transfer expensive, unreliable wind and solar power from the day (when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing) to the night and early morning when it isn’t, the grid will never survive. Evening and morning peak hours will be in darkness – every day. In renewable energy terms, pumped hydro “firms” wind and solar. They have to build Snowy, regardless of the cost.

/2 Comments/by

Questions Raised Over $430K Government Job

,

Under my questioning, Rob Stefanic, the head of the federal government department tasked with overseeing Parliament House, denied being in a relationship with his deputy, but refused to say whether he’d been in one with her before creating and placing her in a job paying about $430,000 a year. Cate Saunders was also given a $315,000 additional payment to retire, despite being far younger than the retirement age.

Listen to my questioning and tell me whether you believe Rob Stefanic’s answers are worth the $478,000 he is paid by YOU, the Australian taxpayer, as I had to remind him. I also asked about reports of there being a toxic culture at his agency, the Department of Parliamentary Services. Multiple staff have approached me and I am not satisfied with the fobbing off of these concerns.

If you’ve been a staffer in the Department of Parliamentary Services and have a complaint, please contact me confidentially at senator.roberts@aph.gov.au

/5 Comments/by

CASA Relied on Chief Medical Officer’s Advice Only

,

At the last estimates in May, I asked CASA which experts they had consulted for their advice. After some delay, CASA admitted they had relied solely on information from the Chief Medical Officer, without conducting any independent research. They stated their sources were limited to the TGA and FDA and that the only data used came from Pfizer, which has since admitted to numerous fatalities.

Ms. Spence said she was aware AstraZeneca had been withdrawn and that Novavax had also been withdrawn. However, she noted that there had been no reported adverse events in the cockpit.

I raised concerns about CASA’s varying health test requirements for pilots of large commercial aircraft versus small private planes and pointed out that these differing standards posed a risk in shared airspace.

Transcripts

ACTING CHAIR: Thank you to your legal officer. Senator Roberts?  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Marcelja could not tell me the specific names of the experts upon which CASA relied for turning a blind eye to Qantas and Virgin on mandates, which weren’t government mandates. Dr Manderson, can you tell me specifically which medical experts you relied upon for allowing Qantas and Virgin to mandate the vaccines? Who gave you the advice? Dr Manderson: The chief health officer of Australia at the time would be one important name.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you actually get his advice?  

Ms Spence: I think we have gone through this previously. I appreciate—  

Senator ROBERTS: That was with Mr Marcelja—  

Ms Spence: But I think what we—  

Senator ROBERTS: and he wouldn’t tell me the names of the chief medical officer—  

Ms Spence: Sorry, Senator. Do you want me to finish?  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you want me to allow you to keep interrupting?  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, come on. You know that’s against standing orders.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s been a lot of protection of—  

ACTING CHAIR: No. Allow Ms Spence to conclude her answer to your first question.  

Senator ROBERTS: She’s not answering my question; Dr Manderson is.  

ACTING CHAIR: I thought I heard Ms Spence, but—  

Senator ROBERTS: She interrupted.  

ACTING CHAIR: I’ll allow CASA to answer your question. CASA?  

Ms Spence: All I was going to say is that we’ve tried to explain before that we don’t get individual advice on specific issues; we rely on the advice of the health experts, and, in this case—as Dr Manderson has said—the chief health officer of Australia was basically a key source. But the TGA was also providing advice. I think we have actually put that in response to questions or in some of the Hansard previously.  

Senator ROBERTS: The reason I’m frying up is that Mr Marcelja said that it was the experts, and he wouldn’t name them, and the experts wouldn’t name them. And then we went to international experts, to I gave up. Your answer is the Chief Medical Officer—not the chief health officer. I presume you’re talking about the federal Chief Medical Officer.  

Ms Spence: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s important. The Chief Health Officer is—  

Mr Marcelja: Senator, perhaps you could refer me to your question specifically so that I’ve got in front of me what you’re talking about. What date was that? I’ve got the Hansard in front of me. 

Senator ROBERTS: I can’t remember the date.  

Mr Marcelja: You can’t remember it. My recollection of the conversation was that you were asking me on what basis we were taking the actions we were taking, and I told you that we were taking no actions to intervene in the Australian government’s response. The advice, as Dr Manderson pointed out, about Australia’s response was not being led by us; it was being led by health authorities. So we did not intervene and override the advice of Australia’s Chief Medical Officer or other health experts.  

Senator ROBERTS: You have told me that the buck ends here for aviation safety. You did not do any testing at high-altitude pressures, correct?  

Ms Spence: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: You just assumed Pfizer, the Chief Medical Officer and the TGA knew that the pressure would be okay at high altitude?  

Mr Marcelja: As I tried to explain a moment ago, what we’re interested in from a vaccination or medication perspective is: is it likely that you will get into a cockpit, have a sudden, incapacitating event and be unable to fly the plane? That’s our primary concern. For all vaccinations, including the vaccinations that were being—  

Senator ROBERTS: In the cockpit at altitude.  

Mr Marcelja: at altitude—our primary concern was whether that medication, the vaccination, would cause that event to happen. There is no evidence in Australia or anywhere around the world. We’ve checked with our regulatory authorities and colleagues in the US and Europe. There is no evidence of that event occurring anywhere in the world over the last several years. I think we were on pretty sound footing not to intervene and prevent a particular cohort of the population from being vaccinated when that’s not our role.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me ask you a few more questions around that. I want you to remember at all times in your answers to me that, when it comes to safety, the buck stops with you, CASA. There is no high-altitude testing done that you’re aware of. Are you aware that the TGA, when I asked them what tests they did in Australia on the vaccines, said they did no tests and relied on the FDA? Are you aware of that?  

Mr Marcelja: I reiterate what I said. They are not matters for us. We look at it from an aviation safety lens. Dr Manderson has been involved in international panels looking at aviation safety on a number of different topics. I’m sure she can step you through that. There is no evidence whatsoever over several years now of there being an aviation safety risk. That’s our concern. Whether the vaccine has other effects or issues—  

Senator ROBERTS: You relied upon the TGA. That was one of the people you relied on.  

Ms Spence: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The TGA admits it did no testing and that it relied upon the FDA. The FDA, prior to the TGA’s announcement, admitted that it did no testing and relied on—wait for it—Pfizer.  

Mr Marcelja: Are you suggesting—  

Senator ROBERTS: Now we find out Pfizer in their trials had hundreds of fatalities.  

Ms Spence: I don’t know how many times we can say this, but we treated the COVID vaccinations the same way we treat all vaccinations, and we don’t do individual, independent testing. But—  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue, then. Are you aware of AstraZeneca being withdrawn?  

Ms Spence: Yes, but I think—  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware—  

Ms Spence: Senator, sorry. I don’t think it’s quite as clear cut as saying it’s been withdrawn. They’re no longer using it. It wasn’t around inefficacy at the time, but now they’re no longer producing it. Yes, we are aware.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do blood clots say anything to you. What about Novavax? We understand that has been withdrawn just recently.  

Ms Spence: I wasn’t aware of that one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Excess deaths, 13 per cent, in line with the COVID injections—before COVID outbreaks in Queensland and Western Australia—what would make you investigate whether or not pilots are suffering from COVID injection adverse events? Because you don’t do testing on pilots; you rely upon pilots to turn themselves in. What would make you investigate it?  

Ms Spence: The only thing that would make us investigate is if there was an adverse reaction in the cockpit which could be directly attributed to a COVID vaccination. 

Senator ROBERTS: What if I told you that pilots are telling us that they know of mates who have had adverse events but they won’t speak up for fear of losing their job?  

Ms Spence: I would encourage them to report through the confidential reporting arrangements that I mentioned, both with us and with the ATSB, because we are not getting those reports, and there are mechanisms for them to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: With pilots losing their jobs, I wonder.  

Ms Spence: As I said, they’re confidential, so they don’t need to report who they work for—but just giving us the information, if that is actually occurring, would be incredibly beneficial.  

Senator ROBERTS: Given that CASA use Austroads fitness to drive as a guideline for recertification for TIA or stroke in class 5 medicals, on what are the class 1 and 2 medical recertification guidelines based, and do they differ from class 5 guidelines? If so, how and why?  

Ms Spence: The standards for class 1 and 2, which is the commercial pilot and the private pilot medical certificates, are based on the International Civil Aviation Organization medical standards for certification for pilots—for commercial and private. They are quite different to the domestic Australian class 5 medical certificate, which is not an ICAO certificate and doesn’t need to comply with those medical standards. So class 1 and class 2 reference the international pilot standards.  

Senator ROBERTS: And class 5—you make up the standards?  

Ms Spence: Class 5 medical standard was developed through really extensive consultation through technical working groups with both doctors and pilots, with operational input from pilots in particular. It also went through a really strong risk assessment process within CASA to determine what those standards should be, mapped against the risk treatments for the operational restrictions with the class 5.  

Senator ROBERTS: But my question was: CASA developed those standards? I’m not interested in the process. CASA developed those standards?  

Ms Spence: Yes, CASA developed those standards.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. CASA allow airlines to push pilots to the limit as a routine practice. This is facilitated by a concession given to the airlines masquerading as ‘fatigue risk management’. CASA have allowed airlines to use this system as a shield when continuing to roster pilots to fly unreasonably long hours. Do class 5 medical holders and class 1 and 2 medical holders operate in the same airspace?  

ACTING CHAIR: What are you quoting? I think the witnesses would like to see the source of that quote.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not quoting from anything here. My research assistant—  

ACTING CHAIR: I thought you were.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m not quoting.  

ACTING CHAIR: Okay.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just quoting the fatigue risk management title.  

Mr Marcelja: So, for the record, we don’t agree with the statement you just said.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Do class 5 medical holders and class 1 and 2 medical holders operate in the same airspace?  

Ms Spence: Yes, they do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is a class 5 medical holder a single pilot operation?  

Dr Manderson: Yes, it is.  

Mr Marcelja: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. You had some doubts, Dr Manderson?  

ACTING CHAIR: I think they answered the question.  

Dr Manderson: Sorry, only because I felt it was self-evident that—but, yes, it is.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. So, if a class 5 medical holder with a recent history of stroke or TIA after four weeks of grounding is back in an aeroplane at the holding point at an airport and has a relapse, his or her aircraft taxis out in front of the landing heavy jet fully laden. Class 1 and 2 medical holders can operate with multicrew and autopilots as well as current pilots repositioning as passengers in the cabin on numerous flights. Class 5 pilots have no back-up. Is that correct so far?  

Ms Spence: Senator, I— 

Mr Marcelja: Perhaps you could repeat the question. I’m not sure what the question was in that.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve got a heavy laden jet coming in to land with class 1 and 2 medical holders, with other back-ups on their position, and we’ve got a class 5 just about to go in front of the path and they have a relapse.  

Ms Spence: It feels like you’re describing—without being derogatory—a weekend warrior landing in the same place as a large commercial air transport operator, and I’m just trying to—  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s continue then. We’ll get on to your weekend warriors. What value does CASA place on the designated medical examiner’s ability to diagnose and recertify pilots? And what situations require CASA to intervene with their diagnosis?  

Dr Manderson: So the designated aviation medical examiners are absolutely fundamental to us being able to make safe decisions about issuing medical certificates. They are the doctors that perform the examination and interact with the pilots and air traffic controllers at every medical certificate renewal application. We trust their assessment as clinicians as to whether or not there is any medically significant or safety relevant medical condition present in that pilot or air traffic controller applicant. We take their clinical information and their advice when we decide whether or not to issue a medical certificate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why then is CASA advocating self-certification for class 5 medicals—as I understand it?  

Mr Marcelja: We are not advocating. What we’re presenting are options for different types of operations. So a pilot that chooses to operate with a single passenger in a light aircraft can choose a class 5 certificate or they can choose any other certificate. So we’re not advocating any particular medical. We’re creating options and different pathways for different pilots in different circumstances, and those circumstances are adjusted based on risk and the level of medical certification.  

Ms Spence: This is a matter that has been under debate for a number of years, around CASA being a proportionate regulator. Under the class 5 medical, we put restrictions on the way you can operate, therefore you can operate within those constraints and then we will review to see how that’s working over time. We’re monitoring it closely to make sure that we’re auditing people’s self-declarations and the like. So I think people do expect us to be a proportionate risk-based regulator, and I think the class 5 medical is an example of how we can do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I’m exploring here. I’m trying to understand. I’m not a pilot. Considering CASA AvMed can override opinions of consulting physicians and specialists during the medical renewal process, how could the view of a CASA AvMed doctor come to its own diagnosis of an individual pilot in the absence of face-to-face consultation and overrule the opinions of independent specialists and consultants? Is that possible?  

Dr Manderson: The aero-medical decision-making process is more than and different to the clinical decisionmaking process. The medical assessment process that we’re required to follow by the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and the ICAO standards and recommended practices is that we take all of the advice that is available from all of the clinicians—including their expert opinions, the investigations and reports that are available, the medical examination from the DAME—and we apply that information against the medical standard for medical certification. The key difference is that the medical specialists who are seeing the patient and the patient pilot or controller are performing an assessment of the medical status of that person as a clinician for diagnosis and management, not for aero-medical risk assessment and not for medical certification processes. So it’s quite a different role and a different process. We consider their advice, but their advice is about the condition and its disease and severity, not about its safety relevance for medical certification.  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we need to break for dinner. Are you close to finishing?  

Senator ROBERTS: We might put these on next Senate estimates.  

ACTING CHAIR: We are going to release CASA now. Thank you very much. 

/by

NDIA Coverage of Autism and Supporting the Elderly

,

During the recent Senate Estimates, I inquired with the NDIA about whether individuals with autism, often described as being on the spectrum, and their families are covered by the scheme to receive support? Constituents had informed me that support had been cut without explanation.

I was informed that there’s been no change and that individuals with autism will continue to be included in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), with support determined on a case-by-case basis.

I also inquired about the plan for supporting older individuals nearing retirement who already receive assistance under the scheme, ensuring they continue to receive the higher level of support. I was informed that the government is still deliberating on this matter.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Before moving on to my third question, I express my appreciation for the answers to the first two and for Mr Dardo’s concurrence that he’s going to put the details, in response to my first question, on notice—the financial figures. I don’t know who the appropriate person for this question is. Will families supporting a family member with autism be appropriately supported? Is autism covered? 

Ms Falkingham: It is. Can I clarify what your question is about, though. Obviously we cover autism within the scheme. 

Senator ROBERTS: You do? 

Ms Falkingham: Yes, we do. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve heard that many people with autism—or who are on the spectrum, as they say—had their services cut off, with little explanation provided. Is that true? 

Ms Falkingham: It’s not true that there has been any change in relation to autism. Autism will always remain part of our scheme. But, if there are any individuals that have got particular cases that you would like me to look at, I’m really happy to do that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have two more questions. What’s planned to support older people currently receiving a disability support package that’s far in excess of an age pension? What’s the plan for them when they reach retirement age? 

Ms Falkingham: That might be a question for our colleagues in DSS as well, because the NDIS review has made some recommendations in relation to making sure that people continue to receive disability supports after 65, but government is currently deliberating on that recommendation. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

Mr Griggs: Senator, we can come to that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry? 

Mr Griggs: We can come to that when we get to outcome 1 in DSS tonight. That would be the place to discuss that. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s it. Thank you very much. 

/1 Comment/by