In the May-June Senate Estimates, I asked David de Carvalho, CEO of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) why the National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) will no longer report progress through the NAPLAN ban system so that parents can see how their child is progressing relative to others?
In light of the latest disappointing NAPLAN results, which shows one in three children failing literacy and numeracy, I thought you’d be interested to hear his response.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing again. Why will NAPLAN no longer report progress through the NAPLAN bands so parents know how their child is progressing relative to other children?
Mr de Carvalho: Ministers decided on 10 February this year to move to a much better reporting system, which actually provides more meaningful information for parents. They will now be getting information that indicates where they are in terms of proficiency standards, which were agreed would be introduced as part of the national school reform agreement. The bands, if you go back to 2008, when they were set up, are essentially a statistical construct. We had a scale of around 1,000 points. The mean we set at 500. It was essentially divided into 10 bands. That number was relatively arbitrary. It could have been more. It could have been less. It’s a kind of a goldilocks number, if you like—a nice round number. The cut points in the bands themselves, unlike the new system, which we are introducing, didn’t have inherent educational value other than simply to be kind of marker points on a scale. It’s bit like telling a parent about their child’s height. They’ve moved from the zero to 20-centimetre band into the 21- to 40-centimetre band. Or, with weight, they’ve moved from the zero to 10-kilogram band into the 11- to 20-kilogram band. What parents really want to know is: is my child actually progressing at the normal rate or do they need additional support? These new standards—
Senator Henderson: I would disagree with that, actually.
Mr de Carvalho: The teacher view has been used to say, ‘What questions should children be able to answer to meet a challenging and reasonable expectation?’ We’ve used professional teacher judgement as opposed to a statistical or arithmetical division to identify the standard expected. That’s the one that we road-tested with parents. We asked them, ‘Would you prefer to see an individual student report with the numerical bands or this more meaningful information?’ They were quite unequivocal about it. They preferred the latter. It’s also not correct to say that parents won’t see their progress. Each individual student report has never reported progress. You need to keep the previous reports. Even if you are in year 3 and then year 5 under the new system, you may increase your NAPLAN score, say, from 250 to 300. You may still be reported in year 5 as strong whereas you were also strong in year 3 but the descriptors associated with ‘strong’ will indicate a higher level of capability. Parents will still be able to see that their child has progressed into a higher skill set. There will be more detailed information, more meaningful information, for parents through the new system.
Senator Roberts: Thank you for that. There are things in there that sound attractive, but I don’t understand it well enough. Perhaps you could tell me what is wrong with this description. Instead of providing a reading score in band 3, 4, 5 or 6, giving parents an idea of exactly where their child is in terms of progression, all of those bands will be replaced by the word ‘developing’. ACARA has said parents found the bands confusing. Isn’t that just an indictment on your failure to explain the more accurate band reports? Could you go into more detail? Tell me what is wrong with that.
Mr de Carvalho: I will go back to the point I was trying to make at the start. Those bands were simply arithmetically derived.
Senator Roberts: So a child was placed in there numerically?
Mr de Carvalho: There is a scale of, say, zero to 1,000. You set the mean at 500 and then you have your statistical categories, your differentials, set just by picking 100 or 200 or whatever the scale is to deliver 10 categories. But what we’re doing this time is using teacher professional judgement. We’ve consulted professional expert teachers about where on the scale they expect children to be based on what they’ve learned in previous years. We have asked which questions they should be able to answer to be able to say, ‘Yes, they’re meeting expectations.’ That was not the case under the previous 10-band regime. Parents will be able to see at a glance. What is really important about the new system is that particularly those children who are genuinely struggling will be identified as needing additional support. That is crucial, because under the old system, we had a category called the national minimum standard. It was broadly recognised that the national minimum standard was set too low. There was a relatively small percentage of children below the national minimum standard. It wasn’t really a call to action. Now we will have more students identified in that bottom category and it will be clear through the name of the category or the name of the level that those children need additional support. It will be a prompt to parents to have a discussion with their teachers about what needs to be done. I think that is a real, important change.
Senator Roberts: So the parent will be able to see the areas in which the child is deficient or strong?
Mr de Carvalho: The descriptors will also be part of the individual student report. It is a paper based report, and you can only put so many words on a paper based report. There will be high-level descriptions for each domain—that is, reading, writing, numeracy, spelling and grammar—and what it means if you are in each of those levels. If you want more fine-grained information, you will be able to go to the ACARA website and get more and more fine-grained information. With that, teachers will be able to have good conversations with parents about what needs to be done.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. It looks like there is more understanding to be gained on my part.
Parents contacted my office with concerns they had about a National Assessment Program (NAP) science quiz survey, which targeted children in Grade 6 (11 and 12 years). One of the survey questions was about families ‘compliance’ with the government’s COVID guidelines/regulations.
In Senate Estimates, I asked how relevant this line of questioning was with the stated NAP science objectives and whether the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) believes this is appropriate questioning for school children, who authorised the questions and who sees the results of the survey.
The COVID response has eroded many people’s faith in the government. Asking children to judge matters of civil compliance does not help build back trust in the wake of the last three years of hell that many families have gone through.
We have yet to receive responses from #ACARA to our questions, but hope to have them before the next Senate Estimates in October.
The BRICS member states are abandoning the United States’ dollar and other nations are seeking to join the BRICS bloc, which accounts for 25% of world trade and is expected to grow to 50% by 2030. The US dollar is now just 58% of all world trade. As the world moves away from the US dollar its value may fall.
Our Reserve Bank holds AU$35 billion in foreign reserves and half of that is in US treasuries securities. I asked the Governor whether the RBA had modeled the probability of that fall on Australia’s US holdings and whether they intended to invest in more US treasuries. The governor expects Australia’s economy to grow and foreign holdings to increase — as part of risk management however they are looking at other currency markets in line with the RBA’s key bench marks, but without speculating on any future currency fluctuations.
The BRICS group of major emerging economies — Brazil, Russia, India, China (the four founding members of the bloc) and South Africa is holding its 15th heads of state and government summit in Johannesburg on 22nd August. Founded as an informal club in 2009, it was initially created as a platform to challenge a world order dominated by the US and its allies with a focus on economic cooperation and increasing multilateral trade and development. As many as 23 countries have now formally applied to join the group and many more are said to be interested.
With more countries investing in and accumulating greater gold reserves and widespread reports that the BRICS alliance is working on creating a new gold-backed trading currency, I asked the Governor if Australia is planning to increase our gold reserves.
The answer was no. “We’ve got our gold reserves and we haven’t bought and sold for a long time, and we have no intention of changing that.”
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I have a question about the Reserve Bank’s reserves. Let me get to it by giving some background. At the BRICS meeting in Cape Town on 2 and 3 June, 13 nations will formally apply to join BRICS, which is currently Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa—and Saudi Arabia, with an each-way bet. Candidate nations include Mexico, Argentina, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Indonesia and Iran. BRICS is now the world’s largest trading bloc, accounting for 25 per cent of world trade which is expected to grow to 50 per cent by 2030. And it’s big in oil.
BRICS member states are abandoning the US dollar in favour of using their own currency or the Chinese renminbi in an environment where other countries, including Australia, are doing the same thing. Pakistan is now buying Russian oil and renminbi. The US dollar is now denominating just 58 per cent of all world trade. The United States has printed $10 trillion over the last seven years, doubling their M2 money supply. That increase has been absorbed in part by an increase in international trade. As the world moves away from the US dollar the value of the US dollar may fall. The Reserve Bank holds United States treasuries and dollars. Have you modelled the effect on your balance sheet from that probable fall in the value of US holdings.
Mr Lowe: Not as a result of these other global changes you’ve talked about. We spend a lot of time and part of our risk management processes looking at volatility in currencies, because currencies move around all the time, don’t they? That affects the value of those assets on our balance sheet, so we model that from a risk-management perspective. Despite the developments you’re talking about, most countries still hold the bulk of their foreign reserves in US dollars. There’s diversification going on, which is good, but the US dollar is going to remain the dominant currency for some time.
Senator Roberts: What is the value of Reserve Bank holdings of US dollar and US treasuries in Australian dollars?
Mr Lowe: Our total foreign reserves at the moment I think are the equivalent of U$35 billion. What’s the share, Brad?
Dr Jones: I think it’s 55 per cent.
Mr Lowe: Roughly half of that $35 billion is allocated to US dollars, and then we have holdings of yen, Korean won, euros and rmb.
Senator Roberts: What about treasuries?
Mr Lowe: When we hold US dollars we invest it in US Treasury securities. We don’t invest in bank deposits or any other securities. We invest in US government securities.
Senator Roberts: What’s the reverse holding of Australian government currency and bonds held by the US government or their agencies?
Mr Lowe: We don’t have data on that.
Senator Roberts: Could you get that on notice?
Mr Lowe: No.
Senator Roberts: You don’t have it?
Mr Lowe: We don’t have data on specific holdings of other countries.
Dr Jones: If I understood your question correctly, Senator, the US holds euros and yen, from recollection, but not in large quantities.
Senator Roberts: While that arrangement helps with international stability across holdings, it is a method for backdoor quantitative easing. Does the Reserve Bank expect to increase your holding of US treasuries in the next 12 months?
Mr Lowe: We’ve just done an exercise where we were looking at how much of our balance sheet should be held in foreign assets. We said we’ve got $35 billion at the moment. As the size of the economy grows you would expect that to gradually increase. But, no, nothing dramatic. As the economy grows and the nominal value of the Australian economy gets bigger, then you would expect a bigger portfolio in US dollars and foreign currency.
Senator Roberts: The Reserve Bank has a mission to anticipate movements in major trading partners and in world markets. As it affects your provisioning and portfolio, does the Reserve Bank anticipate being affected by any out of the ordinary moves in financial markets in connection with the US economy or the US dollar over forward estimates?
Mr Lowe: We’ve recently been focused on the US debt limit issues in the US. If an agreement had not been reached there, that would have had implications for currency markets and economies around the world. So that’s one thing that we’ve looked at carefully. It looks like that has been resolved, thankfully. And, just as part of our general risk management exercise, we’re looking at developments in other economies and their implications for currency markets in own economy.
Dr Jones: As a general rule though, the way the bank has operated its reserves has changed quite a bit over the last, say, 25 years, and now the bank effectively sets key benchmarks and sticks to them. There are not big discretionary decisions going on every day. There’s wild speculation going on at the Reserve Bank, I can assure you, about the future value of exchange rates.
Senator Roberts: I wasn’t implying that. Worldwide purchases of US treasuries by central banks has fallen $600 billion in 2022 as compared to a baseline year of 2013. That’s just arbitrary—2013. Purchases of gold have increased $300 billion. So something is going on that Australia would be prudent to hedge against. Is the Reserve Bank increasing its gold reserves as an each way bet against BRICS introducing a gold brick currency of some form?
Mr Lowe: No, we’re not. We’ve got our gold reserves. We haven’t bought and sold for a long time and we have no intention of changing that at the moment.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/lS0PPHlP8xA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-08-22 15:31:452023-08-24 15:48:57RBA’s Ties to US Dollars Leaves Australia Exposed
This is a case of the Ombudsman adding insult to injury.
In the May 2023 Senate Estimates I asked the Fair Work Ombudsman how their office decided that Ready Workforce could be a person’s employer when payslips, PAYG summaries, employer Super contributions and all ATO records indicated that the true employer was Chandler MacLeod, a labour hire company.
Apparently the investigation is continuing.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Ms Parker, is it true that, prior to your position at the Fair Work Ombudsman, you were the assistant secretary for the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations?
Ms Parker: I was Deputy Secretary, Workplace Relations Group.
Senator Roberts: In your role as a deputy secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, were you aware of the appropriation monies that the department sent to Coal Long Service Leave?
Ms Parker: Yes, I was.
Senator Roberts: Were you involved in the production of documents table for the annual financial reports for the department whilst in that role?
Ms Parker: In terms of the Coal Long Service Leave, that agency provide its own reports and its own financial reports.
Senator Roberts: But, given that you were the deputy, wouldn’t you have taken an interest in something that was worth a few hundred million dollars?
Ms Parker: We’re going back a way, but it was part of the overall reporting, for example under the annual report. But they were independent, in that sense. They were an agency that managed their own resources, so we didn’t have—
Senator Roberts: But you compiled the report.
Ms Parker: No, not for their own financial—
Senator Roberts: Not for their part, but you compiled their report into your department’s.
Ms Parker: That’s generally speaking. I’m just trying to think back. Our own finance area within the department looked at every single outcome, so, while they sat under the workplace relations auspice, if you like, the financial arrangements and et cetera were done through our finance and corporate areas in the department.
Senator Roberts: Is it true that the Fair Work Ombudsman reported Simon Turner to New South Wales Police recently about a document?
Ms Parker: I’ve not heard that.
Senator Roberts: He was contacted by the police. He wondered what was going on, and the police said it was in regard to an email he sent. I think it was to Robert Evans, Fair Work Ombudsman investigator. Mr Turner then read the email to the police. The police then said he’d been through the wringer and ended by saying there was no need to see him. Why did the Fair Work Ombudsman involve the police?
Mr Scully: I recall the email. I looked at it. I haven’t got a copy of it here, but I was concerned about the language in it, and I was concerned about Mr Turner’s welfare based on that language. So I asked for a welfare check to be done by the New South Wales police on that person.
Senator Roberts: Given what he’s been through, I have the utmost admiration for Mr Turner. He’s very, very solid.
Ms Parker: He is, but there are times when we get aggressive, abusive emails—
Senator Roberts: I’m not criticising Mr Scully.
Ms Parker: That was this occasion. I take those things very seriously, and it’s not acceptable. I understand he has had some stress—
Senator Roberts: Stress? Wow.
Ms Parker: I understand, but it doesn’t entitle him to be aggressive towards Fair Work Ombudsman staff.
Mr Scully: If I can clarify, that was for a welfare check. I asked for a welfare check on Mr Turner to be arranged by the New South Wales police.
Senator Roberts: Thank you.
Mr Scully: To clarify that further, it wasn’t in respect of any interactions he had had with the Fair Work Ombudsman. It was the language within his email. I was actually concerned about his welfare.
Senator Roberts: How long has this investigation been going? I understand it’s been underway since 2018.
Mr Scully: I haven’t got the exact date in front of me, but it has been ongoing. Mrs Volzke might have some more information.
Mrs Volzke: There have been a number of inquiries or requests for assistance made by Mr Turner. The initial one, as I understand it, was subsequently completed, but then there are other concerns that he has more recently raised about pay slips, as you know. That investigation is still ongoing, but we hope to be in a position to finalise it shortly.
Senator Roberts: I hope so.
Chair: I’m a bit reluctant to be talking in detail about an individual. If it’s helpful, Senator Roberts, maybe we can talk about the particular case you’re taking forward, rather than the individual. I also might have a bit of a discussion with the committee. I don’t think this should be on—
Senator Roberts: Mr Turner has given me his permission to divulge his name so that the case is clear.
Ms Parker: I would say that I know that you may not agree but the Fair Work Ombudsman staff have put an enormous amount of time and effort into this matter and have taken it very seriously. It’s a complex issue—
Senator Roberts: Very complex.
Ms Parker: and I hope you’d appreciate we have been doing a lot of work to try to assist. It has been going on, as you said, for some time, but it’s not a simple matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could ask that question of yourself after I ask the next few questionsinvolving one of your Fair Work Ombudsman investigators. Mr Robert Evans has a—
Ms Parker: Sorry, Senator; I thought we had agreed we wouldn’t talk about individuals. I’m very happy for you to talk about an inspector. I’d really prefer you didn’t name him. There have been some issues, as I mentioned before, including some aggressive behaviour towards my inspector.
Senator Cash: Chair, I don’t think Senator Roberts deliberately did that—
Chair: Absolutely not.
Senator Cash: but I think you are right, going forward, given the nature of the issues.
Chair: Yes. Given the nature of the issues that have been raised and the answers that have been given, can we be very mindful of the appropriateness of going into any details.
Senator Roberts: Is it true that a Fair Work Ombudsman investigator has an ATO document that states Ready Workforce was not the aggrieved miner’s employer?
Mrs Volzke: As I said, there is still an ongoing investigation in relation to the tax documentation and how that goes to the true employing entity of a particular individual. As you know, we’ve been looking at those issues and trying to engage not only with Mr Stephens and Mr Turner but also with the ATO. I’ll have to take on notice the question about that particular document that you refer to. I have to say I have no knowledge of it.
Senator Roberts: Is it true that the Fair Work Ombudsman investigator has been given a copy of a court decision that states that Chandler Macleod was the true employer of the aggrieved miner and not Ready Workforce?
Mrs Volzke: The name of the case escapes me at the moment, but what I would say is that that was a case that was particular to the individual in that matter. It’s not necessarily the case that you can extrapolate from those findings in that matter about a particular person and say that that must mean the same conclusions will be made in relation to—
Senator Roberts: I would strongly disagree with you. You’re entitled to your opinion. It’s quite clear tome. Can you explain how a Fair Work Ombudsman investigator could come to a decision that Ready Workforce, ABN 037, was the aggrieved miner’s employer?
Mrs Volzke: Again, talking at a broad, general level, whenever we’re trying in one of our investigations towork out who the employer is, the first place to start is always: what is the contract of employment that is enteredinto? It is from that that we work out where the entitlements flow. That’s on the basis of a number of High Courtcases—Rossato, Jamsek, Personnel—but even the current definition of casual in section 15A of the Fair WorkAct essentially gets you to the same place.
Senator Roberts: I understand you have to check, but the Fair Work Ombudsman’s decision is in direct conflict with all the evidence documents given to the Fair Work Ombudsman investigator, which showed payslips, PAYG summaries, tax documents, employer super contributions, Coal LSL contributions and all ATO records held by the aggrieved miner, who was paid his wages by Chandler Macleod using ABN 052.
Mrs Volzke: Again, we obviously don’t want to get into details, but you start with the proposition that, on the basis of the documentation at the time, that employment was entered into. Unless there’s a variation or some other sham or estoppel mechanism that casts doubt on that, those other matters don’t necessarily displace that. You’ll also know that we have made inquiries with the relevant employer in this case, as well, to seek an explanation about the discrepancy in relation to their ABN being on those pay slips.
Senator Roberts: The court ruling also stated that Chandler Macleod, ABN 052, was the true employer. The court affidavit showed that the mine contract was with Chandler Macleod and all payments from invoices from the mine went to Chandler Macleod, ABN 052. On this basis, I can’t see how it’s possible at all for your Fair Work Ombudsman investigator to arrive at a decision that is in direct conflict with all of this evidence.
Mrs Volzke: Again, Senator, I think you’re quoting that particular court case, which was in relation to another individual, and drawing conclusions. I would reiterate what Ms Parker has already said. We are doing the most thorough investigation that we can. We understand the concerns that have been raised. I don’t really know—
Senator Roberts: They’ve been raised, alright—with the Fair Work Commission; with the Fair Work Ombudsman; with the CFMMEU in the Hunter; with the local Labor MPs, state and federal; with the Attorney-General’s Department twice; with senators; with coalmines insurance; with Coal LSL; with state departments looking after safety, reporting injuries, workers compensation—
Mrs Volzke: It may well be in those—
Senator Roberts: He’s taken it up with me, and I’m the only one who has persisted. And it’s taken me four years to get to this point.
Mrs Volzke: It may well be that, in terms of what you’ve described, particularly in labour hire industrieswhere there are complex employment and corporate arrangements, it may be easier for there to be complexity inworking out who the employer is. I think these are issues that the government is looking at also, in the context of’same job, same pay’.
Senator Roberts: A hell of a lot of government departments have looked at it, and they just don’t do anything. They don’t come back with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’. They just don’t do anything, and yet they’ve given him assurances along the way. There have been so many parasites who’ve made money off these people along the way.
Mrs Volzke: Senator, as I’ve told you as well, it’s our job as the regulator to apply the law, and that’s what we’re doing our very best to do here.
Senator Roberts: Well, it’s a bloody slow process. This man and one of his mates, who’s in a similar position, have been to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations recently and had two briefingswith their senior people. The last was two weeks ago, and they still haven’t got back to him—not even anything.They were impressed with what he said and what he gave—but nothing. So I’d like to table this document, Chair.It’s a letter from Chandler Macleod to the CFMEU in the Hunter Valley.
Chair: You have another four minutes, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: That should do it. This is a letter from Chandler Macleod to the CFMEU Northern Mining and New South Wales Energy District. That’s Hunter Valley CFMEU, if you like, with a few mines outside the Hunter Valley. I’ll read out clause (c), which is at the top of the second page:The CFMEU and Chandler Macleod would present this EA—that’s enterprise agreement—to employees for their consideration, noting that both parties support the approval of the proposed EA and a vote would beheld as soon as possible, and as early as 7 May 2015 seeking employees to endorse the proposed EA—There’s an understanding of an agreement between the CFMEU in Hunter and Chandler Macleod, the employer. Clause (d) states:The CFMEU would agree—this is what the employer is saying, in their understanding—to cease from any current and future actions and claims (in its own right or on behalf of members) directed towards ventilating and agitating its view that employees currently engaged by Chandler Macleod companies as casuals to perform black coal mining production work may be entitled to “leave and other entitlements” associated with permanent employment or that Chandler Macleod is not paying employees their “lawful terms and conditions”. The union obviously agreed with this, because it went further. The union and Chandler Macleod are clearly colluding to strip entitlements and pay off workers at Mount Arthur mine. If it is the case that unions, purporting to represent miners, are actually colluding with employers and if all these government agencies are not doing their job over many years, what the hell does this man do?
Ms Parker: I have not finished, and we have been—
Senator Roberts: I certainly haven’t. I’ve got three aims. I’ll tell you about them later, if you like.
Ms Parker: We anticipate being in a position to finalise these in the near future, as we’ve said, and we’re still working on this. I’m sorry it’s so frustrating, but we have not stopped looking at it.
Senator Roberts: It’s more than frustrating. It’s damn painful. It’s hurting a lot of people in Central Queensland and in the Hunter and elsewhere.
Ms Parker: We understand, but we do have to apply the law as it stands, and that’s what we’re trying to do.
Senator Roberts: Are you aware of the many connections between various involved entities? For example, the lawyer representing the CFMEU in a case was Jennifer Short, who’s on the Coal Long Service Leave Board. She was employed as the CFMEU lawyer. These are just some of the interactions. There are many interactions between mining industry groups, mining companies, labour hire companies and the CFMEU in the Hunter. Are you aware of the many interconnections? You are now.
Ms Parker: Well, I think so. Certainly it’s not particularly relevant to our investigation, but it’s context.
Mrs Volzke: Certainly. Senator, the two clauses that you read out from that Chandler Macleod letter—when an agreement has been approved by the Fair Work Commission, which I’m assuming is what occurred here, then we take it as a given that it’s gone through the processes that need to occur within the commission. I know that Mr Furlong—
Senator Roberts: Mr Turner’s evidence shows that it hasn’t gone through correctly. It could not have gone through correctly, because it doesn’t comply.
Ms Parker: We heard our evidence this morning with the Fair Work Commission on that, which is theirresponsibility. We did listen to that.
Senator Roberts: Minister, quite clearly, the Fair Work Act has failed. It needs not just comprehensive reform; it needs replacement. We need something that is short, simple and clear, that workers can understand, that small businesses can understand and that is actually useful not to the industrial relations club but to the actual workers who need to be protected. Workers like these guys that we’re protecting in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley are without any protection right now. What’s going on with these people is stuff that would come from a Third World country or Australia 100 years ago. It’s unfathomable. I was shocked when I saw it. What is even more shocking now is that no-one can address it. That’s the Fair Work Act and its systems.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, you’ve heard from Ms Parker that the ombudsman is investigating thesematters. But, as I said to you before, the government agrees that the Fair Work Act needs a major overhaul tobetter protect the rights of workers and to close loopholes that exist at the moment, many of which you havetalked about. I think, Senator Roberts, you know that I’ve spent a fair bit of time in coalmining regions inQueensland where we’ve seen a lot of exploitation of coalminers, and that was allowed to go on under the formergovernment. So we hope that we can count on your support when it comes to the amendments that we’re puttingforward.
Senator Roberts: You’ll get my support for amendments that actually fix the issue, not prolong it and add more complexity. The problem with this Fair Work Act is its inherent complexity. That’s what has enabled the IR club, some union boss, some large unions, industry groups, employers, consultants, HR practitioners, lawyers and bureaucrats to feed off this monster. It’s the loopholes in the details. If you keep addressing loopholes, you’ll just create more loopholes. We need something that’s gutting the Fair Work Act and replacing it with something for workers and industrial productivity.
I asked questions of two Army generals as to the viability of military EVs in the field. They spoke of the challenges of recharging in the field, considering factors such as solar charging and the use of hybrid vehicles.
I was told that the technology was not there yet but the hope was that technology would have matured by 2030-35 when the fleet of vehicles may be transformed to EV status and technological problems be overcome.
Transcript
Chair: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: My questions are to do with the Army’s electric vehicles. Since the publicly released information of electric vehicle conversion of the Australian designed and built Bushmaster, has the Australian Army progressed to test the operational feasibility of other Australian electric military vehicles in the field? I understand from Minister Conroy, who gave us a crossbencher briefing, that this is at concept stage at the moment, nothing more.
Lt Gen. Stuart: I’ll begin, and then I’ll hand to my colleague Major General Vagg for any further comments.The concept demonstrator that you referred to was part of our power and energy work, which involves some studies to understand how we can use alternative sources of fuel (1) to ensure an operational capability and (2) to reduce the logistic footprint that is created by bulk fuel. There are a couple of important points to note. Firstly, we were able to produce an electric Bushmaster, but that was to really test the parameters of power generation and how that work would translate into the design of the vehicle and to really test the art of the possible.
Of course, the operating environment would probably require us to have a hybrid approach, similar to a hybrid passenger vehicle, with both solar panels and also the fuel that would be required. So it is on a path of development to determine how we can continue to operate vehicles and reduce the logistics footprint and, obviously, the output of those vehicles.
Senator Roberts: What progress has been made? What stage are you at right now?
Major Gen. Vagg: As the chief has alluded to, we produced the capability demonstrator with Thales. One of the limitations is power generation and storage and the distribution — which I think you’d appreciate —
Senator Roberts: Easy to understand that.
Major Gen. Vagg: for operational use. We’ve got a number of studies underway to look at power generation and electrification of various sizes of wheeled and tracked vehicles. Those studies are indicating that the technology won’t be in a mature state until about 2030. We have plans from 2035 onwards to look at how we’ll transition the broader Army fleet as we move across.
Senator Roberts: So the time frame is you’re hoping to put something into operation by 2030.
Major Gen. Vagg: That’s the time when the studies are indicating the technology will be mature enough so we can field it as an operational capability.
Senator Roberts: So at the moment there’s no real understanding based on anything concrete—it’s just studies at the moment. You haven’t got a plan or deadline or date.
Major Gen. Vagg: As I said, from about 2035 we’ve got plans to look at starting to convert Army’s fleets across to electric vehicles.
Senator Roberts: What are your findings on energy density? One of the advantages of hydrocarbon fuels like petrol and diesel and gas is that they have very high energy density—not as high as nuclear, but very high energy density. Sunlight is incredibly low.
Major Gen. Vagg: That’s a good observation. To inform some of that work, we’ve got trials with electric vehicles that are occurring this year. We have 40 electric vehicles—civilian—that are operating in the ACT. From 2024 we’ll look at a series of small, light commercial vehicles that will use hydrogen cells. We’ll use those capability demonstrators to inform further work and how we’ll look to operationalise that.
Senator Roberts: To what stage has the thinking gotten in terms of replacing the current diesel powered vehicles?
Major Gen. Vagg: Again, I go back to my first point. Looking at the levels of maturity for those technologies, we don’t expect that to mature to where we can deploy it as a legitimate operational capability until about 2030.
Senator Roberts: Is there any way in which our concrete operational plans assume electric vehicles, say, by 2035? Are we going to be reliant upon these things being developed?
Major Gen. Vagg: I don’t think we’d be reliant on them being developed, but that’s a goal where we’ll look to do that transition.
Senator Roberts: So it’s a goal, not a plan yet.
Lt Gen. Stuart: If I can describe the approach, there are a whole range of emerging technologies that we need to understand, and then we need to test their application to the set of tasks that we need to provide for the integrated force. In some cases, I expect, those will be successful; in other cases they may not be. What we want is to be informed and take advantage of the developments in technology as they’re developing. We work with both academia and industry to explore the art of the possible. We’re not making any presuppositions about exactly when, because we just don’t have the evidence or the data to support exactly where that technology may be. What we’re working on at the moment in the case of electrification is that we think, based on the advice we’ve received, that technology—noting your point about energy density and the requirement to operate vehicles in operational situations—is probably toward the end of this decade. That is our estimation based on the work we’ve done so far and the advice from experts that we’ve been working with.
Senator Roberts: Have you deployed the vehicle in the wet or in the north or in the desert or put it through any arduous tests, or is it still very much a concept?
Major Gen. Vagg: It’s still very much a concept.
Senator Roberts: What about battery charging? You mentioned that as one of your challenges. I think, from memory, on Friday afternoon the Minister for Defence Industry, Mr Conroy, said that you had some concepts for fast charging. Is that correct?
Lt Gen. Stuart: We’ll have to take that one on notice. As I say, as part of the power and energy work we’re doing, we’re looking at a whole range of things, which include both power generation and power storage—which includes battery technology.
Senator Roberts: What would power generation involve—what sort of concept?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Solar, hybrid engines—
Senator Roberts: Solar panels?
Lt Gen. Stuart: and those sorts of things.
Senator Roberts: Hybrid using hydrocarbon fuelled engines?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes.
Senator Roberts: You’re not far enough advanced, then, to discuss the recharging question for field operation?
Major Gen. Vagg: No. As I alluded to before, we’re still looking at how that technology matures. That’s one of the principal challenges that we need to overcome.
Senator Roberts: What’s your early gut feeling? Much of the science on this and the application of the science on these technologies is still hypothetical—wish.
Lt Gen. Stuart: I don’t think my gut feeling is particularly relevant. We’ll follow the science and what can be demonstrated and how that can be applied to the work that we are required to do. But we think it makes a lot of sense to be understanding and to be working with experts on how we can apply new and emerging technologies to the business of Army in this instance.
Senator Roberts: I’m reassured now. Initially, I wondered if we were going to be dependent on something happening in the next few years, and I had visions of extension cords all across North Queensland and the Territory. That has put that to rest. Thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/2vJqvwZZIXM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-07-07 16:00:232023-08-24 15:50:32Does the ADF really think electric vehicles can defend our nation?
During the recent Senate Estimates, I questioned the Reserve Bank about the effect of the ascendant BRICS alliance on the Reserve bank’s holdings of US Dollars (USD) and US Treasuries (UST). I also asked Mr Lowe about his expectations of the US Economy’s movement in the next few years and how this may affect Australia. Mr Lowe avoided any pessimistic projections regarding the US economy.
I then asked if the Reserve Bank was increasing its gold reserves as a precaution against the BRICS group releasing a gold-backed currency. The RBA has actually reduced our gold reserves from a peak of $5.2 billion to $3.9 billion now. The answer I received was also negative.
I think this is a mistake. Australia should be increasing our gold reserves as a hedge against international currency fluctuations in the uncertain times ahead.
Transcript
Chair: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: I have a question about the Reserve Bank’s reserves. Let me get to it by giving some background. At the BRICS meeting in Cape Town on 2 and 3 June, 13 nations will formally apply to join BRICS, which is currently Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa—and Saudi Arabia, with an each-way bet. Candidate nations include Mexico, Argentina, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Indonesia and Iran. BRICS is now the world’s largest trading bloc, accounting for 25 per cent of world trade which is expected to grow to 50 per cent by 2030. And it’s big in oil. BRICS member states are abandoning the US dollar in favour of using their own currency or the Chinese renminbi in an environment where other countries, including Australia, are doing the same thing. Pakistan is now buying Russian oil and renminbi. The US dollar is now denominating just 58 per cent of all world trade. The United States has printed $10 trillion over the last seven years, doubling their M2 money supply. That increase has been absorbed in part by an increase in international trade. As the world moves away from the US dollar the value of the US dollar may fall. The Reserve Bank holds United States treasuries and dollars. Have you modelled the effect on your balance sheet from that probable fall in the value of US holdings.
Mr Lowe: Not as a result of these other global changes you’ve talked about. We spend a lot of time and part of our risk management processes looking at volatility in currencies, because currencies move around all the time, don’t they? That affects the value of those assets on our balance sheet, so we model that from a risk-management perspective. Despite the developments you’re talking about, most countries still hold the bulk of their foreign reserves in US dollars. There’s diversification going on, which is good, but the US dollar is going to remain the dominant currency for some time.
Senator Roberts: What is the value of Reserve Bank holdings of US dollar and US treasuries in Australian dollars?
Mr Lowe: Our total foreign reserves at the moment I think are the equivalent of U$35 billion. What’s the share, Brad?
Dr Jones: I think it’s 55 per cent.
Mr Lowe: Roughly half of that $35 billion is allocated to US dollars, and then we have holdings of yen, Korean won, euros and rmb.
Senator Roberts: What about treasuries?
Mr Lowe: When we hold US dollars we invest it in US Treasury securities. We don’t invest in bank deposits or any other securities. We invest in US government securities.
Senator Roberts: What’s the reverse holding of Australian government currency and bonds held by the US government or their agencies?
Mr Lowe: We don’t have data on that.
Senator Roberts: Could you get that on notice?
Mr Lowe: No.
Senator Roberts: You don’t have it?
Mr Lowe: We don’t have data on specific holdings of other countries.
Dr Jones: If I understood your question correctly, Senator, the US holds euros and yen, from recollection, but not in large quantities.
Senator Roberts: While that arrangement helps with international stability across holdings, it is a method for backdoor quantitative easing. Does the Reserve Bank expect to increase your holding of US treasuries in the next 12 months?
Mr Lowe: We’ve just done an exercise where we were looking at how much of our balance sheet should be held in foreign assets. We said we’ve got $35 billion at the moment. As the size of the economy grows you would expect that to gradually increase. But, no, nothing dramatic. As the economy grows and the nominal value of the Australian economy gets bigger, then you would expect a bigger portfolio in US dollars and foreign currency.
Senator Roberts: The Reserve Bank has a mission to anticipate movements in major trading partners and in world markets. As it affects your provisioning and portfolio, does the Reserve Bank anticipate being affected by any out of the ordinary moves in financial markets in connection with the US economy or the US dollar over forward estimates?
Mr Lowe: We’ve recently been focused on the US debt limit issues in the US. If an agreement had not been reached there, that would have had implications for currency markets and economies around the world. So that’s one thing that we’ve looked at carefully. It looks like that has been resolved, thankfully. And, just as part of our general risk management exercise, we’re looking at developments in other economies and their implications for currency markets in own economy.
Dr Jones: As a general rule though, the way the bank has operated its reserves has changed quite a bit over the last, say, 25 years, and now the bank effectively sets key benchmarks and sticks to them. There are not big discretionary decisions going on every day. There’s wild speculation going on at the Reserve Bank, I can assure you, about the future value of exchange rates.
Senator Roberts: I wasn’t implying that. Worldwide purchases of US treasuries by central banks has fallen $600 billion in 2022 as compared to a baseline year of 2013. That’s just arbitrary—2013. Purchases of gold have increased $300 billion. So something is going on that Australia would be prudent to hedge against. Is the Reserve Bank increasing its gold reserves as an each way bet against BRICS introducing a gold brick currency of some form?
Mr Lowe: No, we’re not. We’ve got our gold reserves. We haven’t bought and sold for a long time and we have no intention of changing that at the moment.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Br6XLHZsdN8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-14 16:28:132023-06-15 17:26:51Is the Reserve Bank in Denial?
At Senate Estimates I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics about the accuracy of the data they publish.
Many Australians, politicians, government officials and media should be watching the ABS data for signals that there could be a problem with our COVID response. Births and deaths would be the main indicators.
The ABS are slow in producing this data and don’t appear to understand that these datasets should be produced faster than pre COVID times.
In addition, the ABS has been loading incomplete data and not labelling it as such. After this was pointed out to them during our last senate estimates, the dataset referenced was changed to include the label “incomplete”.
How many other datasets are labelled as final when in fact they are incomplete?
The answers showed that the data for Provisional Mortality only includes doctor-certified deaths (which we knew) but that the comparison baseline includes ALL deaths, including coroner-certified deaths (which we didn’t).
This means the ABS has not been comparing apples with apples, and the figure for Provisional Mortality understates actual deaths by 15%.
What this means is that unexplained deaths in Australia is over 30,000 in 2022. Around 10,000 of those are attributed to COVID.
What are the other 20,000 deaths?
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you all for appearing today. My first questions go to accuracy of data. In the last estimates session, we had a conversation around the accuracy of one of your datasets. I want to follow up on that. The dataset is births by year and month of occurrence by state. It’s available in your Data Explorer. The conversation was around the reduction in births shown towards the end of 2021, and that reduction was quite dramatic. I accept your position that this effect is caused by delays in reporting of birth, and a lot of December’s reports came through in January. Is this correct so far?
Dr Gruen: That is correct. There’s a pattern, which is repeated every year, which is that the first unrevised estimate of births in December is of the order of 6,000 or 7,000, and then, once you have the final numbers, the final numbers are of the order of 22,000 or 23,000. So, there is an enormous revision for precisely the reason you just mentioned—namely, not everyone has recorded the birth of their child. I think they have other things on their mind than making sure that the ABS gets its numbers right.
Senator Roberts: The dataset is titled ‘birth by month of occurrence’, not ‘births by month of reporting’. 2021 data was not available until 19 October 2022. Why was 10 months insufficient time to completely compile the full 2021 calendar year? I note that December is still showing 6,600 births against an expected 20,000 in your Data Explorer, as you’ve just said. Why is this data still incomplete 17 months later—and still wrong?
Dr Gruen: It’s unrevised; I wouldn’t use the word ‘wrong’. The answer is we have a schedule of births which has been the same schedule for an extended period. We haven’t yet got the revised numbers for 2021, but, when we do, we have a pretty good idea of the order of magnitude that they’ll be. This hasn’t changed. We’ve be doing it on this timetable for many years.
Senator Roberts: The database now carries a warning—thank you for this—’incomplete data’. Have you made a note of where else incomplete data is being loaded into your Data Explorer and ensured incomplete data warnings are attached as you load that data?
Dr Gruen: We provide preliminary data for a range of series, and we did more of that during COVID because we thought it was important for people who were making decisions to have the most up-to-date data that they could possibly have. So, we brought forward some releases, understanding that they would not be complete, and we were transparent about that. It is certainly the case that revisions are part of producing statistics, whether it’s births or the national accounts. The national accounts also get revised. It’s a common feature. We do not revise the quarterly CPI because there are legislative indexation arrangements. Again, it’s a longstanding practice that we do not revise the CPI, but, for many other series, revisions are a standard practice.
Senator Roberts: I don’t think anyone would complain, Dr Gruen, about data needing to be revised. Maybe the speed of it might be something we might inquire about, but what I was getting to was: are there any other datasets on your Data Explorer that need the words ‘incomplete data’ as a warning? Bad decisions are made off bad data, and it becomes misinformation.
Dr Gruen: I don’t think it’s misinformation. We are as transparent as we can possibly be about the nature of the data. For instance, we put out provisional data for deaths, which we have actually discussed in previous estimates hearings.
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Dr Gruen: That is based on the available information two months after the end of the reference period, and those are also revised subsequently. When we first started producing that data, again, that was during the early phase of COVID. We did it purely on the basis of doctor certified deaths, which is about 80 to 85 per cent of overall deaths. We’ve managed to include some coroner certified deaths in that series, but it’s still incomplete when it’s first published two months after the period. So there are several datasets where we are very clear about the fact that they’re not the final data and that extra data will come in for the period that we’re talking about.
Senator Roberts: I’m advised that the incomplete data warning arrived after our session last time.
Dr Gruen: That is possible.
Senator Roberts: So I’m just wondering if there are any others. The dataset ‘Causes of Death, Australia’ for calendar year 2021 was released in October last year. Can you confirm that 2022 will be released no later than October this year?
Dr Gruen: I’m sure there’ll be someone here who can tell you for sure. Around October is when we publish the annual data for the previous year, but we can take that on notice and give you an answer, for sure.
Senator Roberts: The provisional mortality figure is still showing that deaths are running above the previous known range. Has the ABS received any request from any minister or department—federal or state—for an explanation of where the increase is or what data the ABS has which could cast light on that substantial increase in mortality?
Dr Gruen: We do talk about provisional deaths, and we do talk about what proportion of those are people who died with, or of, COVID and from other causes, so I don’t think there’s a mystery about what is happening. We get lots of requests for our data, so I can’t answer the question. Since it’s on the website—
Senator Roberts: They wouldn’t need to ask you.
Dr Gruen: That’s right.
Senator Roberts: I was just wondering, in particular, whether Health had asked, but, as you said, they don’t need to. Do you send reports routinely, or do you just publish on the website?
Dr Gruen: We publish, and we answer media inquiries. We have outposted people in many of the departments in Canberra, and we have continuing discussions with them. If a department had a specific request, it would be straightforward for them to ask us.
Senator Roberts: There’s a disparity between datasets that I would like to ask about. Starting with the publication ‘Provisional mortality statistics, Jan 2020-Dec 2021’, which was released on 30 March 2022, the key statistic is that 149,486 doctor certified deaths occurred in 2021. If I then go to your Data Explorer, the figure for ‘Deaths and infant deaths, year and month of occurrence’, shows deaths in 2021 to be 160,891.
Dr Gruen: Is the subsequent number published? The number you first quoted is the number that was available from doctor certified deaths up until the end of March, and then the second number you quoted comes from more recent data. Is that correct?
Senator Roberts: I don’t know when that was published, but it shows deaths in 2021 to be 160,891, which is higher. So, I understand the difference in deaths because some would be autopsy certified and take time to come through; is that correct?
Dr Gruen: Yes, that’s right. As we say when we publish those provisional death numbers, they are provisional. They are the data that we have available on the date at which we finalised the numbers. As I said earlier, doctor certified deaths are something like 80 to 85 per cent of all deaths, so the number goes up when you add the coroner certified deaths.
Senator Roberts: It includes the autopsies. Is the figure on this graph for the baseline average calculated using provisional mortality or using final data from the ‘Causes of Death, Australia’ dataset?
Dr Gruen: We can check, but I’m pretty confident that it’s final.
Senator Roberts: Would that then include autopsy deaths?
Dr Gruen: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Provisional mortality is a widely shared dataset that informs much debate around our COVID response. It’s running well above our historical range. From today’s exchange, we know that the figure for provisional mortality understates actual rates of mortality. Your dataset does make that clear, so this isn’t a criticism.
Dr Gruen: No.
Senator Roberts: What I would like to know is: by how much does provisional mortality understate actual mortality in percentage terms on average? I think you’re saying 85 per cent?
Dr Gruen: I think the number that we get two months after the reference period is about 85 per cent of the final number.
Senator Roberts: I’d like to go briefly to data collection. A constituent of mine in Queensland has contacted me in person during a listening session in Rockhampton just recently. This elderly lady, who is single—widowed—and lives alone had a terrifying interaction with the Australian Bureau of Statistics that raises questions about either the staff training or your understanding of the fair exercise of power. The ABS maintained a dataset called the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey, which apparently involves Australians being selected at random to participate. The survey consists of an Australian Bureau of Statistics officer visiting the selected person’s home and taking their height, weight, blood pressure and waist measurement, which is compulsory. Then the citizen has the option of submitting a voluntary blood and urine sample. Is that correct?
Dr Gruen: I think so. I think that is correct.
Senator Roberts: The constituent in this case advised the ABS worker that she lives alone. After receiving a series of letters they thought was a joke, an ABS field worker came by her home in the dark at 6.30 pm, showed her credentials, asked for her by name and advised that the constituent must submit to the government mandated physical. When the constituent declined, she was threatened by your worker with a fine of $220 per day until she submitted to this physical examination by a complete stranger. Is that how the ABS runs its survey?
Dr Gruen: Well, I can’t comment on a specific event. We obviously do our best to treat people in a dignified way. It is true that the surveys that we run are compulsory, but we also allow for the possibility that people who have extenuating circumstances can apply not to be part of the survey, and people do do that on occasions. It is important, in order to be able to collect data that is representative, that we can indeed choose a representative sample, but it is also true that, for people who are in circumstances in which they find it particularly difficult or who are in the circumstances that you described, we are understanding.
Senator Roberts: That goes to my next question. Why can’t you get this information from hospital records for admitted patients with de-identified data? Why pull names out of a hat, knock on their door, call out for them by name and terrorise them into submission? It seems like a massive overreach when there are alternative ways of doing it. Maybe the alternative ways are not entirely random, but they could be made so, couldn’t they?
Dr Gruen: Just to make it clear: our aim is not to terrify people.
Senator Roberts: This lady was terrified.
Dr Gruen: Well, I’m sorry about that. We obviously train our interviewers to be sensitive to people. On the general issue of being able to find alternative ways to get the data, we are very much alive to those possibilities. What you’re talking about is an example of using big data instead of surveys, and there’s a worldwide move from national statistical offices to do precisely that both because the big datasets that are becoming available—there are increasing numbers of them. For instance, early in COVID we started using single-touch payroll from the tax office to be able to give high-quality, up-to-date information about employment. That’s an example of a big dataset. But it is also true that response rates around the world are falling because people are, for whatever reason, getting less happy to respond to the surveys of the national statistical offices. That’s another push factor to lead us to do precisely what you’re suggesting. Now, we haven’t accessed the particular dataset that you have talked about, but the general proposition that we are moving in the direction of using big data and taking the burden off individuals and businesses is very much a journey that we’re on.
Ms Dickinson: For some of the surveys that we run, there are not alternative sources that we could avail ourselves of, and the survey that you referred to—the nutrition survey—has quite a range of questions that we ask people before we come to the physical measurements. It’s things like diet. We ask people to recall what they have eaten and sometimes do a food diary. That’s the type of thing that we can’t get from big data and in which there’s quite a range of interests from users, including the Department of Health, Treasury and so on.
Senator Roberts: By big data you mean data that can be automatically collected or harvested from existing datasets?
Ms Dickinson: Yes, such from the example that you gave, such as hospital data.
Senator Roberts: Okay. Have you ever fined someone for refusal?
Dr Gruen: Yes. And we fine a small number of people for not filling in the census.
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Dr Gruen: But not a large number. We have 10 million households fill it in and the number of people we fine is very small.
Senator Roberts: Minister, are you happy that this elderly widow was terrified?
Senator Gallagher: I’m sure the ABS and Dr Gruen would be very happy to follow up an individual matter, if you’re able to support your constituent to raise that—if she felt vulnerable over that. I think that resolving these issues is important and there are ways to do that. I’d certainly encourage you to think about how you could facilitate that. I also totally support the need to seek this information, because it helps in so many ways to understand what’s going on. Currently, for example, I’ve been selected for one of the household surveys—I think it’s for nine months. Do you get selected for that—
Ms Connell: Eight.
Senator Gallagher: Eight months—
Chair: You can—
Senator Gallagher: It was made very clear to me when I inquired about having to do it—the compulsory nature of it—and the consequences for not filling things out every month—
Senator Ruston: They didn’t believe you when you said you were too busy, did they?
Senator Gallagher: I had very helpful advice from the ABS when I rang to try to get out of it! I was told, politely, that those were not grounds for getting out of it. But that’s how we get information about what’s happening across the country.
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Senator Gallagher: And I don’t think that anyone who’s sitting here would say that they took any comfort in thinking that an elderly woman felt terrified by it; that’s not the intent, and I’m sure there are ways to work through that.
Senator Roberts: I applaud your comments about the need to use data in government but I don’t see much of it—and I’m not talking about this government on its own, I’m talking about previous governments as well. One of the sad things is that government doesn’t use data when making policy and legislation, in my view.
Senator Gallagher: But it’s not just for government. So many people rely on the ABS datasets for their work.
Senator Roberts: Dr Gruen, you mentioned something that I took to mean people are becoming more reluctant to share data—
Dr Gruen: More reluctant to participate in surveys.
Senator Roberts: Is that due to the pushback because of—well, what is the cause? Is it due, partly or maybe majorly, to the intrusion into people’s lives during COVID?
Dr Gruen: It’s a phenomenon that predates COVID, and it’s global. It happens in all countries. I’m aware that there has been a gradual decline in response rates to surveys. We have higher response rates than most advanced countries for many of our high-profile surveys, like the Labour Force Survey, which I think must be the one the minister is enrolled in.
Senator Gallagher: Mine is the household one.
Dr Gruen: Oh, can I—
Senator Gallagher: They want to know how many people in my house, what we’re doing and how hard we’re working. I’m skewing the statistics!
Dr Gruen: That’s the Labour Force Survey.
Senator Gallagher: Is it?
Dr Gruen: We have the labour force expert behind us.
Senator Gallagher: Okay!
Senator Roberts: In which way are you skewing the statistics?
Senator Gallagher: Because I work so much! I’m off the scale!
Senator Roberts: Oh, off the scale.
Senator Gallagher: And it’s, ‘Why are you working so hard?’ I fill it all out.
Dr Gruen: On the web?
Senator Gallagher: Yes.
Dr Gruen: Good, I like to hear that.
Senator Roberts: Because a pesky senator is asking questions in Senate estimates! Thank you, Chair.
Chair: I’ve got distracted and entirely lost control of the committee!
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ktfHpyahicM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-13 17:36:192023-06-14 15:23:57Incomplete data leads to incomplete conclusions
I have many constituents email me their concerns about mRNA vaccines for cattle.
In the recent Senate Estimates I shared their concerns with Meat and Livestock Australia, who are project managing the development of mRNA vaccines for cattle in Australia.
I asked them about the project and MLA responded saying that mRNA vaccines for cattle are in the early stages of development in Canada, but not Australia.
They do not know if they will work and if they can be used without altering the health or the genetics of the animal. These are the things the MLA are watching out for.
If an mRNA vaccine is developed, then the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicine Authority will have to put the vaccine through its own safety testing before approval.
I can also add that the stories on the internet about death of cattle after mRNA vaccines are wrong. The video being used is from other incidents, including the use of poison feed.
mRNA vaccines are not in use in cattle in Australia, and as far as I am aware, anywhere in the western world.
Although we don’t need to worry immediately about these gene shots in our cattle, we will keep an eye on how this unfolds overseas.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing tonight. I refer to questions on notice dated 28 February 2023. Question SQ23-0002000 is going to be distributed. It is from February estimates regarding the development of mRNA vaccines. A copy will be coming. Do you agree with this answer as it was written at the time?
Mr Strong: This is a question to us and an answer we provided?
Senator Roberts: I’m not sure if you were in the room at the time. Maybe Mr Metcalfe took it.
Mr Metcalfe: Sorry, Senator. I wasn’t paying attention.
Senator Roberts: That’s alright. You undertook to take this question on notice for people who weren’t in the room. I think you did it for two or three groups last time.
Mr Strong: The highlighted piece that you are asking about on this first one?
Senator Roberts: Yes. Do you agree with this answer as it was written at the time? Has anything changed since then?
Chair: Which one are we on, Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: It is SQ23-000200.
Mr Metcalfe: I think MLA is being asked whether there is any update to the reference to 200, Jason. I think we are being asked about 128. Senator, I will undertake to see whether there is any update to 128. I don’t have the relevant staff here because they’ve all gone home. I am not sure whether MLA can assist you in relation to the question.
Mr Strong: Yes is the short answer, Senator. We would still agree with the answer that has been provided here. It is a research project that is still going through the research process now.
Senator Roberts: You are involved?
Mr Strong: Correct.
Senator Roberts: In supporting the development of mRNA vaccines for cattle? It’s under development at the moment, but it hasn’t been approved?
Mr Strong: So involved. I’m absolutely not trying to be cute. We are involved in the research to look at the potential use and development of mRNA vaccines. There is not the commercial use of an mRNA vaccine for a veterinary purpose at this stage.
Senator Roberts: That’s right.
Mr Strong: This research project is looking at that. Can it be done? Can it be done in a safe way? Can it be done in a way that produces a vaccine that provides a level of efficacy we need? Can it be done in a commercial way?
Senator Roberts: I think the third criteria you had was that it doesn’t contaminate the food.
Mr Strong: Of course. And it has to be commercial.
Senator Roberts: I want to unpick the whole third paragraph. Firstly, this answer indicates that a lumpy skin vaccine will undergo testing in Canada. Is it still being tested in Canada and not Australia?
Mr Strong: The research is being conducted in Canada to develop the mRNA type vaccine. For any vaccine to be approved here, it would have to go through an approval and testing process here. But the research is being done in Canada. We probably could have been clearer in the way that was written.
Senator Roberts: The TGA, which did not do live patient testing in this country, relied on the FDA. The FDA in turn did not do any testing; it relied on Pfizer. Unlike them, you will do thorough testing?
Mr Strong: We’re very confident of the standards in place and the requirements we have to comply with for veterinary medicines in Australia. We will absolutely comply with them. I think we all have a level of concern and confusion in this space from what we have seen and heard in the last few years. Luckily, in Australia, we have a very sound and detailed approval process. Absolutely we will make sure any research we do in this space is connected to that process.
Senator Roberts: I would like to get into that. The TGA admitted, in answering my questions at the last Senate estimates, that they did not do testing with live patients. They relied upon data from the FDA in America. The FDA also admitted that they didn’t do live testing. They relied upon data from Pfizer, the producers. Do our testing requirements require proper testing in this country?
Mr Strong: Yes, they do. I think there are some big differences between what we all experienced over that two or three-year period and what we are doing here. The main one is that we have more time and human lives aren’t at risk. If we don’t get positive results out of the tests with the research that is being done on these mRNA vaccines, we can stop. If there are different paths we have to take, we can do that. If we need to take more time, we can do that. I think the two examples are sufficiently different that we can have confidence that we will be able to stick to a very disciplined research and development and then testing, pre-approval and approval process for any potential new vaccine.
Senator Roberts: It is good to know that the mRNA technology is still new. It hasn’t been tested properly in humans at all. What makes you confident that your test will pick up any problems in cattle?
Mr Strong: Nothing is the short answer to start with. The follow-on from that is that it is exactly what you just said; it is new technology. A very important part of this research is to learn about that. If it has the utility that we think it should have and the ability to manufacture the type of vaccine which is actually safer for animals and easier to use and more effective, it provides a fantastic potential opportunity and we absolutely should explore that. But we absolutely have to do that in a way that protects the safety of the animals and the food chain and, obviously, the consumers.
Senator Roberts: Because the reputation of mRNA now has been tarnished well and truly. People will be wary about eating something that has mRNA in it and eating that meat.
Mr Strong: We will be very conscious of those consumer and community views in the space.
Senator Roberts: Will the meat be labelled?
Mr Strong: I don’t know the labelling requirements for what would happen with an animal that has been vaccinated. Like I said, that hasn’t existed previously. Labelling requirements is something that absolutely would be part of the approval process. Of course we would rely on the Australian authorities to make those rulings.
Mr Beckett: It is a bit early in the consideration. Those things will all be dressed.
Senator Roberts: What is that, Mr Beckett?
Mr Beckett: I said it is early in the consideration of the whole research. Those things will certainly be considered in the process.
Senator Roberts: Overseas experts with regard to the COVID injections for humans say this new technology should have had 15 years of testing, not 15 months or nine months, and not rely just on Pfizer itself. Now we are finding out that the efficacy is negative for these injections. It doesn’t stop transmission. The authorities have acknowledged that. It needs to be very well tested over an extended period with cattle to make sure there is efficacy and to make sure it is safe and it is safe for humans. The mRNA vaccine for foot and mouth is also being tested in Australia, though, isn’t it?
Mr Strong: No. Not yet.
Senator Roberts: No, sorry. It will be tested in Australia. The testing will be in Australia at the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute located in the middle of a large dairy production area in Menangle. Is that right?
Mr Strong: No. Not necessarily. Before anything can come into Australia, it has to go through a very controlled and specific quarantine process. Nothing would actually be brought in and tested or released without appropriate controls.
Mr Metcalfe: Our department has to approve the import of such a virus. We would give extremely careful consideration to any application such as that for obvious reasons.
Senator Roberts: You would have to bring foot and mouth virus in?
Mr Metcalfe: Absolutely. We would probably need the chief veterinary officer and others to provide evidence to you about the management of that issue.
Senator Roberts: They are up next, I think.
Mr Metcalfe: No. I am only here because I am supporting the minister. The department is formally no longer here.
Senator Roberts: Will you be involved in that test, MLA?
Mr Strong: It’s too early to say. The research that we’re investing in is whether it is possible to produce vaccines using mRNA technology that would allow the treatment of diseases such as lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. That is the research.
Senator Roberts: So it’s very early days?
Mr Strong: Very early days, absolutely, yes.
Senator Roberts: Are you aware that the testing on mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease includes ensuring that the vaccine does not alter the DNA of the animal, thereby destroying generations of genetics? Australian farmers, whether dairy or beef, should be very proud of the genetics they’ve developed over the years. We don’t want the genes altered.
Mr Strong: Absolutely we don’t. Again, it’s too early in the process. I am sure those things will be part of the consideration if there’s any potential risk from that.
Senator Roberts: The answer to question SQ23-000128 precludes the precautionary use of an mRNA vaccine for foot-and-mouth disease or lumpy skin disease as it would remove our status as being disease free. Can you reassure the committee that this is still the position of Meat and Livestock Australia?
Mr Strong: I don’t think that was our position in that question. Wasn’t that a department question? Isn’t that what you were saying?
Mr Metcalfe: That was actually advice from the department to you, Senator. I have indicated that we’re happy to update. If there are any changes, we’re happy to update it. It was only provided a couple of months ago. I would be surprised if there is anything to update.
Senator Roberts: If you could just let us know.
Mr Metcalfe: We’ve taken that on notice already.
Senator Roberts: Let us know if it remains constant or if it has changed.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/q2gP9au7gpo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-13 14:45:192023-06-13 14:45:24Is there an mRNA Vaccine for Australian Cattle?
I highlighted the dilemma facing Aussies who are getting squeezed out of the property market by cashed up foreign buyers.
I was told that purchasers of new properties by foreign investors are monitored through the Australian Tax Office but they were not prevented from purchasing the property.
I told the ATO that this was not good enough and asked when the government would stop selling off the farm to the detriment of Aussies at a time when there is a grave housing shortage in Australia.
Click Here for Transcript | Part 1
Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here this morning. The Foreign Investment Review Board makes recommendations to the government about approving certain large investments in projects in Australia. One concern of Australians is the seemingly large number of Australian residential homes and residential land that is being purchased by foreign investors, to the exclusion of Australian homebuyers—are you aware of that?
Mr Writer: We are certainly aware that there are publicly reported concerns about the acquisition of property by foreign investors, yes.
Senator Roberts: Anecdotal evidence is of land banking, where properties are purchased by foreign interests and then held vacant, in the middle of a housing crisis where thousands of Australians are left homeless.
From 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021, one year, there were 5,310 residential real estate purchase transactions by foreign buyers, with a total value of $4.2 billion. Eighty-six per cent of those were for new dwellings and vacant land. Minister, why does there appear to be no governance or restriction on overseas ownership of residential property in Australia?
Senator Gallagher: There is, and I’m sure officials can take you through it.
Mr Writer: There are restrictions. Generally speaking, foreign investors, in relation to residential real estate, cannot purchase existing properties. There is only one real exception, which is for temporary residents who need somewhere to live. Generally, they will only receive approval for the acquisition of newly built properties, not existing properties. That’s designed to encourage the construction of new residential properties in Australia.
Senator Roberts: So foreigners can’t buy existing property, but they can build new property?
Mr Writer: That’s correct.
Senator Roberts: Who gives the approval?
Mr Writer: In general, the residential real estate proposals are considered by the ATO under delegation from the Treasurer.
Senator Roberts: The Australian Taxation Office as designated by the treasurer?
Mr Writer: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Given that many countries do not allow foreign ownership of their residential properties, why does Australia allow foreign investment in residential property with little or no restriction?
Senator Gallagher: We’ve just gone through that there are restrictions. The other thing I would point to is the changes that we’ve put in place to double the penalties applicable to breaches of the foreign investment rules applicable to residential properties, which we implemented on 1 January. We’ve doubled the foreign investment application fees from 29 July 2022. Fees now start at $13,200 for acquisitions of residential property valued at $1 million or less and $26,400 for acquisitions of $2 million or less. The settings under the approval process are designed to increase supply, which is essentially the big challenge we’ve got in the housing market at the moment—we need more supply of housing, and that’s why the settings are targeted to increase that.
Senator Canavan: Can I ask a quick follow-up, Senator Roberts? I believe our foreign investors can buy established dwellings with approval from the FIRB. Is that correct?
Mr Writer: With approval from the ATO, yes.
Senator Canavan: How many approvals have you provided over the past year?
Mr Writer: I’d need to go to the ATO about that question, but what I can say is that in 2020-21 the total number of purchases of residential dwellings in Australia was 588,176. Of those, 4,355 concerned foreign investors.
Senator Canavan: Sorry, 355 in total?
Dr Kennedy: Yes, 4,355.
Senator Canavan: Sorry, 4,355.
Mr Writer: Yes. It’s still less than one per cent of the total.
Senator Canavan: Yes. It’s still quite a lot. That’s of established dwellings?
Mr Writer: No, that’s of all residential dwelling purchases.
Senator Canavan: Okay, so it includes, potentially, new ones. So you can’t tell me how many approvals. How many times did you reject somebody who wanted to buy an established dwelling?
Mr Writer: I’d have to take that on notice. The ATO will be here later this afternoon and may be able to answer that.
Senator Canavan: I thought it was FIRB that does that rejection.
Mr Writer: In relation to residential property, no. The ATO manages that.
Senator Canavan: Finally, the new penalties the minister mentioned—how many times has a foreigner been penalised for illegally purchasing an established residential dwelling over the past year?
Mr Writer: I couldn’t answer that. The ATO would need to respond to that.
Senator Canavan: Does it happen? Was there one?
Mr Writer: The ATO certainly took action, I think, last year, and were successful in obtaining a penalty against a foreign investor, yes.
Senator Canavan: The issue seems to be—notwithstanding your figures—anecdotally, that the foreigners are always turning up at auctions and buying established dwellings. It doesn’t seem to me that hard to get around our rules, to just get someone else to buy it in their name. Does that happen? How do we know? What sort of efforts do you put into making sure people aren’t trying to avoid these restrictions?
Ms Kelley: Again, the ATO is responsible for the compliance in that regard. I would also note that Australian citizens and temporary residents are able to purchase as well, regardless of their background.
Senator Canavan: Of course, but they could also do so on behalf of others. Is that illegal? Would it be illegal to do so on behalf of someone—
Mr Writer: That would be a scheme to avoid the application of the act. Yes, it would be.
Senator Canavan: I’m just asking. I know you’re saying the ATO is enforcing it, but presumably you’re the policy area.
Mr Writer: We are.
Senator Canavan: So how confident are you? You don’t seem to understand the details of the prosecutions that go on. How confident are you that this restriction is actually being implemented?
Mr Writer: We rely on the ATO to do this. It administers and enforces the law in accordance with the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act and the relevant policies that the successive governments have put in place around this area of activity.
Senator Gallagher: And I think the numbers that were read out before give you an indication that that—
Senator Canavan: That doesn’t go to my question, because it doesn’t capture people doing it illegally.
Senator Gallagher: No, but you were saying anecdotally, basically, that foreigners are out buying up all the houses, and I think—
Senator Canavan: You can’t even tell me how many people you prosecuted.
Senator Gallagher: It’s not about prosecution.
Senator Canavan: If you were taking this issue seriously, you’d know that, Minister.
Senator Gallagher: That doesn’t relate to prosecution, and we can deal with that through the ATO.
Senator Canavan: My question did.
Senator Gallagher: That deals to the scale.
Senator Canavan: Clearly people are not obeying the law.
Senator Gallagher: And that question has been answered, and obviously your anecdotal information is incorrect.
Senator Canavan: No, it’s not, because you don’t even have any evidence about how many prosecutions you’ve made.
Chair: Order!
Senator Canavan: You’re obviously not taking it seriously.
Chair: Order! I’d like to return to Senator Roberts, who I believe has the call. Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: I thank Senator Canavan for his questions. Minister, doesn’t it mean, though, with the current housing crisis, that the ability for foreigners to buy or to construct a new house crowds Australians out of the market or certainly raises the prices?
Senator Gallagher: Again, no, I wouldn’t accept that. Again, it goes to the numbers that Mr Writer has outlined. But the fact is that the settings are targeted, essentially without exemptions, to new housing supply. It’s focused on generating that new housing supply to be available for people to live in, and part of what we have to deal with in the housing market at the moment is a shortage of supply.
Senator Roberts: According to Mr Writer’s figures, 4,355 were bought by foreigners, out of 5,186. That’s almost 80 per cent.
Senator Gallagher: No. You’ve got that wrong.
Mr Writer: It’s 588,000.
Senator Roberts: I’m sorry. That’s my mistake.
Ms Kelley: It’s 0.74 per cent, to be precise.
Senator Roberts: Quite often, though, foreigners will lock up their houses rather than rent them out. So they’re vacant. They’re not available to Australians.
Mr Writer: I don’t think we can confirm that kind of statement.
Senator Roberts: That’s widely known. You won’t confirm it, because you haven’t got the exact numbers. I understand that and I appreciate that.
Mr Writer: I don’t think we have any actual evidence of that fact.
Ms Kelley: Part of the ATO’s responsibility is also around the amount of time a property is vacant and ensuring that it’s not left vacant as well. That is part of the compliance regime.
Senator Roberts: That’s the ATO’s responsibility, is it?
Ms Kelley: Yes.
Senator Roberts: So you’re just responsible for the policy?
Ms Kelley: In terms of residential real estate, Treasury has a policy responsibility. The ATO implements the policy.
Senator Roberts: Minister, wouldn’t the widening of the mandate of the FIRB to include residential purchases go a long way to slowing down the sale of residential properties to foreign speculators?
Senator Gallagher: If FIRB were assessing them?
Senator Roberts: If FIRB were extending their authority over all residential property.
Senator Gallagher: It would slow it down—is that what you’re saying?
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure how those two things go together. Essentially, we’ve got Treasury with the policy side of the work and the ATO then enforces those arrangements, so I’m not sure how FIRB extending reach into residential property would slow down the sale. As you’ve heard, it’s 0.75 per cent of residential sales.
Senator Roberts: So FIRB would have authority as to whether or not to approve or recommend—they don’t approve anything. They make recommendations.
Senator Gallagher: The ATO currently does. We have an approving entity that does that work—
Senator Roberts: Which basically has no teeth.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t accept that, but, by all means, put those questions to the ATO.
Senator Roberts: Isn’t it time, though, for the government to start buying back the farm and limiting sales of Australian land to Australian purchasers only, like China and several other countries do?
Senator Gallagher: No. That’s not the policy of the government. We have in place an arrangement that allows, under specific circumstances, foreign investors to purchase residential properties in this country. We’ve got those settings—they’re here; we can answer questions about them—but they are the arrangements that are in place.
Senator Roberts: I understand they’re here, but I’m saying why not change them so that only Australians can buy Australian land, not just Australian residential real estate but Australian land?
Senator Gallagher: That’s not the government’s policy. We are an open-facing economy. We are a country that has relied on foreign investment. We believe there need to be suitable controls in place to manage that, and those settings are the ones that we’ve been talking about this morning. That remains the government’s policy.
Chair: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: This is not a radical thought, Minister, as many other countries protect their sovereignty by not selling their land to foreign interests. Why is it that Australians can’t buy land in those countries but foreigners from those countries can buy land in our country?
Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure of the countries that you are referring to.
Senator Roberts: China’s one of them. There are a number of countries.
Senator Gallagher: We’re here, and we do have arrangements in place, through FIRB and through the arrangements with the ATO, to put restrictions and limits on the sale of housing or, in FIRB’s case, on foreign investment matters. They are looked at and assessed against the national interest.
Senator Roberts: It’s a one-way street for foreigners. Australians can’t buy property in their countries, but they can buy it in our country.
Click Here for Transcript | Part 2
Acting Chair: Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here tonight. My questions are in two streams: registration information for the Australian Taxation Office and foreign investment in real estate. I’ll get on with the first one.
Senator Gallagher: Senator Roberts, FIRB are no longer here.
Senator Roberts: No, it’s to the ATO. You referred me to the ATO this morning.
Senator Gallagher: That’s right; I did. That was a long time ago.
Senator Roberts: A very long time ago. I understand the registration information for the ATO was displaying incorrectly on the business and company registers. It displays a record named ‘ultimate holding for all company’. This was updated in early March. Can you please explain when this error was brought to your attention and what part you had in correcting that?
Mr Jordan: Is this on the Australian Business Register for the ABN?
Senator Roberts: I think that’s where it was, yes.
Mr Allen: I’m not aware of that issue, but I can take it on notice and come back to you.
Senator Roberts: Okay. Could you also answer these questions then please? How did that information come to be displayed on the registers in this way?
Mr Allen: Again, I’ll take that on notice.
Senator Roberts: Yes. And also take on notice what information the ATO supplied to the business registry service or ASIC that caused the registration to be displayed in this way. Can you take that on notice?
Mr Allen: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Was it an error from ASIC or the business registry service or the ATO that caused the information to be displayed in this way?
Mr Allen: I’ll take it on notice.
Senator Roberts: How did BlackRock come to be displayed as the owner of ‘ultimate holding for all company’?
Mr Allen: I’ll take it on notice.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. Can you please take on notice to provide a full chronology of this incident, including data and correspondence—who it was sent to, who it was received from and what was addressed in it?
I’m raising it because it suggests that there may be other errors for entries that are not as high profile that are still there. What routine audit of this database do you have in place to detect such errors? After this embarrassment, have you gone looking for more?
Mr Allen: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. That’s all on that thread. Now I’ll get on to housing. Minister, why does there appear to be little governance or restriction on overseas ownership of existing residential property and newly constructed residential property?
Senator Gallagher: I think we answered this earlier today. Weren’t the issues that were to be referred to the ATO over essentially the approval for foreign investors to buy—
Senator Roberts: I want to put it in context that the ATO understands. Many countries do not allow foreign ownership of their residential property. Why does Australia allow foreign investment in residential property with minimal restriction?
Senator Gallagher: Is that to the ATO?
Senator Roberts: It’s to you, Minister.
Senator Gallagher: As I think I went through this morning, there are restrictions in place. It is something the government—
Senator Roberts: On older properties, but not on newly constructed or first residencies; isn’t that correct?
Senator Gallagher: No. For foreign investors it is targeted at new properties, unless you get an exemption. That’s my understanding. We don’t have that group of officials here—they’ve gone—
Mr Jordan: We have a deputy commissioner of international here.
Senator Gallagher: but that was the evidence this morning.
Mr Jordan: He’s responsible for the registers that we maintain. He will try to answer any questions.
Senator Roberts: So you’re purely a registry?
Mr Thompson: No. As was touched on this morning, in the residential property space the foreign investment regime essentially seeks to promote the growth and development of housing stock. The way it does that is by restricting foreign investment to new builds, development of existing builds or vacant land. There’s only one circumstance in which approval for an established dwelling would be granted under that regime, and that’s for temporary residence. Those properties will need to be divested when that person ceases to be a temporary resident.
Senator Roberts: Established properties cannot be purchased by foreigners?
Mr Thompson: The scenario where an established property would gain approval to be purchased by a foreigner is where they’re a temporary resident.
Senator Gallagher: It’s also when it’s their primary residence, isn’t it?
Mr Thompson: They will be required to live in that—
Senator Roberts: But, other than that, they can’t purchase existing residential properties?
Mr Thompson: That’s correct.
Senator Roberts: Can they build a new property?
Mr Thompson: Broadly speaking, there are three classes of properties that a foreign resident might get approval to purchase. One would be vacant land. One would be redevelopment of an existing property—so you could perhaps subdivide and convert a single dwelling into two dwellings. One would be a new build, yes.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. Doesn’t it still mean that the system is fairly unregulated, since people can come in and develop?
Mr Thompson: There’ll be conditions around our approval, so there’ll be a time period. If you were to seek approval to develop an existing property, there would be time periods around that approval being granted, if it’s not an open-ended approval.
Senator Roberts: Do you know how many properties are being developed or redeveloped every year with foreign ownership?
Mr Thompson: I don’t have that level of detail. We have a register of foreign ownership of residential land that we publish every year. That actually breaks down transactions between vacant land, established dwellings and new dwellings. That would probably be the most disaggregated split I can provide.
Senator Roberts: I’m being asked to wind up. Minister, wouldn’t the widening of the mandate of ATO to include all residential purchases by foreign purchasers go a long way to slowing down the sale of residential properties to foreign speculators?
Senator Gallagher: They do.
Mr Jordan: I think we do. Some are not allowed—
Senator Roberts: Do you register all?
Mr Jordan: and some are allowed, depending on their circumstances. All purchases asked by foreigners to be made are looked at and regulated.
Mr Thompson: I know there was conversation this morning. It is a requirement to seek approval to purchase properties if you’re a foreign resident. We do undertake compliance activity. We do, in some cases, force a divestment of properties. There was a reference made to a civil matter in 2022 where the court imposed penalties of $250,000 on an individual for purchasing four properties without approval.
Senator Roberts: How many existing residential properties have been bought by foreign purchasers in each year over the last five years?
Senator Gallagher: We’d probably take that on notice.
Mr Thompson: Yes. We can take that on notice.
Senator Gallagher: We certainly had some figures that we gave you for the 2020-21 year. But if you want us to go back five years, we’ll take that on notice.
Senator Roberts: What monitoring is in place to keep track of foreign purchases of existing residential properties?
Acting Chair: Can I ask you to see if you can put questions on notice? We need to wind up.
Mr Thompson: I have four years.
Senator Roberts: That’d be good. I can put most questions on notice. How many residential properties, new or existing, are sitting vacant after purchase by foreign purchasers? Do you track things like that?
Mr Thompson: There is a regime that is known as the ‘vacancy theme’. Under that regime, foreign owners are required to notify us if the property is vacant. If they fail to notify us in a given period we deem the property to be vacant and there is a vacancy fee charged for that.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. I will put the rest of my questions on notice.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/RO-wkWXSXRc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-08 15:57:122023-06-23 15:34:28When will the ATO stop foreign buyers?
Everyone’s power bills are going up, which made me wonder why the Australia Council was happy to make their power bill 7% more expensive for no reason at all.
Despite the same power coming through the plug (probably from a coal fired power station) the council elects to make their bills 7% more expensive so they can buy “green power”. What a scam and a waste of money.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I want to follow up on something we discussed last time. You may recall that last estimates we had a conversation about your power bills.
Mr Collette: Yes.
Senator Roberts: A lot of people are talking about power bills these days.
Mr Collette: They are.
Senator Roberts: This is estimates, and one of the purposes of estimates is to assess how you are spending taxpayers’ money. That is what I want to revisit. Firstly, thank you for your detailed response, when you took my question on notice. That was SQ 23-003317. I hope all of the Public Service takes notes from you about how questions on notice should be answered. We appreciate it.
Mr Collette: Thank you.
Senator Roberts: In that answer, you said that you elect to add the green power product to your power bills. That is totally optional. You opt in, and you take extra money from the taxpayer to pay that expense. That is making your power bill 6.8 per cent—say seven per cent—more expensive than otherwise. Whether you opt in to pay the extra for green power or not, the same power comes through the same plug, probably from a coal-fired power station. But you are choosing to waste taxpayers’ money on this optional expense that makes no difference to what is turning the lights on. How much did you pay for green power over the last year?
Mr Collette: I will have to take that on notice, unless my colleague has the answer.
Mr Blackwell: I don’t have it.
Mr Collette: We will try to come back to you with an equally exemplary response.
Senator Roberts: Good, thank you. I don’t expect this of you, but do you have any guess as to what your power bill is?
Mr Collette: I would not like to guess, no.
Senator Roberts: Can you also tell me how much you expect to pay this coming year?
Mr Collette: I can’t tell you that, but I will certainly get that information for you.
Senator Roberts: You were established under legislation; correct?
Mr Collette: We are.
Senator Roberts: So I assume you have been established with the objective of funding the arts.
Mr Collette: Yes, we have, investment and advocacy.
Senator Roberts: Investing in arts and advocacy on behalf of the arts. Thank you, that is clarifying. What part of your objectives enables you to waste an extra seven per cent a year on a core component, power, when it is literally the same power coming through the plug whether you pay the extra expense or not?
Mr Collette: What part of our objectives? I think the Australia Council—Creative Australia to be—does have sustainability goals, and we try to exemplify those, which are important to the sector that we serve as well. Given that we invest in the sector, and we advocate for the sector, I think this is generally respected by the arts and creative industry.
Senator Roberts: I think you are wasting taxpayer money and that should be cancelled. Would not that money be better spent on the art that you are supposed to be funding?
Mr Collette: There is always a cost to investing in servicing the art that we are funding, and I think you will find that this is significantly respected by the sector.
Senator Roberts: The point is that you are spending an extra seven per cent on a key component—
Mr Collette: I understand that.
Senator Roberts: Same plug, same power.
Mr Collette: I understand that. But there are different kinds of value as well.
Senator Roberts: I am not arguing with you on that point.
Mr Collette: So this would be a small contribution to social and environmental value that is respected by the sector, and I am sure if you ask their general view on whether we should save whatever the sum is—seven per cent of our power bill, and I confess I don’t know our power bill as I sit here—you would find very broad support for what we do.
Senator Roberts: I think there is a lot of ignorance—and I am not singling you out; I think it goes right through the community—about this green power, because the same power comes from the same place through the plug, regardless of whether you pay that seven per cent or not. So I would like to know what benefit you get from that seven per cent.
Mr Collette: I will take that on notice and come back to you, once I understand the argument that I think you are making—that there is actually no difference in this power. I need to satisfy myself on that argument and then we can come back to you with a response.
Senator Roberts: I am pleased to hear that. Thank you.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/lPbKiu20_UU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-06 16:47:162023-06-06 16:47:20Australia Council happy to waste 7% more of your money to virtue signal
