For three years I have been raising the issue of casual coal miners being fraudulently dudded out of Long Service Leave entitlements. Finally, I was able to secure an audit into the Coal Long Service Leave Scheme from the previous government.
Yet, exactly how much needs to be paid back to casual coal miners is still unclear. We’ll be following this up again at next estimates and ensuring casual workers receive the leave payments they are entitled to.
I had a simple question for our bio-security officials, are they winning in their war against fire ants in south Queensland? The answer I get from people on the ground is definitely not.
There’s a lot of questions about how the State Government is spending the hundreds of millions and whether it’s just a money spinner while fire ants continue their march across Queensland.
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are on fire ants, as a result of concerns raised by several constituents over several years in south-eastern Queensland around the towns of Gatton and Boonah.
Mr Metcalfe: Sorry, I didn’t hear the first part of the question. CHAIR: Yes, you are a bit hard to hear.
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are from constituents in the towns of Gatton and Boonah in South East Queensland and they are on fire ants—eradication or suppression or containment, I’m not sure which.
Mr Metcalfe: That is a very long-standing and expensive program.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. How much has it cost the Commonwealth government of Australia to fund the fight against the spread and ultimately eradicate these pests—fire ants—so far?
Dr Locke: My colleague might correct me if I got this wrong, but the federal government, as I understand it, has spent $294.3 million to date as its contribution to the program.
Mr Simpson: Yes, since 2001.
Senator ROBERTS: The figures I have been told were of $412 million allocated over 10 years, running out in the next 12 months, but the actual spending is $700 million. I have heard that figure from people in the Queensland government.
Mr Simpson: The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program in South East Queensland is a $411.4 million nationally cost-shared program. That is the current program in place at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you say $411 million?
Mr Simpson: It is $411.4 million.
Dr Locke: It runs to 2027, so it is not quite 12 months. This may have been a previous line of questioning but it has been subject to a review, and Queensland as the lead agency is to come to national governments through the ag ministerial council to provide an update and to propose where to take the program going forward.
Senator ROBERTS: So it is $412 million. My figures are correct. The next question is: Are we winning in getting rid of the fire ants?
Dr Locke: That is the essence of the paper the Queensland government will bring back to the ag ministers shortly. They are making good progress but it is an incredibly expensive program, as you know. I guess the question will be how much do we keep spending where and is that viable, and we haven’t got to that decision gate yet.
Senator ROBERTS: Your KPIs don’t include: are we are winning or not? You can’t tell me if that is the case; you are relying on Queensland?
Dr Locke: The review certainly said that we’re making good progress but it also suggested we should do some things differently. I guess that is what we have got to see rolled into a proposal for governments.
Senator ROBERTS: Listening to the residents in the rural area near Gatton and Boonah, they are suggesting that you are not making progress.
Dr Locke: To be fair, there is a large amount of money being spent on the eradication program. It is making a difference in some areas. I wouldn’t presume to say that their experience of that is wrong, but we need to see what the sum of the proposal looks like from the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: So are we waiting on the Queensland government, which is receiving hundreds of millions of dollars, to give us the answer?
Dr Locke: They are the lead jurisdiction on a national response.
Senator ROBERTS: But that’s true: we’re waiting on them?
Dr Locke: Yes, but it’ll be a year soon.
Senator ROBERTS: My point is that they’ve got an interest in perpetuating the spending of that money.
Dr Locke: I’ve spent a lot of time talking to the Queensland government and the heads of Biosecurity. They don’t want to be doing this program if they don’t need to, but they want to get rid of red imported fire ants, as do all the other jurisdictions that are contributing to the funding.
Senator ROBERTS: People want to get rid of them, but that doesn’t mean they’re effective in getting rid of them. That’s why I was asking you for KPIs.
Dr Locke: There’s a lot of scrutiny on what the Queensland government is doing because other jurisdictions have to pay the cost. We pay for half of it and then other jurisdictions contribute as well, so there’s a lot of interest in what Queensland’s doing and there will be a lot of scrutiny on their proposal.
Mr Metcalfe: Just to add to that, the actual independent chair of the steering committee is Dr Wendy Craik, who’s very well known in agricultural circles and is a very eminent and respected person. I certainly recall that she and her committee reported to agriculture senior officials over the last year or two. But you are absolutely right. It is an insidious and difficult pest, and, although it may well have been eradicated in some areas, it is still in others and we are very much awaiting advice from Queensland as to what would be needed to try and finally deal with the issue. But it’s a difficult one. It just shows you how difficult these issues can be.
Dr Locke: In any eradication program there’s a first question about whether eradication is technically feasible and then there’s a question about the benefits and costs. Our understanding is that the revised Queensland proposal will say that it is still feasible, but we haven’t yet seen that and we haven’t yet had the chance to assess the benefits and costs.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true, though, that areas that should be pest free are not—for example, the Richlands market garden is still infested. I understand there’s an area somewhat close to the Port of Brisbane, where they first arrived, is invested. I understand, in listening to some construction workers developing new housing estates just south of Ipswich, that they regularly just kick over these fire ant nests.
Mr Metcalfe: I think that’s all true. We would probably need to take on notice information about very specific locations and we’d need to rely upon advice from the Queensland government about that, but I think we’re all saying that it’s a long-term and difficult issue but the Queensland government continues to be of the view that it’s a fight worth fighting and that it is able to be achieved. Apart from anything else—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your honesty.
Mr Metcalfe: Yes. Apart from anything else, it’s almost a fight that we must win. If the ants continue to spread and find their way up over the divide, then there’s a real issue as to whether they can migrate beyond the valleys around Brisbane and into the downs and elsewhere. I don’t think anyone’s under any misapprehension as to how serious this is and that’s why so much public funding has gone into it and a lot of smart people are working very hard to try and deal with it.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not doubting that they’re smart, and I’m not doubting there’s a lot of money going in. What I am doubting is the effectiveness, because I’ve listened to people on the ground—farmers and rural residents—and they’re not at all convinced and they’re worried about the dangers.
Dr Locke: It’s a fair question, Senator, but I think that’s what their plan will address and I think you’ll find that, in some areas, you’ll get more positive responses, but there’s widespread concern, obviously, about the red imported fire ants. That’s why so much focus is being put on them.
Senator ROBERTS: The secretary just said if they get west of the ranges then we’re in even more trouble, but that’s why I want to know how effective it is because if it’s not effective, they will go west of the ranges.
Dr Locke: And that’s why all jurisdictions are contributing to the cost of the control.
Mr Metcalfe: That’s not to underestimate the issues faced by people where they currently are. I’m not in any way denying the seriousness of the impact on amenity and production in the current areas of location, but there are very sound reasons for continuing to try and eradicate them, for broader regions as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that there is a request before the Commonwealth for more than $800 million to be put towards the cost of the future program?
Dr Locke: I’m not aware of any such request.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What studies have been done as to the effect on human health of the insecticides used on fire ants?
Dr Locke: I’m not sure if we have that detail here, do we?
Mr Simpson: I’m sorry, we don’t have that with us.
Mr Metcalfe: We’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is bait laying done in wet weather when it is clearly stated that it is not to be done and rainy weather due to health risks?
Mr Metcalfe: We’ll check on that with the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are property owners not warned about aerial spraying, from helicopters, over their properties, even if it is not proven that fire ants are present there? It just seems indiscriminate.
Mr Metcalfe : I will take that on notice as well. I’m not agreeing with any of it; I’m simply saying I’ll find out.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that the insecticides used to kill off all insect life make contact with and are a danger to the aquatic food chain?
Mr Metcalfe : We’ll check on that as well.
Senator ROBERTS: The Queensland government representatives in charge of the fire ant project could not answer these basic questions, not with any confidence. Residents are really concerned about their own health and their food security. What studies are being done in Queensland to monitor the health of the environment as a result of the indiscriminate spraying that puts toxic chemicals into the waterways?
Mr Metcalfe : We’ll seek a response in relation to that as well.
Senator ROBERTS: On what basis are federal moneys provided to the states to assist with these programs? I was told a few years ago in Gatton that the state government gets a different amount of money, whether it’s based upon an eradication program or a containment program. Is that true?
Dr Locke: This is not a response that is funded under one of our standing deeds, but it follows very similar mechanisms. There are similar decision steps you go through about whether it can be eradicated and whether it is technically feasible. There are technical advisory bodies that help with that. There is a cost benefit piece and then there is a funding formula that depends on the nature of the pest. It is very like the disease responses we’ve got, that are managed through established deeds, but it is an independent framework.
Senator ROBERTS: What kind of oversight do you have with regard to the effectiveness? I would like to know. The residents tell me, with some authority, that there’s an incredible waste of millions of taxpayers’ dollars when baiting is done, with no chance of success. People are not even warned that helicopters are dropping baits on their land. The next thing they know, a helicopter is dropping baits on their land during the rain. They can’t see how it is possibly working.
Mr Metcalfe : Obviously, there are committees, there are experts and there are a whole bunch of overlays around this. I think it’s probably best if we respond to those very specific complaints.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know, specifically, how you track to make sure the Queensland government is doing a good job and not just spending money.
Mr Metcalfe : Again, we will put that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Is this, essentially, an ongoing money-spinner for the states?
Mr Metcalfe : I think the easy way to say it is that the Queensland government would far prefer this to have been a successful program and no further money required, rather than simply seeing it as some sort of employment program—far from it.
Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, the Queensland government is like some other governments; they don’t care, so long as they’re seen to be doing something. They want to look good rather than do good. That’s the concern of the residents, and people’s health is getting compromised.
Mr Metcalfe : At a local level, the Queensland government has clear accountability in relation to this. But we will certainly provide answers, as far as we can.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any consideration given to nominating this as a project for the Australian National Audit Office?
Mr Metcalfe : The Audit Office has looked at biosecurity arrangements generally. I’m not sure whether that’s been something—
Senator ROBERTS: There’s a lot of money going into this.
Dr Locke: This program was subject to a review not long ago; I’m not sure if I’ve got all the details of that but I am sure the ANAO will take an interest in the program at some point, given its size.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you refer it to them?
Dr Locke: I just think the way you’d characterise the Queensland government’s engagement on this issue doesn’t reflect our experience.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve seen two public meetings now where the Queensland government representatives have completely failed to allay fears.
Dr Locke: Again, I am not disputing that experience and the views of your constituents; we’re happy to follow those up with the Queensland government. But I can’t say that I have seen anything that would characterise this as a money-spinner for the Queensland government. They are desperately trying to get rid of these fire ants, and they’re looking at innovative ways to do that. That’s certainly been the message that I got from Wendy Craik, when I spoke to her about the program, as well.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not here to convince you; I’m just here to ask questions and get your answers.
Dr Locke: We’re happy to follow this up. I think it’s important to not lose community support for these programs.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know some specifics, please, in those answers. I’ve got more questions on foulbrood, but I’ll give someone else a go.
Labor paraded around coal towns during the election promising coal miners a “just transition” and replacement jobs because of the transition to net-zero. Just a few months into their government, BHP has announced the closure of their Mount Arthur coal mine with 2000 miners to lose their jobs.
Instead of finding them the replacement jobs they promised, the government is washing their hands of the closure and saying it has nothing to do with them despite the fact they put their net-zero target into law. It just goes to show, they’ll tell you anything to get elected and then say “not our job” once they get in.
Despite the government destroying tens of thousands of bee hives they have still failed in their mission to try and contain a varoa mite outbreak. No support has been offered to beekeepers to restock their hives. Without bees we won’t have agriculture and we won’t have food.
Have you noticed more and more data breaches lately? Some in the Government are using this as a reason to centralise everything into one Digital Identity. As the long list I read out proves, nothing is unhackable. That’s a good reason why you SHOULDN’T centralise everyone’s data into one Digital Identity location. It would be a hackers dream, a one stop shop to steal your identity.
Before the election a change was made requiring the Australian Signals Directorate to audit the AEC voting systems ensuring they were secure and fit for purpose. I was hoping for a very quick answer at Senate Estimates to confirm this was done but didn’t receive one. The agency has about 6 weeks to get the answers back to me after taking the questions on notice.
After every election the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) meets to review the election – what went well, what went badly, and most importantly how to improve the election experience and increase accuracy.
This year the Government has opened the JSCEM inquiry with a very limited terms of reference, which is a very unusual decision.
Many thousands of submissions have been made, these are either not being published or published with heavy redactions.
Today I asked questions in Senate Estimates to draw attention to some of the areas in this election that must be done better next time. I call on the Government to upgrade the JSCEM Inquiry to a full inquiry, as normal.
Every Australian who has made a submission deserved to have their concerns dealt with.
Every time there’s a drought, flood or cold day you’ll hear climate alarmists claim it’s all because of climate change. Well this study says there is no positive trend in the severity or frequency of natural disasters. That puts a bit of a hole in the “climate emergency”.
Study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to Minister Watt. You said in your opening statement:
There can be no doubt that the severity and regularity of these natural disasters is a result of climate change …
I’ve got a media report that I’m happy to table—I’ve got 10 copies—and a study which I will table that found there is no positive trend of extreme weather events as a result of climate change. Given this scientific study’s finding that there is no increase in severe weather events because of climate change, there appears to be some doubt about your statement. Have you misled the committee with your opening statement?
Senator Watt: Whose report are you quoting from?
Senator ROBERTS: An Italian European Physical Journal Plus—a team led by Gianluca Alimonti from the Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics and the University of Milan extended the analysis to include natural disasters, floods and droughts.
Senator Watt: Is that peer-reviewed data?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Senator Watt: You’re sure?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I think we’re all very well used to you questioning the science of climate change—more usually in the Environment and Communications committee, but it’s good to see that you’re consistent and apply the same approach across different committees. No scientific expert has ever been able to convince you that climate change is real, and I doubt that I will have the ability to do that either. To give you one example, I accompanied the Prime Minister to visit a dairy farm in northern Tasmania after the recent floods. I won’t give the gentleman’s full name for his privacy, but it was a dairy farmer called Michael. Without any prompting from any politician, he recognised the increasing number of floods and natural disasters that they were having was due to climate change. But we all know—
Senator ROBERTS: So a dairy farmer named Michael trumps a scientific study? I want to know: on what basis did you make your statement and claim? What source—specific locations, specific publications—
Senator Watt: I’m not going to play your game. We know that no evidence will ever convince you that climate change is real. I have seen you ask the head of the CSIRO. I’ve seen you ask any number of scientists who present evidence of that. There are countless IPCC reports, comprising of advice from the best experts in the world—
Senator ROBERTS: Not one of those IPCC reports contains evidence. That’s a fact.
Senator Watt: and you reject all of them. So it doesn’t really matter what I say to you. You will continue with your climate conspiracies. There’s nothing I can do to help you.
Senator ROBERTS: I note your use of a label. Whenever people use a label like ‘denier’ or ‘conspiracy theorist’, it indicates they don’t have the data. You’ve just confessed that you don’t have the data. If you did, you’d be able to give me the specific location.
Senator Watt: I refer you to any number of IPCC reports, which you continuously choose to ignore and reject. I invite you to go and speak to any farm body—
Senator ROBERTS: Have you read the IPCC reports? I have. There is no specific location of any evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. I ask you to verify and validate your statement. Give me the specific location.
Senator Watt: I would be happy, on notice, to provide you with any number of scientific reports that back up what I’m saying. I will repeat that I could provide you with an infinite number of reports and you will never believe them. Everyone knows that. I’m okay. You don’t accept that climate change is real—that’s your right. But what I’m interested in doing is working with the farmers who are actually paying the price for climate denialism. I’m interested in working with the farm bodies that have been waiting for a government that believes that climate change is real and is prepared to put promises in place. I don’t have the exact figures to hand, but ABARES has provided reports that show that, due to climate changes over the last 20 or so years, the average farm profit or productivity—it’s one or the other—has fallen in the order of 25 to 30 per cent. They’re on later, and you can ask them about that as well. Do you know what? You won’t believe them either. I accept you just don’t believe the evidence. That’s okay, but I’m not going to get held back.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s not up to you to tell me what I will or will not believe.
Senator Watt: We all know your record.
Senator ROBERTS: What is up to both of us and every single senator and member of parliament is to come here with the empirical evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. You have never done that. None of your imputed sources have done that. I want, in each the references you provide, the specific location of the data on which you rely and the specific location of the framework that proves that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. Science is not just about data; it is about data within a framework that logically proves cause and effect. I want that from you. For each of those references, I expect that from you. Otherwise, they’re not valid.
In my questioning at Senate Estimates the Bureau of Meteorology confirmed that we’ve had bigger floods before. Our recent weather has been severe and affected many people and my heart goes out to them. But greenies claiming that our recent weather is unprecedented are abusing these people’s grief for political gain.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to ask some questions about the distressing floods, but first of all I want to commend you for admitting that you don’t know everything. That’s so refreshing to hear. I don’t know everything, and someone who’s talking about weather certainly doesn’t know everything. Nature’s highly variable, and natural variation is enormous. Coming to the floods, they’re very distressing for people and it’s important to give them the right information. According to the Bureau of Meteorology’s graphs, in the last 100 years there have been two major floods and in the previous 90 years there were 11 major floods.
Dr Johnson : Sorry, just to be clear, where are you talking about? In Brisbane?
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Brisbane, yes. In 1974, which is the highest recent flood in the last hundred years, the flood levels reached were much less than in 1893 and much, much less than in 1841.
Dr Johnson : Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the government, state or federal, discussed anything about doing some research with regard to flood mitigation?
Dr Johnson : Maybe I can respond to the two parts of your question. You’re right, there have been bigger floods in Brisbane since records have been kept, and records have only been kept since the 1840s, so who knows how big the floods really get in Brisbane. When you look at the historical narratives, if you read George Somerset’s writings on where the traditional people of the Brisbane Valley used to have their summer camps, one could reasonably possibly reasonably draw a conclusion that flood levels have been even higher.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re familiar with where the university’s experimental mine is at Indooroopilly?
Dr Johnson : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Apparently, geologists say that the floods were five metres higher than the 1841 floods. That’s unfathomable.
Dr Johnson : All of these things are possible. But to correct the record, there have been 12 major floods in Brisbane since 1840 and three since 1970, including the most recent ones. We had the 1974, the 2010-11 and the one the other day, so three major floods in Brisbane since 1970. Certainly, of the most recent ones, the 1974 flood was the biggest.
Senator ROBERTS: I was going off the bureau’s graphs and it had lines across the major—
Dr Johnson : We probably haven’t put the line on for the one the other day yet, but—
Senator ROBERTS: No, it was on there.
Dr Johnson : Was it? But there are three: 1974, 2010-11 and 2022. For the record, that is the flood history in Brisbane. The second part of your question is about flood mitigation. That’s not a responsibility of the bureau. That’s the responsibility of state governments and local governments, indeed. As you know, obviously Wivenhoe Dam being put in, although its primary purpose is not for flood mitigation—it’s for water security—it does perform a flood mitigation function. The Brisbane City Council also undertakes significant flood mitigation works. As you’re probably aware, since the 2010-11 flood they’ve installed extensively throughout Brisbane engineering works to try to reduce the backflow of water from the river up into the suburb. It was one of the experiences from the 2010-11 flood that people were getting flooded through water coming back up through the stormwater system. The flood mitigation work is their responsibility. Certainly the flood mitigation works draw heavily on bureau historical data.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I was getting at: it’s not your responsibility to—
Dr Johnson : It’s not our responsibility to do the mitigation.
Senator ROBERTS: But they do consult with you?
Dr Johnson : Correct. And the state and local governments also heavily utilise not only their own in-house capability but also significant capability in the private sector. So we make all that data available. People are welcome to use it—and we hope they use it—to keep our community safer in the future.
Senator ROBERTS: My question wasn’t going to any attempt to pin you down and blame you for the floods—that’s ridiculous.
Dr Johnson : No, I wasn’t reading it that way.
Se nator ROBERTS: Good. But I can’t imagine that the bureau has any responsibility to correct politicians or media that produce stories saying the floods in 2022 were due to climate change caused by humans or anything like that. That’s their responsibility, not yours.
Dr Johnson : We just report what we see happening in the environment. We try to do so to the best of our abilities and as factually as we can. So we don’t choose to speculate on what we’ve said. What we’ve said very clearly is that, with climate change, we can expect the frequency of high-intensity rainfall events to increase—
Senator ROBERTS: Based on models?
Dr Johnson : Based on models and also based on our recent experience. What we can also see, just as a basic law of physics, is that, for every one degree the temperature rises, the atmosphere holds about seven per cent more water. The Australian temperature record is around 1.47—plus or minus 0.2—since records have been kept. I’m not an engineer like you are, Senator, but the atmosphere is holding roughly 10 per cent more water than it might have had in pre-industrial times. That water has got to go somewhere. It circulates around the planet as part of a mass balance with the oceans and the rivers. I think it’s absolutely reasonable to expect that, as the climate continues to change, the likelihood of high-intensity events like those we have seen will increase. And, all other things being equal, there will be an increased risk of flooding for those communities live on active flood plains. A lot of people live really close to rivers that are still very active—
Senator ROBERTS: And some people say that Brisbane is a city built in a river.
Dr Johnson : Indeed. I think the title of the book is A River with a City Problem.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.
Dr Johnson : I know the book you’re referring to.
Senator ROBERTS: Some argue—and there is a lot of conjecture about this—that an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere leads to a cooling effect, for all kinds of reasons. So there are a lot of uncertainties in forecasting the weather and forecasting the climate. I want to quote from the transcript from the Senate estimates in February. I asked whether the State of the Climate reports scientifically prove that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. You responded: ‘I’ve got the report in front of me. I don’t believe there’s a section in there’—that’s right, it’s not the purpose of the report. I happen to agree with you. I’ve been through many of your reports. Later on, you said: ‘I think we made it really clear what the purpose of the document is. It’s to provide a synthesis of our observations of Australia’s climate and oceans.’ Previously you said: ‘I think it’s important for the record to note that none of the State of the Climate reports in any way whatsoever make statements with respect to global emissions.’ I compliment you on your clarity and I appreciate your clarity. It’s not the Bureau of Meteorology’s responsibility to correct politicians when they say that the state of the climate contains evidence of cause and effect, is it?
Dr Johnson : Certainly the bureau is not in the habit of making public comment around statements that our elected officials make. As you know, our job is to advise. Elected representatives are free to say whatever they wish to say. You, of everybody, would probably know that best. We provide our best scientific advice to you and you’ll form your own conclusions on that advice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Fifteen months ago I asked the Australian Electoral Commission questions around election integrity. I was expecting to have my questions answered and to be reassured our elections were safe. Instead I had bland assurances everything was safe and elections were audited. Proof of those audits was never provided.
After spending all of 2021 pursuing the AEC, One Nation presented our Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021 to the Senate. Special Minister of State Morton finally realised we did have a problem and the government passed a suite of bills to address our concerns. My questions on Tuesday to the Australian Electoral Commission covered the only area the Government was not able to fix because of opposition from the ALP and the Greens – voter ID. The need for voter ID dates from 1995 when the AEC stopped residency checks, which is a way of auditing the voter rolls.
Out of date voter rolls allow dishonest players to vote multiple times, at multiple booths using a different name from the voter roll each time. These are the names of voters who have left the country, passed away, moved away and so on, plus human and data-matching errors at the AEC The only way to ensure every vote comes from a properly registered voter, voting once under their own name is to ask for voter ID.
The answers to my questions to Tom Rogers, the Electoral Commissioner were far from forthright. I will be resuming this matter in the new Parliament. I urge all Australians to enrol to vote, and to exercise your right to vote in the next election.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending again today. Can I start with a compliment to your social media team? It has a nice balance of humour and information in what is sometimes a very hostile environment. That’s reassuring and pleasing.
I’d also like to compliment Minister Morton for his voting integrity bills and for acknowledging the work that I did informing those initiatives with my integrity of elections bill, which preceded them. It’s very important for people to understand, and for voters right around the country to be assured, that their vote will not be wasted and that there is no reason to not vote. There is every reason to turn up now, because we’ll be having audits of the election processes.
My first question today is as a result of multiple reports from constituents who went into a booth in previous elections and were told they had already voted. This may have been human error by the poll worker, yet I think it’s the only issue that Minister Morton’s electoral integrity package failed to address that my bill did.
For clarity, there are two types of multiple voting: one where a person votes multiple times under their own name, and another where a person votes multiple times under different names. The first one, multiple voting under one’s own name, has been well examined, and the conclusion seems to be that it does not make a tangible difference, because we’ve now got electronic rolls in most booths—not all, but most. So let’s turn to the second one, people voting multiple times under different names. Has the AEC done any work on this issue?
Mr Rogers : We look at the entire voting process at the end of every election. We put, as you know, a submission in to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, where we raise issues that we think have been flagged during the conduct of the previous election. Many of those observations are our observations, and many of them have also been passed to us by others. The issue of multiple voting was dealt with in those submissions previously and in supplementary submissions. What you’re referring to there is impersonation, and that’s not something that we’ve had any evidence has had any sort of impact on the election at all. It’s not something that was raised with us in any formal way previously. It’s not something that has been put into a submission to the joint standing committee at all, to the best of my memory. So that’s not something we’re looking at, at all.
The other thing with impersonation is that those sorts of things do become known, because, if someone was doing impersonation on a large scale, we would get feedback from a range of different sources that that would be the case. Don’t forget that many of these polling booths are actually community polling booths, where people know other people in the community as well. It’s not something that’s been personally raised with me. I’m not sure, Deputy Commissioner, if it’s been raised with you.
Mr Pope : No, that’s correct. I would add that there’s another category that is what we call ‘apparent multivoting’, which is actually an administrative error where someone has been marked as having voted, on a paper certified list, and they have put a wrong mark against a person’s name. Sometimes it can be seen as being something else, but it is simply an administrative error.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there a phone number or a way of reporting occurrences in order to further investigate the problem, if there is a problem?
Mr Rogers : On our website, there is a—
Mr Pope : fraud email reporting process—
Mr Rogers : and people are welcome to use that.
Senator ROBERTS: The AEC stopped residency checks last century, in 1995. When was the last time the AEC audited a sample of the electoral roll to get an idea of accuracy?
Mr Rogers : We use a whole range of tools to check the accuracy of the electoral role, and we conduct internal audits on that. I think the ANAO also conducted an audit of the electoral roll. I’m not sure if anyone remembers when that might have been—there are a lot of shaking heads—but we could find that out for you fairly easily. So it’s been audited even by the ANAO. In fact, now that I’m warming to my theme, I think it may have been audited twice. I’d have to check that for you. If I’m wrong, I apologise to the ANAO, but I think they came back to check the results of the initial audit. I’m happy to come back to you on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, if you could, please.
Mr Rogers : So there’s more than one way of auditing the accuracy of the roll. The second thing is when we get data on someone’s residence from more than one data source, which is what we do—we effectively triangulate that data to make sure that it’s accurate—we also do, as I mentioned before, our own internal checks of the accuracy of our data entry to make sure that that is an accurate process.
Mr Pope : We do. And we match our data with a range of other data sources, and we also do an annual quality assurance process.
Senator ROBERTS: So, although you say that you haven’t had any evidence or you don’t see much possibility of it, this is surely a case where voter ID would stop someone from voting multiple times under different names or from voting under the names of people who are no longer voting themselves. I know what you’re saying about the community, but sometimes people rock up to a booth that’s not in their community.
Mr Rogers : I might perhaps repeat what we said at the last estimates. I’m loath to get involved in the issue of the voter ID process. I think that’s a highly political issue. It is a matter for parliament. I’m genuinely trying to be right down the centre here. I understand the arguments on both sides of this, but it has become a very polarising debate in places where this has been implemented. So that’s a matter for parliament. What we’re reflecting on here is the processes that we put in place to assure the vote within the legislation that’s currently valid. That bit about voter ID is something that I think I said a little flippantly last time, ‘We have a definite policy not to have a policy on,’ because we’re going to get dragged into that process.
Senator ROBERTS: I can see that. I accept it. It is ironic, Minister, that we need an ID to get into a pub but that we don’t need an ID to get in to vote. That’s just a comment.
Senator Birmingham: Your comment’s noted, Senator Roberts. The government would wish that there had been, or were, broader support for some of the ID measures that, as you acknowledge, Minister Morton had brought forward.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am