Eat the Bugs Peasant – Meat and Livestock Australia

, ,

I investigated where Meat and Livestock Australia is taking the $28bn red meat industry.  It is clear that the industry plan titled “Red Meat 2030” does not tell the full story. Red Meat 2030  is a strategic plan to double the value of the red meat industry without increasing herd numbers or prices, whilst bringing the industry to net zero emissions. This sounds like a fairy-tale and yet the Liberal/Nationals Government is selling this plan to farmers with a straight face.

In answer to my questions on Tuesday Jason Strong, Managing Director of Meat and Livestock Australia made the stunning admission the Red Meat 2030 plan is not a plan but an “ambitious goal” – bureaucrat speak for a political goal not a planning goal. MLA do not have a plan for how to deliver the 100% increase in the value of the red meat market.

Improvements to feed composition, genetics, transport and finishing have led to a 13% increase in weight. Where is the other 87% increase coming from if herd numbers are not increased?

Tuesday’s answers give us a hint of what is really planned. To explain, at the moment marginal farming land produces meat that sells in the cheaper end of the market, mostly through major supermarkets. This allows everyday Australians to buy red meat as a routine part of their diet. Once MLA complete this plan, there will be no more of this reasonably-priced meat. The only red meat produced in Australia will be a premium product to go on the tables of the very wealthy, with most production being exported to wealthy citizens of other countries. That is where the 87% price increase comes from.

Red Meat 2030 is a plan to take red meat off the table of everyday Australians. This is implementing the political goals of the United Nations to reduce red meat consumption to 14g – one mouthful – a day.  I spoke about this UN plan in my speech to the Senate recently. A vote for the Liberal, Nationals, Labor or Greens is a vote for taking red meat off the table of everyday Australians through their Red Meat 2030 plan.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for attending. May I start by complimenting Meat & Livestock Australia on their Australia Day TV advertisement. I loved it.

This is my first question. Mr Strong, in your letter to me, dated 27 October 2021, you acknowledged that the data I quoted at the last Senate estimates from a report published on the CSIRO website titled ‘Australian cattle herd: a new perspective on structure, performance and production’, dated 2021, was correctly quoted. I thank you for that and accept that Meat & Livestock Australia consider the figure I used is higher than what you would use. The lead author of that report, Dr Geoffry Fordyce, works for Meat & Livestock Australia on your NB2 herd pillar feed base program. Is that correct?

Mr Strong : He certainly has. I’m not sure if he’s currently contracted, but certainly he has worked with us, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So my decision to use the data that I used was logical, then, wasn’t it?

Mr Strong : Partially, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I want to turn to the Meat & Livestock Australia Strategic Plan 2025. You’re familiar with that. On page 4—these are your own words, Mr Strong—it says:

With a new whole‑of‑industry strategic plan in place, Red Meat 2030—

that’s the name of your plan—

there is an opportunity for MLA to drive transformational change. We have to find ways to support the industry to deliver on its ambitious vision of doubling the value of red meat sales.

Could you please specify what percentage of this 100 per cent increase in sales revenue will come from price rises and what percentage will come from sales volume increases.

Mr Strong : The Red Meat 2030 plan is actually the industry plan that was put together by RMAC. It’s a 10-year plan that the industry collectively put together. Our five-year plan then fits in behind that. We’ve adopted the same overarching goal and the six pillars—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s your MLA—

Mr Strong : That’s our five-year plan. It draws on the Red Meat 2030 plan, which is the broader industry plan. It doesn’t specify what component of that growth comes from price or volume. Speaking from opinion, having been involved in that process, the setting of that target was being ambitious for the future of the industry in creating and capturing value but also making sure that we weren’t, as an industry, limited to price or volume. The industry, collectively, has over the last 30 years invested in a significant range of activities—not just with Meat & Livestock Australia and our R&D and marketing but with a range of other activities as well—for us to produce a higher quality, more consistent, traceable and guaranteed product but also to take advantage of or participate in the preferential market access that we have available to us. So there are opportunities for us to increase productivity, but there are also opportunities for us to create and capture more value in higher quality products where we have preferential access to high-quality markets. So it’s a combination of both.

Senator ROBERTS: Pardon me, but it sounds like waffle. Who are you trying to convince here? The farmers, the producers, need to have some kind of faith in what you’re leading and yet you’re telling me now that it’s just an ambitious plan with no limit on price or volume. Surely this has all been modelled.

Mr Strong : There are a number of things sitting behind it, but I think it’s quite the opposite to waffle. It’s providing opportunity in multiple areas rather than restricting it to one.

Senator ROBERTS: Hang on. Opportunity comes from knowing something about it. What you’re saying here is: ‘We haven’t done this. It’s an opportunity because it hasn’t been modelled.’

Mr Strong : The opportunity comes from the investments that the broader industry has made over the last 20 or 30 years in having a consistent, quality, traceable product—with a quality assurance program behind it—that is being sold at higher prices into markets where we now have preferential access.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that, but you’re still talking very generally. To double the value of red meat sales you need to double the price if the herd stays flat.

Mr Strong : If the volume stays the same. The volume can increase if the herd stays the same size. You can have increased carcase weight or increased productivity.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, 13 per cent is your increased carcase weight. There doesn’t seem to be any real meat in this.

Mr Strong : There’s an outcomes report that actually lays out some of the progress that has already been made. Look at something like Meat Standards Australia, which is the eating quality program. Last year it added $158 million in value to farmgate revenue for producers and over the last 10 years it has created more than $1 billion in value at the farmgate. We can share with you the extension adoption report, which does list some very specific areas, like Meat Standards Australia, like the Profitable Grazing Systems program and the Producer Demonstration Sites program, which have quantified increases in farmgate value and also increases on a per hectare basis of benefit to producers of adopting the things that the industry has invested in.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I’ll accept that, if you’d like to send us that. The fundamental figure though is 100 per cent increase in value with flat herd size.

Mr Strong : No, it’s not, Senator. There’s nothing about a flat herd size. It is doubling the value of red meat sales over a 10-year period.

Senator ROBERTS: In the last Senate estimates we had a difference of opinion on the direction of herd numbers, and we’ve still got that.

Mr Strong : Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: I maintained that the only way to meet net zero carbon dioxide targets—and why you’d want to meet that is beyond me, because no-one has given me any proof—under Meat & Livestock Australia’s CN30 program, the Carbon Neutral by 2030 program, is to hold herd numbers at the historically low numbers experienced during the recent drought. In reply you said:

We are very aware that there have been discussions that things like the carbon neutral goal are reliant on limiting livestock numbers or reducing production or profitability, and we completely reject those.

I thank you for your answer on notice regarding herd numbers and I now reference a document you sent me—a Meat & Livestock Australia publication titled ‘Industry projections 2021: Australian cattle—July update’. On page 4 there are herd numbers. Herd size, slaughter and production are all flat—and, arguably, slightly decreasing in the last few years—across the period indicated, from 2000 to 2023, and down from their peak in this period. Am I reading that right?

Mr Strong : You may be, Senator, but I don’t have that one in front of me. What I can do is provide you with the updated projections from earlier this year, which show the projected increase in production and outputs, so increases in herd size and increases in productivity. We can provide that to you.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you could, please.

Mr Strong : We can certainly do that.

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to what you raised earlier on, in the bottom graph carcase weights are showing an increase of 13 per cent. This does in part reflect the work done by Meat & Livestock Australia on genetics, feedbase and transport. Is that correct?

Mr Strong : In part, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Only in part? There are other factors involved?

Mr Strong : Yes—like producers’ willingness to adopt new technologies. But I think part of the increase in carcass weight comes from the increase in turn-off through the feedlot sector. An increased number of animals have come through the feedlot sector as a finishing mechanism in the last year or two. That also contributes to an increase in carcass weight.

Senator ROBERTS: Either way, it’s a good job because 13 per cent is a significant increase in productivity and profitability.

Mr Strong : Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Page 2 of this report says the average herd number for cattle from 2016 to 2021, which included a substantial drought influence, was 26,619. The best year was 2018, at 28,052. Meat & Livestock Australia’s projections are 27,223 for 2022 and 28,039 for 2023. This is down from the CSIRO’s figure of 30 million to 40 million before the drought, which was the point I was making in the last Senate estimates.

Even if the CSIRO figure is higher than you would accept, I fail to see an increase here in these figures. And I’m still trying to see where the increase in the herd numbers component of the 100 per cent increase in red meat production is coming from. Is it true that, unless the herd numbers recover to around 30 million, Meat & Livestock Australia are projecting a permanent reduction in the Australian herd?

Mr Strong : No, it’s not. The paper you’re referencing is not a CSIRO paper. Dr Fordyce is the lead author and he’s previously worked with CSIRO. It was present on their publication site but it’s not a formal CSIRO paper. But that’s an aside.

Senator ROBERTS: But he did work for you?

Mr St rong : Absolutely. And he still does work in a range of different areas. He’s been a very prominent researcher with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries in northern Australia and has done quite a bit of work with MLA and our predecessors over the years.

Senator ROBERTS: So he’s pretty competent?

Mr Strong : That doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything, though, does it? We could also quote other papers—

Senator ROBERTS: No. But, if he’s competent, there’s got to be a reason for not agreeing.

Mr Strong : Certainly. But other papers that have been produced by independent analysts say the herd’s even smaller than what we project.

Senator ROBERTS: Even smaller?

Mr Strong : Yes. Those papers are by private commercial analysts. They are widely read and get quoted to us as much or more than this paper does. But the herd size isn’t the only driver of productivity. As you said, it’s about being able to increase carcass weights, increase value and increase productivity. One of the things that Dr Fordyce has been involved with is the NB2 program that you mentioned. The ability to increase cows in calf, decrease cow mortality, increase calves that survive and increase weaning weight in reasonably modest levels—a decrease in cow mortality by a couple of per cent, an increase in fertility by a couple of per cent and a 10-kilo increase in weaning weight—has a material impact on northern productivity not just in numbers but also in value. The herd size is an important number to help us with our planning and projections when we look at a range of things; but it’s only one of the contributors to productivity, profitability and how we get to a doubling of value for the red meat sector.

Senator ROBERTS: Looking at agricultural producers, whether it be livestock or crops, there’s certainly a huge increase and improvement in the use of science to guide it. That’s become a wonderful productivity improvement tool. But it still comes back to basic arithmetic. If herd numbers are not growing, after allowing for improved carcass weights, the only way to increase the value of red meat production by 100 per cent, after allowing for the 13 per cent carcass weight increase, is for price increases of 87 per cent.

Mr Str ong : No, it’s not. Chairman Beckett mentioned our trip to Darwin two weeks ago. One of the great things we heard about there was the use of knowledge that’s been gained over the last 10 or 20 years by the industry. There were a couple of fantastic examples of the use of phosphorus as a supplement in phosphorus-deficient country. For the same cow herd size, there was a halving in cow mortality and a 30 per cent increase in weaning rates. Herd size is not the only way to increase productivity. When you think about ways to make significant improvements in productivity, it actually becomes a minor factor. Being able to produce more from what we have, regardless of what we have, and creating and capturing more value from that is much more important than the herd size.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that it’s a laudable goal to increase the productivity, capturing more from what you have.

Mr Strong : Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So, if herd sizes stay flat, are you able to provide me with the breakdown of where the 100 per cent increase in red meat value will come from?

Mr Strong : We can provide you with some.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’ve got questions on this. Perhaps, if you stick around, we can talk about it.

Senator ROBERTS: Good. I’ve only got two more questions. Can you provide that breakdown?

Mr Strong : We can provide some. As I say, that’s an industry broader 10-year goal. In our five-year plan we’ve laid out a range of areas that we’re investing in, so we can certainly provide you with a range of activities that are currently underway. And, like I mentioned before, the outcomes report will give you some evidence of where that progress has already been shown.

Senator ROBERTS: Just to summarise, I’m concerned—and hopefully your figures will alleviate that concern—that what you’re relying upon is a huge increase in price, which will hurt the consumer. The second thing I’m concerned about is why this is being done. Let’s listen to the chair’s questions and let’s get the figures from you.

My last two questions: I acknowledge from your letter that there’s been a reduction in carbon dioxide production of 53 per cent since 2000 by the Australian red meat industry. Again, there’s never been any evidence produced that carbon dioxide needs to be cut from human activity. This has been driven by measures that are now in place. How will you get the other 47 per cent, other than calling the permanent herd reduction numbers a net zero measure?

Mr Strong : There are a range of things already underway and a couple we can point to straightaway including feed supplements. There are two good examples of that.

Senator ROBERTS: Changing the nature of feed supplements?

Mr Strong : No, additional feed supplements that will go into a ration, for example. The red asparagopsis seaweed product has demonstrated to reduce the production of methane by more than 90 per cent. There’s also a synthetic version of the same type of component, which so far has demonstrated the same type of effect. So feed supplements are certainly a key opportunity in reducing the amount of methane being produced.

One of the other areas relates to things we’ve just been talking about, which is increasing productivity from the herd that we have through improved genetics, improved productivity through the things we were just talking about. So there are a number of areas in addition to a stable herd which are already largely proven and underway. We’re only a couple of years into the path to 2030.

Senator ROBERTS: WWF in America has been on a concerted campaign to kill the beef industry. The same organisation is doing the same here in this country, and cattle graziers have told me that. So there’s a lot of pressure on the beef industry, its very existence, for political reasons, not economic or scientific reasons. Do you, as the MLA, just accept the mantra that we need to cut the carbon dioxide produced by humans or human activity, or do you actually have scientific justification for accepting that?

Mr Strong : It’s not our position to enter into that discussion.

Senator ROBERTS: So you accept it.

Mr Strong : It’s not the environment to have a position either way. This is an industry goal, which is ambitious, but what’s really important is that we don’t think about CN30 in the absence of profitability, productivity and intergeneration sustainability. There’s nothing that we’re doing or investing in that doesn’t have a lens on profitability or productivity of the industry at the same time as thinking about its impact on the environment.

Senator ROBERTS: I would beg to differ. It seems to me that you need to have a sound rationale for why you’re doing these things and I have yet to see any proof of that. Feeding seaweed to cattle, feed supplements: surely there’s cost in there. You’re asking farmers to change their practices which could increase costs further. It seems like the doomsayers that have been hitting our electricity sector, our transport sector, our regulatory sector are now hitting our agriculture sector in many, many ways.

CHAIR: Is that a question, Senator Roberts?

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s a statement.

/2 Comments/by

Questioning the TGA at Senate Estimates

, , ,

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (“TGA“) and their buddies, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (“ATAGI“) and the unaccountable Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (“AHPRA“), have enabled the distortion of science in Australia that has seen COVID vaccines mandated, the minimising of vaccine reactions, banning of alternative treatments and general COVID mismanagement.

In this final Senate Estimates session before the election is inevitably called I tried to desperately get straight answers out of Australia’s Chief Health bureaucrats about how they could do so much of this without evidence.

Part 1

This session goes to the over 801 deaths reported around COVID-19 vaccines and the Health Department’s incompetence or negligence in failing to answer over 47% of my formal questions on notice in 6 months when the deadline was 6 weeks.

Transcript (click here to read)

I’d like to table just a portion of the transcript from the previous session in February, 16th of February. There are 15 copies here. Thank you. The latest available TGA DAEN report from your website dated 24th of March, 2022, says there are 801 deaths, 11 of which are attributed to COVID-19 vaccines. So there are 801 deaths reported by doctors. So according to the TGA 801 deaths that doctors have reported as being due to COVID-19 vaccination, doctors reported them. The TGA then steps in and reviews these doctor certified reports and says that there are only 11 deaths attributable to the COVID-19 vaccines. How many of these 790 cases have been reviewed and closed? And how many are still under review?

Senator firstly, your assertion is not factually correct. Doctors have not said those deaths, 800 and something deaths are due to COVID vaccination.

They’ve reported that.

There have been reports as we have said before and misplace, doctors will often provide a report and then they say in the report, we don’t believe it’s due to a vaccination in a majority of jurisdictions, a majority of states and territories, there is a requirement for the state and territory health systems and their doctors working between to report deaths that are temporarily associated. In other words injection one day someone has a heart attack a week later. But in many of those cases the doctors indicate that they don’t believe there’s a link. So I think it’s highly misleading to say the doctors say these deaths are due to a COVID vaccine. Having said that, we do as we’ve indicated before we review all deaths in these reports and we follow up for further information including with coroners where coroners reports are done in postmortems, with the state and territory systems. These deaths are generally in health facilities. So there have been post-mortems and there is a thorough medical history on them. And as I’ve indicated before if there is something unusual and there is a possibility that it could be associated with a vaccine, we convene an independent, by independent not departmental staff. We convene an independent expert group of relevant doctors to evaluate whether there is likely causality. And we use World Health Organisation protocols and these approaches are used by regulators globally.

[Malcolm] Thank you. So how many of the 790 cases have been reviewed and closed and how many are still under review?

Senator I would have give, take that on notice

That’s fine. at the current time but the overwhelming majority has been it’s just that obviously it’s a figure that changes by the hour.

Okay. That’s fine. I’d happy to take that on notice, for you to take it on notice. Of any outstanding reported deaths, some could be death related to COVID-19 vaccination. Do you have a timeframe for when the TGA adjudication will be completed?

Our part is relatively fast once we have all required information, but if, let’s use a hypothetical of someone who has a vaccination on Tuesday and has a heart attack on Friday, they’re in a hospital in Perth, the WA health system reports to us. This is a hypothetical. We obviously require the information from a postmortem that may have been done, had that person say, had AstraZeneca and was it a major thrombosis with thrombocytopenia in their brain? So it also requires postmortems to be done. It may even require a coroner’s report to be done. So the timing at which we can close a case and then if we need to refer it to his expert committee senator does depend on when we get the information from the hospital system, the postmortem and all that. Because otherwise you are working in the dark. And so it’s really important to have that objective information by the professional people who carry out postmortems and if need be, if it has been referred to the coroner, the advice from a coroner, because again that’s their professional role to determine cause of death.

So it’s variable. How long do the TGA reviews take per death?

[Skerritt] Sorry.

How long does the TGA reviews take per death?

So once we receive the, it’s an iterative thing. So if we have a death report, we’ll come back and we say, “Look, it says headache in the report. Can we get information on whether they had a bleed in the brain?” Now the hospital may respond within hours or they may say, “Look, we’ve got the brain.” And again, this is a bit gory. “We’ve got the brain in the freezer. We will have to conduct some morbid anatomy on that…” Sorry, we’ll have to look at the brain in a postmortem sense. So sometimes it actually can take weeks if they then have to do those laboratory and other forensic tests. Once we get the information we move as quickly as possible. And we also move as quickly as possible to report any reports of death. So for example, the very first report of death which was in April last year, I think we reported it within 24 to 48 hours of the group concluding that it was associated and we do so in our weekly updates. Now, fortunately there have been no confirmed deaths due to vaccination this year. And there’s also been no confirmed cases due to thrombosis with thrombocytopenia this year.

Okay, thank you, Australians, our constituents want to know who is accountable for this process? Who decides whether the death was a COVID-19 vaccine death and who certifies if this is the case.

So if it’s due to vaccination it’s the role of the Therapeutic Goods as a safety regulator. But acting on, as I said on the advice of this external panel and with the commitment and responsibility of publishing weekly safety updates on which report this information.

So you are the head of the TGA so it’s your responsibility.

Yes.

So you’re accountable.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Who’s on the expert committee?

There is no fixed expert committee. It’s really important to emphasise that if say a death was due to some neurological condition, we have a large number of neurologists. There are some, it’s not a standing committee. And so there is no fixed membership Senator. If it’s a cardiac thing, we’ll have cardiologists and we’ll have cardiac pathologists. And there’s so many subspecialties in medicine these days. And so the composition of each panel is different depending, because we want the best scientific and clinical expertise.

[Malcolm] Okay. So I’ve asked you Dr. Skerritt or Professor Skerritt sorry, about the questions raised at previous Senate estimates rounds. And if you refer to the transcript of the February 16th Senate estimates. If you go down the bottom there, you’ll see that you’ve twice failed to deliver what you have promised. We asked first in October and we had a six-week deadline for that

Sorry Senator, you asked for what in October?

The process, by which deaths reported by doctors are reviewed by the TGA.

We’ve provided every-

[Man] They haven’t.

Every response to every… We’ve provided them through to the government. Every response to every question on notice .

Well, then ministers, who in the government is responsible because Professor Skerritt, you said, I asked you again in February 16th, after the, four months after the first request in October. And I said, “Could we have that process in writing?” And you said, “I believe it has been provided but we can provide it again.” And I said, “We haven’t received it.” And you said, “We can provide it to you.” They’re categorical.

[Skerritt] Senator-

So now it seems to me minister that the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration is saying he’s provided to the government but the government hasn’t provided it to us. What’s going on?

I can’t comment on the process following that. What I can say is if you wish to write to me please write to me and I can provide in .

Professor Skerritt, we’ve asked you twice and twice… And once we were put on notice and last February, just two months ago, you told us personally you would get it to us. This is the first I’ve heard about having to write to you about it.

Well, I don’t deliver responses to you directly, Senator.

[Woman] So then I asked the government what’s interceded because we have not got the material from the TGA.

[Skerritt] .

[Woman] Do we have a question on notice number that we’re talking about?

Yes, we do.

[Woman] That would be very handy to have so that we can ask somebody to check that.

Question number 14, details of how a decision of death due to COVID vaccination is made?

So what was the question on notice number? Do we know?

So that was back in October. I don’t know that one

Senator we’ll take what you’ve just requested on notice and and get you an answer. Because it seems to me that there there’s a bit of a misunderstanding here.

[Malcolm] Twice.

I think adjunct professor Skerritt has indicated he would provide what you’ve requested. So we will endeavour during a break to be able to get to the bottom of that and respond to you today.

Quite sure somebody is listening to us at the moment that we’ll be able to follow that up for us.

Minister, can you follow up my questions from October as well too, please? ‘Cause I’ve got like lots of questions outstanding.

I will certainly have a look at that, but-

Yeah, we have a huge number outstanding something like generally there are 61 of a 136 questions on notice outstanding from the last Senate estimates. That’s around 45% of the questions we’ve asked. We’ve asked a lot of questions, but that’s our right because we do it not only for ourselves but on behalf of our constituents. 45% of the questions have not been answered. So if-

[Woman] If you could leave that with me Senator-

Sure.

And I’ll respond to the committee as soon as I’m able to get an answer.

[Malcolm] If that’s the last question chair on this round and then we’ll come back later. If vaccine injured people are from identifiable subgroups say due to specific health conditions, why did you not proactively allow medical exemptions from these groups, for these groups? For example, those with comorbidities?

The Therapeutic Goods Administration’s not involved in provision of vaccine exemptions.

Well, who the hell is because we’ve had so many doctors tell us personally and nurses that it’s almost impossible to get an exemption. And I know of someone who got his first shot and then had a severe reaction to it and was required by his employer to have a second shot. We’ve heard this so many times.

[Man] Senator-

Senator innit?

The chair of ATAGI will be here at 10 o’clock and ATAGI is responsible for determining the conditions under which people would, vaccines contraindicated a very small list of conditions, that the chair ATAGI would be happy to answer that I think when he comes.

[Malcolm] Thank you.

[Woman] Okay. Thank you.

Part 2

Doctors and other health professionals feel great pressure to not report adverse events or sentiment which could undermine the vaccine rollout. Health Bureaucrats continue to deny such pressure exists despite official guidelines saying that Doctors could be de-registered for opposing supposed public health measures from the government. AHPRA threatens to deregister Doctors but is a private corporation with no accountability to the Senate or the Australia Public.

Transcript (click here to read)

Chair, Can I just ask something that I forgot to ask before I noted rather than interrupt Professor Skerritt? You mentioned that of the reports that you received from doctors about deaths, some explicitly say, it’s not due to the vaccine. Are you aware and what are you doing about the fact that have been told by a number of doctors that they are afraid to report vaccine deaths? Are you aware of that and what are you doing about that?

I’m not aware of that and any doctor or individual, or even you on behalf of a constituent with the relevant information can report a vaccine adverse event, doesn’t have to be a death, it can be a sore arm. Any individual can report directly to us, so–

Do you do any auditing to make sure that process is being followed or that you’re getting reasonably accurate numbers?

So as I’ve indicated, the reporting is two things. Firstly, it’s mandatory within a majority of states, but not all states. Although quite interestingly, the state that is the most active in reporting adverse events for their health system is Victoria and it’s not one where in law is written down it’s just seen as part of their medical practise. There is no force of law that says if Dr X out in the suburbs sees an adverse event that they must report. Reporting of adverse events is not mandatory in Australia. It would require this place to change a therapeutic goods act.

Senator, can I just point out, I feel I need to say something here. There there’s been over 11 billion doses of vaccine given around the world, 11 billion doses. The risk benefit profile of all of the vaccines that are in common use and the ones certainly that the TGA has regulated here in Australia is overwhelmingly in favour of benefit. There is no conspiracy here.

[Senator Roberts] Do we have the numbers on that list?

11 billion doses have been used? We would’ve seen problems in 11 billion episodes of doses if they were there.

Why did you use the word conspiracy because in my experience, most of these kinds of derailments are due to incompetence or gutlessness in terms of not looking at the figures. I’m not accusing you of either of those, I’m just saying that’s my experience but you raised the word conspiracy. Now,

I do realise the word conspiracy–

Are you aware that some doctors here and overseas have done the research and they say that as few as 1% of adverse events are being reported. Some are saying as few as 10%. So you multiply the deaths due to the vaccine. You multiply the adverse events due to the vaccines by in one estimate by a hundred or by other estimates by 10.

Senator, we don’t believe that that’s a relevant comparison.

You don’t believe it, but that’s what doctors are telling me.

Senator Robert please let witnesses respond.

So I’ll pass it to John in a moment. But I think, just to be clear I’m not accusing anyone of conspiracy here but that there are conspiracy theories around. I think we have all heard them and they have affected, particularly in some of our more vulnerable parts of our population and I’m referring here to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. In a way that has caused harm and I feel it’s my role as the chief medical officer to look at that from the Australian perspective. I’ll let John answer about the issue, Professor Skerritt about the the issues you’ve raised in terms of reporting. We do know there is under reporting of a range of matters in many countries, but one of the main reasons that the statistics you and Senator Rennick, have both mentioned about the number of reports that the TGA has looked at extraordinary number, but the vast majority, almost all of those have been shown to have another explanation. And that is not hiding things, that is a totally transparent the TGA reports on every week, regularly. So that’s why I mentioned that word, but please to be clear–

I’m gonna go clear Senator Grogan–

But just to… Sorry, Paul, just to explain. I do agree that for some other medicines you might only have 10 or 5% of adverse events reported but for the COVID vaccines to use that cliched word there’s been an unprecedented communication approach to doctors, hospitals, health systems and the public about coming forward with adverse events. We want people to report adverse events. So firstly, there’s been a lot of awareness. So for example, among the doctor networks we have a video conference, it was every two weeks and there’s other video conferences that are held even more frequently. It’s now every four weeks. In fact, there’s another one tomorrow. And that has the heads of the IMA the heads of the College of General Practitioners, many leading doctor and communication groups. And again, one of the consistent messages is report adverse events even if you don’t think that there’s a likelihood of them being associated. So I would say for the COVID vaccines there’s greater awareness than there ever has been for any other medical product. The states and territories, as I’ve said, either have mandatory adverse event reporting for vaccines or they have pretty well old systems such as in Victoria. And thirdly, there’s been a tremendous investment in what we call stimulated and active reporting. So through AusVaxSafety a proportion of people who get vaccinated get SMSs at regular times and are contacted. So you’re not requiring men to say, “I don’t feel well,” it’s an adverse event they’re asked and followed up. Do you have any ill feeling, any adverse events how you going? Taken together, I think we have probably the most comprehensive picture of safety of these products and we have had for any medical product ever on the market in Australia

Professor Skerritt, I’d urge you to have a look at the systems for reporting because I’ve had a number of reputable credible doctors tell me that they are aware of adverse events not reported because the AHPRA is intimidating doctors. Professor Kelly, if I could just mention that the word conspiracy used to be used quite a bit in the past for exactly that. Vague claims. But the word conspiracy now is used as a defence to ridicule someone who’s raising a genuine issue. So that is quite often when I see the word conspiracy. It’s used to deflect so that’s why I brought up–

Senator I think that… Frankly, AHPRA wouldn’t know if a doctor reported an adverse event to us for name of a reporting doctor is anonymous and confidential, they cannot take action. So how on earth could AHPRA sanction a doctor who reported an adverse event to the TGA? They wouldn’t know.

Well, how can we get AHPRA here and ask them directly? Because they’re away from our scope they’ve been taken away from our scope by understanding 2017. They’re giving headaches to doctors in this country and doctors are looking me in the face in massive groups, groups of 40 or more, in suburbs in Brisbane, telling me, that they’ve lost the doctor-patient relationship. They have to abide by health directives and AHPRA is doing that.

Senator, I simply do not believe that AHPRA has told doctors not to report adverse events. I think that I’d believe a flat earth policy before that.

We’re gonna go–

How do we get AHPRA here?

Senator Roberts has jumped in after I was about to hand to Senator Grogan–

Chair, how do we get AHPRA here? Because they’re not accountable to the–

We have tried that before, and that’s a separate issue. We’re not gonna discuss that right now. We’ve taken that to the government before.

Part 3

The TGA has been morally deficient in their blind acceptance of overseas data provided by the pharmaceutical companies to approve COVID vaccines. Despite this, they bat away any criticism or safety concerns as simply a conspiracy theory. As I said, conspiracy theory is “used as a term to ridicule the person asking the question” and what did one of our Chief Health Officers respond to that? “It is and I’ll be using it that way”. The contempt these bureaucrats have for openness and transparency is palpable.

Transcript (click here to read)

Your office obtained de-identified clinical data, patient data from the COVID-19 vaccine trials. And did that data form your decision on the vaccine, or did you just accept what the manufacturer said?

So Senator, of a long established process is that we receive an aggregate submission looking at the analysis of a patient data. And then during the review both our clinicians who review that data carefully and also our advisory committee for medicines which is composed of eminent clinicians across various disciplines, we do go back and ask a series of questions to the company, but of the global regulators only the US Food and Drug Administration, obtains individual patient data as a course of practise, so-

[Malcolm] So the answer is no?

So we do not obtain individual patient regulator. We’re simply not resolved to do so.

[Malcolm] Okay, that’s fine, I just needed the answer. So the TGA with all of it’s resources didn’t take the opportunity to review you the approximately 44,000 records on the vaccine testing. Yet you improved it to inject into millions of Australians?

I don’t agree, but we didn’t take the opportunity to review the results for trials. We spent many person months. In fact, probably several person years, you aggregate the size of a team of clinicians and others looking at that data. We looked at that data on 44,000 people and the trials was very carefully.

What clinical testing was done in Australia on the COVID-19 vaccines.

So for there were some vaccines that have had early stage trials done in Australia but it is not a requirement, but medicine or vaccines are clinically trialled in Australia, if it were a requirement we’d have far fewer medicines and vaccines on the market. We look for trials done in comparable populations. So we assume a trial done on an American is gonna be transferable to the Australian population. However, if there are trial groups missing such as we have a lot of Australians of Asian descent we’ll look at that in a trial data too.

So you also assume then that a trial by an American pharmaceutical company done on Americans is just acceptable?

We Don assume it’s just acceptable. We look at, as I’ve mentioned, the total amount of data for Pfizer is over 220,000 pages. And so that would fill many pallets of paper if it were deposited in the middle of this room. So we scrutinise, we review that data at extreme length. We spend thousands of of man and woman hours reviewing that data.

But no testing here.

We test the vaccine here in a laboratories. As I mentioned earlier, we have about 105 laboratory staff.

So are those tests to make sure that the control batches comply with the current batches in this country, or are they actually testing the vaccine for its efficacy, for its safety?

The tests are looking, well they relate to safety because they check the vaccines composition. They check that there’s no contaminants in it. And they check that it aligns with the requirements of-

So you’re not testing the vaccines efficacy or safety or risk?

We are looking at safety in a post market sense. The data from FDA and Safety comes from clinical trials that are being conducted globally. And I would add the same approach is accepted by all world’s major regulators, including Europe. So the European Medicines Agency, which regulates for European Union does not require trials to be done within Europe.

Are you aware there are major concerns about the FDA processes in America and many of the health agencies in America being completely tainted by pharmaceutical companies, all fix for interest.

TGA makes independent sovereign evaluations of vaccines, the government expressly rejected, this government expressly rejected a possibility of TGA automatically accepting US FDA decisions. So government position, and it was the accepted in this place when a bill went through the house was for TGA to continue to make its own sovereign decisions. And we don’t always make the same decisions as FDA around medicines and drugs.

And you rely upon various committees-

Yes, we do.

For approval of different types of drugs, including vaccines.

We rely on them from advice. So we have an active advisory committee for vaccines and an advisory committee for medicines, for example, that will go to treatments.

Have you assessed that committee’s composition for conflicts of interest?

Oh, very much so Senator and, first of all-

[Malcolm] Can we get a copy of that?

Senator, there would be individual personal information we could provide, I don’t think it’s appropriate to say, well, doctor so is X, but we could explain both the process and we could explain those candidates who were not considered-

[Malcolm] Yes, please.

So within those constraints, of course we would very welcome to-

[Malcolm] We’ll take from there.

It is absolutely important that the people on the committees do not have a conflict of interest.

I agree.

It would up the process.

Last question on this topic before I move on to a second one. Were the COVID-19 vaccines ever tested upon zero to four, four year olds? And could you please provide a copy of the data to prove that the vaccine is safe for young children and babies?

The vaccines are not approved for zero to four year olds. So they have not been approved in this country or in any major global regulator areas, there is an approval in China for a Chinese made vaccine, I think down to age three. But when I look at the US, when I look at Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe they are not approved in that age group.

When will they be approved?

It depends on the date of it’s submitted to us and whether it’s accessible.

Are you expecting at any time in the next three months before the new parliament comes in?

I can’t predict that we may receive an application midyear but it is really dependent on the completion of trials, and on the quality of the data.

Thank you, let’s move on then to the next topic. Can a COVID-19 vaccine enter and affect human DNA? Now a Swedish study and I’m gonna table this. A Swedish study has demonstrated that it could and while the paper, which is being distributed, at section four states, and I’ll quote, “At this stage we do not know if DNA reverse transcribe from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome.” So they’re acknowledging that, “the fact is that the Australian government may have not independently confirmed whether it does or not.” So the question is, have you done so, have you kept us safe?

So we are familiar with this paper. It is actually quite widely discredited in the medical community for a number of reasons. Firstly, reverse transcriptase of the type required are not commonly found within cells, are not commonly found within the nucleus. And if this were plausible, you’d argue as I mentioned earlier, probably all of us sitting here have 20,000 genes and 20,000 mRNAs that are making various proteins on time. You’d have all those proteins clogging up the nucleus. The second issue is that the amount of messenger RNA used in this study was not the physiological levels. It was a very high level of messenger RNA. So this paper was published in a second or third tier journal and it’s been fairly widely discredited. And again, I’m happy to provide a bit more information on what experts in the field have said about this particular study.

Yeah, I’d welcome that. But my question was not whether the paper was good or not. The question is, has the Australian government independently confirmed whether the material does transcribe or not? So my question was, have you done that? And have you kept us safe from the possibility of that?

We do not believe it can plausibly-

[Malcolm] So that’s a belief?

For scientific evidence does not show-

[Malcolm] Can we see that scientific evidence, please?

[Malcolm] Okay, thank you.

[Malcolm And John] If could take that on notice.

Yes.

Thank you. Secondly, did the TGA issue authorization solely based upon the basis of the manufacturer’s data?

To which for vaccine, are you talking about?

[Malcolm] Pfizer?

So every medical product is submitted on the basis of, sorry is reviewed on the basis of a submission that a company or other sponsor makes. In every case, there are questions sometimes in the case of one of the COVID vaccines but I think questions numbered in the hundreds. There are many questions where we go back and request further data. We also look at data from studies if that vaccine is for example, already on the market as professor Murphy mentioned for AstraZeneca and Pfizer, where there was already use overseas, we look at that data, but the process is that the data does come from the organisation that submits it, but we don’t take it at face value. We drive pharmaceutical companies crazy by asking them dozens and quite often hundreds of questions and ask for more things.

Why did the TGA just refer to the manufacturer that and take their word for it? I know you just said-

Well, as I said, we don’t take their word for it. Otherwise we’d just be a rubber stamp. You might as well bother having a-

[Malcolm] That’s my concern.

We are not a rubber stamp. What do those people do all day? And I think it’s fair to say. When you’ve had, at the time we were reviewing the vaccines we had teams of people working seven days a week. So they were extremely busy reviewing hundreds of thousands of pages of data-

[Malcolm] My concern-

And these are very highly qualified people Senator.

My concern professor Skerrit is that there have been so many contradictions so many reversals of data, so many denials, so many orders, so many instructions, so many absurdities throughout this whole COVID and I call it a mismanagement.

[John] That’s your assertion?

That is my assertion. And there have been so many absurdities so many contradictions we’ve got one state predicting another state. We’ve got one state contradicting itself within over a period of weeks. We’ve got so many of these that people are rightly very very suspicious and concerned.

Well, I would also add the fact that Australia of course has a very high vaccination rate. And while there are some individuals who are suspicious or concerned about the data, a massive majority of Australians have chosen to become vaccinated. I’d also add that there is one national medicines regulator who has a role of looking at the safety, efficacy and quality of vaccines.

Okay, my next question goes to, is from constituents, many constituents. And I’d like to tell over these, please. I’m not tabling the questions. I’m tabling handout, listing reports and scientific publications on the toxicity of graphene oxides to living organisms.

[John] Oh, yes, it’s toxic.

My constituents have asked me to ask you about a recent UK study, which has formed the basis of criminal charges in that country. “Due to the presence of compounds including, graphene oxide in COVID-19 vaccines.” Graphene oxide is not on the ingredients list. Have you tested specifically for graphene oxide, or other unlisted chemicals in the COVID-19 vaccines?

We have and other regulators have assessed the vaccines. There is no graphene oxide in any of the vaccines.

Have you tested?

I would have to take that on notice but we have no evidence, we do-

You have no evidence, but have you tested for that?

I said, I’d have to take that on notice but I am absolutely confident. There is no graphene oxide vaccines, why on earth would you put it in there?

That’s what people want to know?

Yeah, why on earth would you do that?

[Malcolm] But we talk about that-

That probably sounds like some conspiracy theory again, Senator.

That’s usually used as a term to ridicule the person asking the question.

[John] It is and I’ll be using it that way.

Okay.

But to think that someone, and it’s not directed at you Senator, but to think that someone would put graphene oxide into a vaccine would amount to a conspiracy theory.

We may have some interesting material for your next sentiments.

[John] Thank you Senator.

Yes, you’ve already explained that graphene oxide is toxic to humans.

[John] Oh, yeah.

Professor Kelly, your response to Senator Rennick’s questions about the denial of people wanting to go overseas, from going overseas because of their global commitments. I’ve heard that so many times, minister whether it be from the leader in the senate, previous it was on the senate, Senator Corman, in answer to my request for data as to why we’re complying with UN requirements and UN policies, I get told because we have to comply with our global commitments. I understand that the Omicron variant entered Australia at a time when only vaccinated people were allowed into the country?

That’s correct, Senator.

Thank you, that’s all for me right now. And I’ll come back with the target.

Part 4

AHPRA is an unaccountable private organisation that holds the threat of de-registration over the head of any Doctor who dares give advice against vaccination counter to the Government line. They must be held accountable and the primacy of the confidential doctor-patient relationship must be restored.

Transcript (click here to read)

[Roberts] Through this quickly then, I’d like to table this. My questions are for ATAGI because that’s where I was directed by the gentleman at the table now. Thank you. It’s in regard to AHPRA, this is from their website and I’ve also got another page on their website. Which I’m not tabling, but I’m happy to do so if needed. Dr. Crawford, are you there?

[Dr. Murphy] Here’s for AHPRA question might not be relevant, it’s ATAGI, senator. So let’s ask you a question and we’ll see…

Okay we’ll ask a question to everyone then. Well, some, this is on ATAGI and national boards. Position statement goes back to 9th of March, 2021 right from the start, pre-vaccine. While some health professionals, practitioners, sorry, may have a conscientious objection to COVID 19 vaccination. All practitioners, including students on placement must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures and guidelines relating to COVID 19 vaccination national boards regulate individual practitioners and not health services or state and territory health departments. Down the bottom of this notice, it says, any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation programme, including via social media, is not supported by national boards. And the doctors read this, may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action. So that was very, very clear. Then there’s a social media guideline which I won’t go through now. So I, is anyone aware of John Larter, who is a experienced paramedic who took a vocal stand against mandatory vaccination in his industry against mandatory vaccination. AHPRA moved swiftly on him and Larter told the media that he was not even given an official reason for his suspension when it happened. Ros Nealon-Cook is a psychologist who took it upon herself to warn Australians on social media of the severe and widespread harm being caused to child development and mental health by prolonged lockdowns. She was instantly suspended for her trouble. The more concerning one, these are all of concern in August of 2021, the COVID medical network published an open letter titled “First Do No Harm”. The COVID medical network’s open letter did not list any authors. So APRA went to the Australian securities and investments commission ASIC, and found out the names of the three directors of the COVID medical network. Two were doctors and their medical licences were immediately suspended. The COVID medical network was formed in 2020 to provide the public with informed evidence based advice concerning lockdowns and other matters that differs from that of the government and its bureaucratic instruments. The organisation runs a weekly video conference that is tuned into by hundreds of Australian health practitioners, professionals, sorry. The other, one of these doctors who were suspended, Robert Brennon was given written reasons for his instant termination. APRA accused him of spreading, quote, Medical Misinformation, unquote via the COVID medical network open letter because this is the words that APRA used, the content of both the letter and the video contrary to New South Wales public health orders because I’ll say that again, the content of the letter and the video are contrary to New South Wales public health orders enforced at the time and have the potential to undermine public health strategies by potentially influencing medical practitioners and the community not to be vaccinated. Then they go on, APRA, to say, it is not our role to evaluate the scientific validity of the letter. Our concern is that the letter strongly argued a highly polarised position contrary to public health order. In other words, the position argued by Dr. Brennon and the COVID medical network might be scientifically correct. And the position of the Australian government scientifically incorrect but as far as APRA is concerned. The crime lies in contradicting the government’s position.

[Lady] Senator Roberts, so you have a question?

Yes I do, why is AHPRA allowed to do this? And what are you doing to make sure AHPRA is held accountable? Because they’re not as far as I know, to the parliament.

So APRA is a creature of all governments. So it’s a creature of all state territory governments and the Commonwealth government. It has its, and it has a range of boards of experts. So there’s a medical board and there are boards of nursing and paramedicine. And I think the message really is in that that final statement that said that promotion of statements or advice that contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seek to actively undermine the national immunisation programme has been determined by APRA and by its expert boards as being unprofessional conduct. And we would support that contention by AHPRA.

So can I get access to that evidence from a AHPRA?

What evidence?

That it’s the best scientific evidence.

[Doctor Murphy] Well, I think the best I think professor been giving you the best scientific evidence all morning, about the the benefit of vaccination. And I think that’s just, there are scientific standards that are well established in the literature.

Can I get the evidence? Not statements and opinions about the evidence. Can I get the evidence?

We can give you lots of evidence?

[Roberts] No can I get AHPRA’s evidence? They’re touting, but remember Dr. Murphy, it’s not only, what might be scientific, it’s also about the contradiction of the public health statements

Senator, if you would like to provide that information to us, we can investigate it on notice and go back to AHPRA

[Roberts] Provide what to you?

And understand what you…

[Roberts] This information?

Yeah, yeah. If you can provide it to us,

[Lady] Senator Roberts.

We can follow it up.

[Roberts] Final question.

[Lady] I’m just conscious of time. Cause I’ve got four other senators now, asking to ask questions.

I’d like to know why ATAGI is not here in person. And also I’d like to know…

Professor Crawford is here online. He’s actually based in Melbourne, senator, so…

[Roberts] Thank you. That’s all I needed to know. I’d like to know the relationship between, Dr. Murphy, between the boards, APRA and the AHPPC. And the final question, public health is quite often used these days in America and in Australia as a catch-all for the community, public health, when, and that’s why orders are given and people are supposed to follow them. But public health is a nonsense. It’s not an entity. The primary public health goes back to the primary relationship between a doctor and a patient. In this country, now, are you aware that there is not a relationship between many doctors and their patients because the doctor has got a puppet master behind him telling him what him, what he can and cannot say.

The Individual relationship between a doctor and his patient is sacrosanct and APRA would not have any problem with a doctor.

[Roberts] Dr. Murphy, they have.

AHPRA would not have a problem with a doctor having an individual discussion with his or her patients around vaccination. What this is talking about is the public promotion of misinformed and wrong scientific evidence. So that’s what they’re concerned about, bringing the profession in to distribute and undermining public confidence.

But what I’m talking about is doctors who are very concerned.

[Lady] Senator Roberts your time has expired now we’re going to move on, I’m sorry.

Just one minute. What I’m very concerned about is doctors who are telling me personally that they cannot give advice because AHPRA is sitting behind them. So what they’re getting is a public health dictate when they go to the doctor, not advice.

Well if you can provide evidence of that

Yes, I will.

We’ll be happy to investigate.

[Roberts] Who do I provide it to?

[Physician] And Senator, I’m very happy to provide a definition of public health as a public health physician. Is it actually a recognised AHPRA profession? And that is me and there are others in the department that have that. And I would refer to my opening statement about what the definition of a public health physician does and how that works. It’s about protecting the population at the population level and preventing death at the population level. That is not in any way to take away the importance, absolute vital importance of the individual doctor, individual patient relationship. It’s a different part of the profession.

[Lady] Okay, thank you.

[Roberts] Thank…

/34 Comments/by

Government spending $2.4 billion on casuals with one Labour hire firm alone

, ,

During investigations into the the abuse of casual coal miners I found that the government has spent over $2.4 billion on casual labour hire from one firm, Chandler Macleod Group, alone. The government couldn’t even tell me what the total casual labour hire bill was across all agencies because they don’t even collect that data. The fact that the Australian Public Service Commission don’t even know how much money they’re spending is inexcusable.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for appearing today. When we were investigating, over the last 2½ years, the abuses of casual black-coal miners in the Hunter Valley, we noted that there were thousands of casuals working for the Australian Public Service, with hundreds of millions of dollars being paid to labour hire firms. Why does the Public Service do this?

Mr Woolcott : Could you just put that question to me again, Senator? I didn’t quite understand. You’re talking about why we employ casual hire?

Senator ROBERTS: Casuals. We know that some people prefer to work casually; so I’ve got nothing against casuals. We know that casuals fulfil a basic secondary role within any workplace, with fluctuating workloads, someone going on leave, projects et cetera. Why does the Public Service use so many labour hire firms to employ these casuals?

Mr Woolcott : It’s for agency heads to determine how they construct their workforce. The Public Service Act sets out that the normal method of engagement is full-time, ongoing employment as a public servant, but there are provisions in the Public Service Act for non-ongoing and other aspects. It’s very much for each individual agency head to work out what is the appropriate mix of their workforce. Obviously, if it’s work that fluctuates then it’s quite appropriate for them to use labour hire and casuals to manage those fluctuations. But again, as I say, it’s a matter for each individual agency head. They’re the accountable authority. They have responsibility for delivering for the government and the Australian community and it’s for them to work out their proper mix.

Senator ROBERTS: As the Australian Public Service Commission, I imagine you’d be interested in efficiency, cost-effectiveness and employees’ conditions?

Mr Woolcott : Obviously we’re intimately involved in many of those aspects but, in terms of running that agency and running the duties and obligations that they are committed to undertake, it’s for them to do that.

Senator ROBERTS: I get that point. How many casuals are currently employed across the Australian Public Service—hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands?

Mr Woolcott : I think it’s 87 per cent that is ongoing. Ms Steele will have the data.

Ms Steele : That’s correct. In terms of casuals in the last year, we have at the moment 8,696 casuals. That’s an increase of 51 since December 2020.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many of those would you know are casuals in their own right employed directly by the Australian Public Service and how many are labour hire subcontractors or labour hire firms?

Ms Steele : I do not know that. I do know that those who are employed for a specific term or task are a further 10,816.

Senator ROBERTS: In addition?

Ms Steele : In addition to the casuals. There are two types of non-ongoing. One is casual, and one is you can be engaged for a specific term or task.

Senator GALLAGHER: And that can be contract, labour hire, fixed term?

Ms Steele : Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many casuals have been employed in the Australian Public Service for more than six months?

Ms Steele : I would have to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you, and could you also provide a de-identified report—anonymous employees—by department, by labour hire company or direct employment, by cost and duration of service?

Ms Steele : We don’t collect that information about labour hire firms or companies; we only collect the number of casuals by agency.

Senator ROBERTS: This one you’ll probably have to take on notice too, Ms Steele: how many casuals, internal or labour hire, have converted from casual to permanent employment in the Australian Public Service in the past 12 months?

Ms Steele : I will take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are casuals that the Australian Public Service has engaged through labour hire companies able to convert to the Public Service roles that they’ve been working in for more than six months?

Ms Steele : No.

Senator ROBERTS: If someone has been engaged for more than six months it would seem that they’re needed, so why wouldn’t they be eligible? Because the employer is not the Public Service?

Mr Spaccavento : I think it’s important to draw a distinction between a casual employee and a labour hire employee. A casual employee is an employee of the Australian Public Service and is eligible to convert to permanent employment if they meet the criteria laid out in the Fair Work Act and the Public Service Act. A labour hire employee is an employee of an entirely different company and not of the Public Service. A labour hire employee would not be eligible to convert to permanent employment.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you see some inconsistency there?

Mr Spaccavento : No, because in one instance the employee is a direct employee of the Australian Public Service, directly engaged by an agency. So it’s a contract of service versus a contract for service.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. We’ve seen the abuse of coal miners, for example, and we’ve seen hints of abuse of casual workers in other sectors as well—lost entitlements, basic safety provisions, significant pay cuts—and it seems to me that it’s just a naked attempt to go around the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

Mr Spaccavento : Casual employees in the Australian Public Service are engaged under the terms and conditions of agency enterprise agreements, so they receive essentially the same terms and conditions as permanent employees. I say ‘essentially’ because there’s some leave entitlements they don’t get and there is a casual loading. Labour hire employees are obviously different because they are employees of a different organisation. There’s a range of reasons why agencies would engage labour hire firms, and that would be a decision for that agency head to make.

Senator ROBERTS: In the course of our investigations in the Hunter Valley, Central Queensland and elsewhere we found, for example, that the Chandler Macleod Group was paid an estimated $2.4 billion over four years for providing labour hire contractors or labour hire employees to the Australian government. That seems pretty substantial to me.

Mr Spaccavento : I can’t comment on decisions that agencies have made.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware if these casuals under labour hire firms are paid the same and have the same terms and conditions as similar roles that they work beside?

Mr Spaccavento : Because it’s outside of our remit, we don’t have visibility of what labour hire employees are paid or the conditions they are on. It would be a matter of the employment arrangements they have made with the labour hire company and those employees. I couldn’t say yes or no to that question because we don’t have responsibility or visibility of it.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this is a request for an opinion: do you think that’s reasonable?

Senator Duniam: In terms of the decisions that heads of agencies make around it?

Senator ROBERTS: The employment of people for more than six months by a labour hire firm could be a way of getting around the requirement now to offer casual conversion.

Senator Duniam: As the commissioner outlined earlier, heads of agencies make decisions with regard to how they engage their workforce based on the needs at the time. There are a range of circumstances that they obviously take into consideration. I would have every faith in those heads of agencies that they are doing the right thing to ensure that the people they work for, the taxpayers of Australia, are getting the service that’s required and that their employees are being treated properly as well.

Senator ROBERTS: With respect, that’s a nice motherhood statement, but I’ve seen people who work for firms with reputable international and Australian reputations completely abusing workers in this country. That has come as a big shock. To compound that, neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal Party nor the National Party nor state and federal governments nor the various bureaucrats have been interested in this. They’ve ignored requests to investigate.

Senator Duniam: If there are specific cases of abuse of employees then there are appropriate channels to deal with those things. I would encourage you, or those you ask these questions on behalf of, to take action, because that’s the appropriate thing to do. I don’t think there’s anyone around this table, on that side or this side, that would seek to endorse any abuse of employees or withdrawal or withholding of entitlements.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s remarkable—and I’m not accusing people of doing that in the Public Service—and I’m trying to find out whether or not the government and the Public Service understand there is a potential for that. We’ve seen that widely in other industries from so-called reputable firms. I’ve heard some stories about the Public Service hiring $2.4 billion worth of labour hire people over four years. That’s a staggering figure.

Senator Duniam: I appreciate you’re not making an accusation. Certainly, your point is that there could be potential, or you’re trying to seek an understanding of whether there is. If there is a single case of this abuse then I would expect that it would be raised and referred to the appropriate authorities and dealt with accordingly.

Senator ROBERTS: What doesn’t give me confidence—I accept what you’re saying—is that some people in the Hunter Valley, for example, raised this repeatedly over the course of about five years and got nowhere, neither from the state nor the federal government, with blatant breaches of the law. I’m just trying to understand, if the Public Service know that this could be going on, what they’re doing to protect not only workers who work for them permanently, casually, directly, but also those who work indirectly through labour hire firms, because not all labour hire firms are ethical.

Mr Woolcott : I’m not aware of the particular issues that you are raising. Obviously, if you have concerns, please take them up with the relevant minister or with his department in relation to the way they manage their affairs.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m trying to find out whether or not you’re aware of the particular—

Mr Woolcott : I’m not aware of any of the particular concerns that you’re raising, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Or the potential for that. Are you aware that casual workers who are employed either directly or through labour hire firms have less job security and find it harder, for example, to get home loans, because one of the requirements for a home loan is a secure, permanent job?

Mr Woolcott : Am I aware of that?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Woolcott : Again, it’s not an issue that’s been brought to my attention.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not aware; okay. These workers who are working for the Public Service for more than six months miss out on the terms and conditions of government employment. Is that reasonable?

Mr Woolcott : You’re asking me for an opinion there.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask the minister.

Senator Duniam: With respect to the decisions made by heads of agency around how they engage their workforce, either in the way you’ve characterised or otherwise, as the commissioner has outlined, it’s a matter for them based on the needs of the community they serve and the work that they do. Personally, I would love to ensure that everyone gets everything they’re entitled to, and I have every expectation that, for those who are engaged, under whatever contractual arrangement occurs, those contracts are in alignment with the law and are done in accordance with what is legally required of the employing agency. My hope is that everyone gets what they deserve and nothing less.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my hope, too. But in the Hunter Valley, for a period of seven years now—five years until we started working on it—there were many people who were abused and exploited, and they were told to go and talk with the state department, WorkCover. They were told to take it up with the federal government, and nothing happened. We were then actively misrepresented when we tried to do something about it. Eventually, we prevailed in some areas and we’re still working on others. So it could happen in the Public Service, and I’m checking to make sure that the Public Service is aware of some of these things; that’s all.

Senator Duniam: You have brought this concern to the commissioner’s attention. Certainly, the minister that I’m representing will be aware of your concerns. Again, if there’s a specific instance or a series of them, we should deal with them in the appropriate forum.

Senator ROBERTS: One final question, Chair: what margin is paid to labour hire firms when you engage a casual through them? I’m now putting on my other hat; instead of protecting constituents, I’m protecting taxpayers, who are also constituents. What’s the margin?

Mr Woolcott : We don’t keep data on that, so I can’t answer that question. It would be a matter for each particular agency head, in terms of the arrangements they have. We don’t collect data on that issue.

Senator AYRES: Ms Steele, I didn’t hear your answer to Senator Roberts’ initial question. I think you gave an answer—tell me if I’m wrong—which was about the number of direct casuals and the number of non-ongoing; and, consistent with the APSC’s previous answers to the committee, you don’t have an answer for the number of labour hire employees engaged by the APSC?

Ms Steele : That is correct.

Senator AYRES: The justification for what I think is an impossible proposition is still the same, Mr Woolcott, is it?

Mr Woolcott : We collect data on Australian public servants, and arrangements under the APS act fall outside our terms of reference. Having said that, Senator, it’s always appropriate to look at ways to improve data collection and our understanding of the public sector workforce. We will continue to do so, and use the COO committee to that end.

Senator AYRES: Does that mean that you’re heading towards being able to collect that data, to be able to identify what proportion of the workforce is privatised, or are you just making a general comment?

Mr Woolcott : I’m just making a general comment at this point, Senator.

Senator AYRES: So it’s still studied ignorance on labour hire. With the survey work that the commission does on a regular basis, there’s been no consideration given to extending that survey work to the experience that labour hire employees have with the Public Service?

Mr Woolcott : Not at this point.

Senato r ROBERTS: There’s no guarantee—you can’t provide a guarantee—that there’s no wage theft going on in the industry, in the public sector?

Mr Woolcott : No, I can’t provide that guarantee.

Senator Duniam: Again, it’s important to say that, if there are examples of that, I’ll walk with you to the appropriate authority; we’ll make sure that they’re made aware, that investigations occur and justice is done.

Mr Woolcott : The workforce ombudsman, Sandra Parker, obviously looks at this aspect very closely in terms of both the private sector and the public sector.

/by

Where’s the death data for Aged Care Vaccinations?

, ,

I would have thought COVID data on deaths in Aged Care would be on hand for the Government, especially at Senate Estimates. Instead they’ve taken the questions on notice. I was also surprised to find that there had been no improvement in breaches of the Aged Care Quality Standards.

Transcripts

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for attending today. I have three sets of questions. The first is pretty straightforward: it’s only one question. How many aged-care residents died of COVID-19 by state per month since March 2020; and how many died in aged care within four weeks of receiving a COVID-19 injection?

Dr Murphy : I don’t think we could provide that information other than on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy for that.

Dr Murphy : We can certainly provide that on notice. That sort of level of detail wouldn’t be available to officials today.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you provide data by state per month on the deaths due to COVID; and the deaths within four weeks of receiving a COVID-19 vaccination?

Mr Lye : Regarding the second part of that question about the relationship to vaccinations, I think that the work that Professor Kelly’s leading may shed some light on that question but it might be harder to get than the other. But I think that we can get the other data quite simply. The second one might take a bit longer.

Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought—

Senator HUGHES: Senator Roberts, can I ask a question maybe through you for the real COVID death rate. For example, what is the death rate for people who had cancer or were in palliative care but also had COVID; did they die of COVID or did they die of the cancer that they had? When you get those figures, can we actually have a look? I know a lot of COVID deaths were put down as the person dying of COVID—as opposed to with COVID—and that other factors were involved.

Dr Murphy : As we said at the last estimates, I think that the Victorian health department did some detailed analysis on their aged-care deaths and found that 44 per cent of people who died with COVID had died primarily from another cause such as cancer or severe dementia. We always report them as COVID deaths because we want to be absolutely inclusive; however, in many of these vaccinated people who’ve had another condition, the COVID is incidental to the cause of death.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Lye, before I move to the next question, I would have thought it would be fairly simple, given the aged-care records, to know whether or not a person died within four weeks of getting a COVID injection.

Mr Lye : I’m outside of my area of competence but, to save other officials coming up, I think the complexity is working with states and territories around settled death data, which takes some time, and then the additional linkage to the system that covers immunisation.

Dr Murphy : Yes, we certainly can link to the immunisation record, and that data analysis can be done. As you know, Senator, the TGA also does get reports of deaths reasonably close to vaccination. Many of those are considered completely coincidental and not related to the vaccination. We can explore what we can do by data linkage to see if we can come up with an answer.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d be surprised if you couldn’t tell me if someone died within four weeks of getting their injection, but anyway we’ll see what happens.

Dr Murphy : With 1,000 people per week in aged care dying and a busy immunisation program, there will definitely be some who die within a month of their injection just as a matter of course.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that, but we’ll see if there is any trend.

CHAIR : Senator Roberts, we have to break at 11 am, so you need to conclude by then. I am just giving you a heads-up.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. I move to the second set of questions. One in three nursing homes continue to spend less than $10 a day per resident on food, despite being given an extra $10 a day by the Morrison government. How are you checking whether the cash that the government gave providers is being used for its intended purposes?

Mr Lye : I might hand over to Ms Laffan and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner on this. The short answer is that we have required people to report to us on nutrition based on that uplift in funding. Those people who hadn’t given us assurance that they would report to us have had their additional funding stopped. Then we have a process by which people who haven’t met the standard are referred to the quality and safety commissioner. I’ll let Ms Laffan give you a complete answer and then the commissioner, who is here, can give you more detail again.

Ms Laffan : As Mr Lye said, first we require providers to provide an undertaking that they will use the money with a focus on food and nutrition and then we require quarterly reporting on matters of food and nutrition. We’ve recently released the data from the first two quarters. We found that 75 per cent of providers reported on-site only spending on food and ingredients, with an average spend of $12.25 in the July quarter and $12.44 per resident per day in the quarter starting in October. Those providers that spent less than $10 per day were referred to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. Ms Anderson may be able to tell you what she has been doing with that information.

Ms Anderson : We received a list of 883 services—referred from the department—which had reported less than $10 expenditure per day on a calculated basis. We looked closely at that list and then we added some services to it on the basis of our analysis of risk. We added to it services who appeared to use only preprepared food and then added a further number who use a combination of fresh and preprepared food where they had relatively low expenditure on food and associated labour. We looked at a list of 955 services, so a larger list than came across from the department, and we made an assessment of their food and nutrition profiles.

We looked at that in the way that we assess risks generally, by looking at a number of different parameters. We looked at their relative ranking in relation to the quality indicator for unplanned weight loss and at the top percentile of concern there. We looked at the relative number of complaints that we had received about that service in relation to food and nutrition and rated those low, medium and high. We also looked at any findings of noncompliance that we had made about those services in relation to the standard in the Aged Care Quality Standards specifically relating to food, 4(3)(f), which says: ‘Where meals are provided, they are varied and of suitable quality and quantity.’

On the basis of that analysis of the 905, 4.5 per cent of those services were rated as high risk for noncompliance with the expectations in relation to food and nutrition, and another 41.3 per cent were rated at medium risk. The balance were rated at low risk, or they had not yet submitted their quality indicator data which meant that we weren’t able to do a full risk profile. We then looked at the high- and medium-rated risk services. Those services we rated as having a high-risk profile will be prioritised in our monitoring schedule in terms of their compliance specifically with that requirement in the quality standards. I won’t go into more detail about that because if we are to undertake a visit, our visits are unannounced. But I can say that there will be a greater intensity in the monitoring that we undertake of those services. Services which have been rated as high or medium risk will be required to participate in an education program that we’re currently putting together which will give them more information and be clearer about the expectations that the Australian community has of them in relation to food, nutrition and the dining experience. We’ll be expecting both staff and management to participate in those educational sessions.

Senator ROBERTS: Would it be fair to say that they know they’re being watched?

Ms Anderson : Yes, that would be accurate.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Senator WATT: Do the high-risk facilities—I’m not going to ask you to name them individually—tend to be major providers or smaller independent providers? Is it a mixture? Is there any sort of trend there?

Ms Anderson : I’m sorry, I really don’t have access to that detail. It is an interesting question, I agree with you, but I really can’t answer it today, I’m sorry. I’ll have to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand you measure quality and safety standards—has the rate of breaches of quality and safety standards improved specifically? Can you quantify it?

Ms Anderson : No, there’s been no material improvement in assessed compliance with the Aged Care Quality Standards. However, it’s a complicated question to answer succinctly, because we have been improving our capability as a risk based regulator, which means that we are more able to identify the higher risk services because we are more proficient and skilful in understanding bits of intelligence that come to us. We put them together as information in a risk profile for individual services, and we understand how that profile relates to other profiles for peer organisations. In that risk profiling exercise, we pay greater attention to those who are rated as higher risk. Our detection rate for noncompliance has actually improved because we know where to look. We are finding high levels of noncompliance, but we’re also looking in the right places for noncompliance. That is why I can’t say categorically that we are seeing overall improvements in quality and safety, because as a regulator we are becoming more efficient and effective in identifying noncompliance.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, would it be possible for one of my staff to go and have a talk with the agency?

Senator Reynolds: I’m sure that would be fine.

Senator ROBERTS: Senior Australians have different needs and health issues to younger people, yet they’re treated as part of a larger community segment. Why do we not have purpose-built seniors focused healthcare facilities, including seniors’ hospitals? Wouldn’t that be a way of not only improving the service but saving money?

Dr Murphy : The average age of the in-patient in our major state and territory public hospitals is about 70, so effectively we do have hospitals that are looking after the elderly, because—as you obviously realise—chronic disease and the disease burden mostly increase as we get older. But I think your point is valid. There are some specialist services that are very much directed toward dealing with the elderly, and we have a very strong focus in the department to enhance working with the states and territories to get geriatric services into aged-care facilities. There are now some very good models of in-reach where those aged-care services get those specialist geriatric services and specialist mental health services. But, essentially, our hospitals are largely for the treatment of people of more advanced years, given that’s the nature of disease.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a useful point you raise, because I and many people find hospitals daunting, so for an elderly person it’s even more daunting. Some doctors say it’s better to stay out of hospital; they’re not being derogatory, they’re just saying—

Dr Murphy : You don’t want to be in a hospital unless you really need to be in a hospital—

Senator ROBERTS: Right, that’s what I’m getting at.

Dr Murphy : That’s absolutely right.

Mr Lye : The multidisciplinary outreach measure in the budget is precisely about bringing gerontologists and some of those health experts into residential aged care to give that access in the home setting. When people have a more complex set of health circumstances, what we don’t want is the residential aged-care facility just quickly admitting them to hospital all the time, and them having that experience, when it could be delivered in the residential facility.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Who do we contact, Secretary, for the previous question?

Dr Murphy : I think we can seek a briefing from Minister Colbeck’s office.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

CHAIR: So, on that note, we’ll take our break and then continue with outcome 3.

/2 Comments/by

Coal LSL audit vindicates One Nation allegations

,

I’ve pursued allegations of fraud, conflicts of interest and risk management about the Coal Long Service Leave Corporation for years. Finally, an independent review has confirmed dozens of governance and fraud risks that have left casual workers without their fair entitlements. It’s a hard-fought win for casual coal miners by One Nation, but there is still much further to go.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Sheldon, you are making a statement. We will now go to Senator Roberts.

Senator Cash: Do you feel better, Senator Sheldon, for getting that off your chest because—

Senator SHELDON: I do feel better.

Senator Cash: I’m glad you do because, as I said, I don’t believe, Senator Sheldon, that you as the head of the TWU would indulge in this behaviour. I don’t believe that you, three years later, after a case has been dismissed by the full bench of the Federal Court, would actually stand up and say, and make admissions, the national executive did not approve any of the 20 donations, the subject of the investigation, which contravened the registered organisations act. As I said, that was as recently as December 2021. You’re referring to a statement made on 7 March this year, I would reflect, backed on the admissions made by the AWU in December 2021—a range of admissions concerning contraventions by the AWU. They submitted they made mistakes; they did not comply. So I think, if anyone’s providing an apology, perhaps the AWU should apologise to its members for those contraventions.

Senator SHELDON: And the minor breaches that they were fully aware of throughout the entire five years—

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Senator Sheldon.

Senator Cash: Senator Sheldon, as you and I know, you need to comply—

Senator SHELDON: The ROC was fully aware that they were minor breaches all the way through, and yet they continued to pursue it.

Senator Cash: You and I are going to have to agree to disagree in relation to the incorrect information you’re providing by way of your questioning.

Senator SHELDON: That’s not incorrect. It was minor breaches, and they were fully aware for the whole five years, and they dragged this out—

Senator SMALL: Who decides whether it’s major or it’s minor? Is that how you plan to act in government?

CHAIR: Order! Order, Senator Small! We would like now to move on to Senator Roberts, who has a series of questions on a different topic.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing today. Most of my questions, I think, will be going to the minister, or certainly to the department. Minister, recently KPMG presented their report into Coal LSL. How are you progressing in relation to implementation of this review and report, and when will it be completed? I understand that some are immediate and some are—

Senator Cash: Understood. I know this is a genuine interest for you, so what I will do is ask Ms Williams to take these questions for you.

Ms T Williams : Senator, you asked how we are progressing with implementation of the recommendations. As you might know, the government has accepted all 20 recommendations of the review. In terms of the 10 recommendations specifically directed at government, the government response to the review identified that the government will take legislative action to clarify eligible employees and ensure that no eligible employee is worse off; ensure fairness for casuals to be treated equitably with permanent employees; address legacy coverage issues to ensure fairness and transparency for employees, employers and employers that may register with the scheme; and strengthen decision-making, review and dispute resolution to enhance accountability and compliance.

The government response to the review really highlights that. It recognises that the reforms are complex and they will require further technical legal advice to ensure that the changes really have the desired impact and benefit for employees and employers under the scheme. The intention is for consultation and action to continue in the spirit of the review, which, as you may be aware, included consultation with producers, employer groups and peak bodies, employers, employees, unions and representatives from modern industry stakeholders. We’ll draw on their expertise and stress test ideas going forward. We’ll need to do that closely and methodically with the stakeholders, including the provision of exposure drafts of legislation. The department is just working through that now, and consultations will begin as soon as practicable.

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that it’s still being digested. When do you think the plan will be available—or you will have one, even if you’re not sharing it?

Ms T Williams : We’re working through. The review also canvassed that there were a number of existing proposals put to government and suggested that they provided a really good foundation to start to work through some of those ideas. The department is working through that now. In terms of the exact specifics of the consultation, we’ll provide advice to government in due course.

Senator ROBERTS: Reading parts of the report—I haven’t read the whole report—I believe some can be remedied by legislative changes, some can be remedied by the existing proposals and some can be remedied by further consultation. When do you think you will you have the plan together?

Ms T Williams : We’re working on that now. The specifics of that will be a decision for government but, as I said, it will continue in the spirit of the review and be broad-ranging in terms of the consultations. I think the other thing that the review really recognises is the deep industry expertise from employers and employees in this sector and also a real commitment by all the stakeholders that were consulted in the review to get this right. So we’ll provide advice to government on how to take that forward, but the consultations will be very much in that vein.

Mr Hehir : I might just add to that. We’re still some months away. The consultation process will still take a few months to work our way through. Then, following the consultation process, we’ll need to put our advice to government. So we’re still some months away.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will just go to page 126, and I’ll read the main points, the issues in red that are not—

Senator Cash: Just hold on for one moment. Have you got the whole—

Ms T Williams : Yes, I do.

Senator Cash: It will assist if the official is reading it with you.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a fairly simple question, even though the question will be long. I’ll read out the issues not addressed—the ones in red. On waiver agreements, it says:

The Existing Proposals do not substantively address this issue.

The report says the same thing about conflicts of interest, which it says are significant; allegations of fraud; culture; communications; risk management; adoption of technology; data security and privacy; and validation of data. So none of them are being addressed. For each of them, the report says:

The Existing Proposals do not substantively address this issue.

When do you think you will have something around those? They’re the core issues. That’s not a complaint about the report; the report is fine. But we need to understand when they will be addressed.

Ms T Williams : I will just clarify for you that this section of the report is actually talking about the existing proposals that were put to government before the government realised, or in the process of the government realising, that we needed to have a holistic response to the issues in the sector. So these proposals were actually put by stakeholders, and then the government commissioned an independent review. So the review itself and the recommendations do cover those issues. I think conflicts of interest are covered by recommendation 11.

Senator ROBERTS: What about changes to the board structure and composition?

Ms T Williams : That’s recommendation 13. So they are all covered by the review. This is really talking about how, before the government commissioned the review, those existing proposals had that gap in them. So we commissioned the review, which has now addressed those areas.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Now I’d like to move onto the Fair Entitlements Guarantee, the FEG. These are simple questions. You may have to take them on notice. My first question is: have the Fair Entitlements Guarantee and Coal LSL paid any Coal LSL entitlements to One Key employees who no longer work in the coalmining industry and were not CFMMEU members?

Mr Manning : Is this about the One Key workforce case?

Senator ROBERTS : Yes.

Mr Manning : Ms Saunders, who will be coming up from our waiting room downstairs, should be able to answer that for you. Unfortunately, we couldn’t get a room next door today. But we wouldn’t be told whether or not they were union members. We wouldn’t ask that on the application form. So I’m not sure about that, but, when Ms Saunders arrives, she might be able to answer it. You might need to repeat the question, though, because she’s had to come from downstairs.

Ms Saunders : Would you mind repeating the question?

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. It’s from a constituent. Have the Fair Entitlements Guarantee and Coal LSL paid any Coal LSL entitlements to One Key employees who no longer work in the coalmining industry and were not CFMMEU members?

Ms Saunders : Under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee, we pay the five basic employment entitlements: redundancy pay, long-service leave, wages, annual leave and payment in lieu of notice. So our consideration of that doesn’t actually take into account the extent to which they are funded by another organisation, except that, if there is a redundancy trust fund or whatever that will step in to pay a portion of the cost, that is not covered under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee program. I guess, in the sense that any entitlements that were payable under their governing instruments would have been paid under FEG, to the extent that they were eligible for it. For example, with One Key Workforce we paid 346 claimants a total of a $6.8 million in FEG assistance. That covered a range of entitlements.

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total figure?

Ms Saunders : It was $6.8 million.

Mr Hehir : Recognising that covered off a number of different employee entitlements.

Ms Saunders : I don’t have the detail of what made up that in terms of the different entitlements that were covered. I can take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please. I’d like to understand this issue because it involves some constituents in the Hunter Valley. My next question is: why did the Fair Entitlements Guarantee not pay One Key employees who were non-CFMEU members all entitlements owed under the black coal award, including shift penalties and overtime rates?

Ms Saunders : Okay.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a complex issue, but it should be able to be boiled down once you have the data. I’m happy to take it on notice.

Senator Cash: You’re happy for us to take it?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’d like to get to the bottom of it.

Senator Cash: Yes, understood.

Senator ROBERTS: Finally, the issues raised in here show—I won’t say neglect, but times are changing across industry and the cracks that are exposed in Coal LSL itself are significant for employees and some employers. They’re very important, but they’re minor relative to the cracks in the Fair Work Act that have been exposed with changes in industry and in employment practices over time. Minister, is the government open to comprehensive review of industrial relations? The reason I ask is that Dave Noonan and heads of the CFMEU and the ETU have said they welcome a comprehensive, fair approach to reviewing and revising industrial relations. The Business Council of Australia has told me that they’re open to it as well and they support it. Large employers have told me the same. Small business is crying out for it, and medium businesses are as well. The industrial relations club which consists of major union bosses, major employers, major industry groups, consultants and lawyers are feeding off this, but the workers are not protected. Even unionised workers are not protected today, and they’re coming to us. The Fair Work Act is so complex that people are trying to detour around it, and that’s adding even more complexity. We need to restore fairness, entitlements and protections to workers—especially fairness to the small businesses. Are you open to comprehensive review of industrial relations?

Senator Cash: I think the government is always prepared to listen to stakeholders—it’s obviously subject to the ability to get anything through the Australian Senate—to make the system a better one, a more productive one, both for employers and for employees. You do raise a good point, though, in relation to the complexity of the system, and I might just ask the official who was talking about the budget announcements that we have made in relation to small businesses in particular being able to better navigate the system to come back to the table, because this is something that you and I had actually spoken about. We have made a budget announcement, so it’s embedded in the budget. But this is, in particular, to assist small businesses to be able to better understand and better navigate the Fair Work Act as it currently stands. If you would just indulge us for two or three minutes, I will get you this information.

Ms Huender : The government’s providing $5.6 million over four years to the Fair Work Commission to establish a dedicated small business unit within the Fair Work Commission to provide tailored support to small businesses to assist them to navigate the system. We’re aware that small businesses are a big part of the Australian economy, with 3½ million businesses employing over 40 per cent of the workforce. However, they do find the system complex. They don’t have the support of HR managers or legal support, so they also find navigating the system costly. So this unit’s designed to provide strategic leadership and to develop improved information resources and case management support for small businesses when they engage with the system. Small businesses, I understand, make up 50 per cent of the Fair Work Commission’s customers, as it were, but they represent 95 per cent of first-time users.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, that’s necessary, but it just reemphasises my point. It’s a moribund, complicated, inefficient system. And I’m thinking now that, for not only small business but also workers in the Hunter Valley for some of the world’s largest companies, workers in Central Queensland, workers for other large companies, some of the things that are going on with the COVID injection mandates are just despicable. I could tell you stories that would really shock you. We’re not living in a Third-World country, but we’re behaving as if we are, and some workers have no longer got basic protections and basic entitlements.

Senator Cash: I would disagree.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s like we’re living in a Third-World country.

Senator Cash: And I understand, because you genuinely do prosecute this case that every estimates and in relation to, in particular, the size of the Fair Work Act now and its growth over time.

Unidentified speaker: I’m disappointed you didn’t bring it along today!

Senator Cash: As I’ve said, the government is always prepared to work with stakeholders, employers and employees, to take on board the feedback to improve the system. Ultimately, though, changes are to the Fair Work Act itself, and those changes do need to be got through the Australian Senate. I think the perfect example—and you and I had many discussions on this—was the omnibus bill. There were significant parts of that bill that would have given more certainty to certain sectors et cetera, but we just could not get that through the Australian Senate.

With your support, though, we of course rectified the Rossato decision, and that was later, obviously, confirmed in the High Court of Australia. That was an incredibly important decision, as you know, because of the uncertainty that it had given to small businesses that they might end up with what we’d estimated to be I think it was up to a $38 billion or $39 billion liability. We couldn’t even get the support of the Australian Labor Party to actually take that impost off small businesses. You worked with us, and I was very appreciative of that, and we did make that change.

But, in relation to the other parts of the bill, again I’m prepared to work with people. I think a better system, a simpler system and a more productive system—but it has to reflect the needs of both employers and employees—is a good situation to aspire to, but ultimately, as you know, it does come down to the ability to get legislation through the Senate, and we can’t get the Labor Party or the Greens to support that type of productive change.

Senator ROBERTS: We had to work with small businesses to identify issues that they had, and we were pleased that the government resolved some of those issues and put our suggestions into the revised act. But, again, your recounting of the situation, while accurate, reinforces the need for change, because it is just so difficult and such a complex environment, with so many stakeholders hanging on by their fingernails. It’s just out of date and it’s hurting workers.

Senator Cash: As I said, you and I have had many discussions over many years now, and we’ve always worked constructively together in this regard, with a commitment to improving the system for both employees and employers. Ultimately, though, it is difficult to get through the Australian Senate. But what I think it does show is that it’s not therefore about one policy lever. If that policy lever is difficult to actually pull and properly implement because of the nature of the Australian Senate, you do then need to look at other ways that you can deliver for small business.

You and I have long talked about lowering taxes. When you look at, say, the tax rate for small business, under the Australian Labor Party it was 30 per cent; under us it is currently 25 per cent. So, whilst that’s not the industrial relations system as such, it is another way that you can ensure that you’re giving back to small business. I know, throughout COVID-19, even just the ability to change the way you process documents to allow for that—the e-technology certainly assists them. There is the availability of the instant asset write-off and the ability to say to them, ‘If you have that capacity to invest in your business, the government’s going to back you every step of the way.’ If one lever proves difficult, there are other levers that you can then look to utilise to ensure that you are responding in every possible way to that commitment that they are the backbone of the Australian economy, that they deserve to be backed by government, which is what we do. In relation to those changes, the omnibus bill is the perfect example: it was a very reasonable bill that would have provided both employers and employees with a more productive workplace, but we couldn’t get it through the Senate. I was grateful for the support you gave on the Rosato decision.

Senator ROBERTS: You fiddling with the tax system, and I don’t mean that derogatorily.

Senator Cash: I know what you’re saying.

Senator ROBERTS: The tax system makes the Fair Work Commission and Fair Work Act look simple. It doesn’t fix basic safety protections that have gone AWOL in workplace relations. It doesn’t fix the basic employer-employee relationship, which is the primary relationship of any workplace and must be such. We need something that’s comprehensively reformed and brought back to something simple that looks after the primary workplace relationship between employer and employee.

Senator Cash: On safety: I think that, for each one of us, that has to be paramount in the workplace. There are no two ways about that. I know that, when I first came into portfolio and I worked very closely with Mr Hehir on this, we were presented with the outcome of the Boland review. That was something that I looked at. As you know, there are model work health and safety laws, and the Commonwealth works with the states and territories to ensure that we can effect change that is recommended to us. We had the Boland review, we had the recommendations of the Boland review and I worked constructively with our state and territory colleagues regardless of political persuasion. If you’re, the relevant minister I work with you. I was very pleased that, within a few weeks of me formally come portfolio, all relevant ministers across Australia had agreed to accept all the recommendations coming out of the Boland review.

So certainly, when it comes do work health and safety, I have a very good relationship with state and territory ministers, and we will make improvements to the model work health and safety laws together by accepting all of the Boland review’s recommendations.

Senator ROBERTS: Notwithstanding what you just said, I have enjoyed working with Mr Hehir. I have found him easy to deal with and open to deal with.

Senator Cash: Thank you for that feedback.

Senator ROBERTS: But there are people being severely injured, not even reporting and then being threatened if they dare raise safety issues in this country, and that’s not good enough. I’m happy to leave it there, but it is an issue that’s really important, and we will be pushing it.

Senator Cash: Thank you for those questions.

/by

Billions spent on the Aboriginal industry for third world healthcare

, ,

Despite billions of dollars in funding and endless virtue signalling from inner-city lefties for Aboriginal and Torres-Strait Islanders, the state of healthcare services being provided by Governments on Mornington Island is close to third world.

You should get the same government services regardless of skin colour. If the government can’t take care of the basics, why should we allocate more funding?

Transcript

Senator Roberts : Thank you all for attending today. I’d like to ask some questions about Mornington Island, following my questions last year, and then perhaps some general questions. How did the federal government allow the Mornington Islanders’ situation—their health and wellbeing—to slip into one of a Third World country’s?

Ms Rishniw : Mornington Island—I think we provided some answers to questions on notice that we took last time. As you are aware, we work closely with ACCHOs and with the communities. With Mornington Island in particular we worked very closely with the Queensland health and hospital services there, and we are working closely with them to make sure that the services on the island are improved over time.

Senator Roberts : Can you tell me how you are working with the government?

Ms Rishniw : Mr Matthews?

Mr Matthews : There are a number of arrangements. It’s a very broad question when you get to health because you can’t differentiate the health and wellbeing from the broader people, social and environmental aspects around that.

Senator Roberts : I agree.

Mr Matthews : Probably the headline way I would respond to what is happening is through Closing the Gap, which is the framework for the government and states to work in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around improving outcomes generally. That agreement was signed and struck around the middle of 2020. It’s been in place about 12 months. Its aim is to reset the relationship. It is looking at a broad range of factors to work with. Rather than doing things to people, it’s the concept of doing things with people and bringing them to the table and then looking at how the overall investment across the range of things, from education, employment and housing through to health and health outcomes, come together around that situation. That is probably the nutshell, the main context of the answer to your question about how that’s going to progress into the future from here. Health is a part, but it isn’t the only part in relation to that question.

Also, when you start to get into the provision of hospital services on Mornington Island, they are delivered by the Queensland government, as are a range of education services and those sorts of things, so it’s not a simple Commonwealth Department of Health question; it’s a very broad question. In that context, it’s about understanding the landscape through the lens of where Closing the Gap is resetting that and also some of the other mechanisms—for example, when Senator Dodson was asking about the development of the voice, that is geared towards empowering and encouraging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be more in charge of their future, which will hopefully lead to improved outcomes over time.

Senator Roberts : There were some wonderful points there that I’d like to continue with. First of all I endorse and value your comments about needing an holistic approach. Health is just one part of it. Health is an outcome of the whole way of life, so I understand that. That was a very broad statement, but what are the current initiatives for working with the Queensland government and doing things directly? The Premier of Queensland and the Queensland health minister promised to visit the island last year or early this year. Have they done so?

Mr Matthews : I couldn’t comment on anything about the Queensland government or their ministers and their intentions around that. We don’t have visibility or necessarily monitor or track that, because that’s obviously a matter for the Queensland government.

Senator Roberts : More specifically, how do you work with the Queensland government?

Mr Matthews : From a health point of view—and my colleagues from the National Indigenous Australian Agency may be able to talk more broadly from a broader Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs perspective—from the Health perspective, there are two mechanisms. We have what are called partnership forums in each jurisdiction, including Queensland. They are regular meetings that usually happen a couple of times a year between Queensland health officials, Commonwealth health officials and officials from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health sector in Queensland. They’re largely geared towards trying to increase the alignment between the Commonwealth, the state and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders, many of whom are delivering services there, to ensure that we are aligning our policy and delivery as far as possible. I’m not talking about Mornington Island specifically, but there are a range of things that will happen through that. Many of the programs we talked about, including things like our syphilis program, will deliver services into Queensland. Over the last two years we have also been looking to increase investment in our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services, where we’ve increased investment in the Aboriginal community controlled health system by a bit over $160-odd million.

Senator Roberts : Specifically doing what?

Mr Matthews : The investment we’ve lifted into the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health service is really around increasing the primary resourcing that goes to primary health care delivered by Aboriginal and community controlled health services in communities. That is different from Mornington Island, which doesn’t have one; it does have some servicing through the Mount Isa service into the community, but a lot of services are delivered by the Queensland government there. What we’re looking to do is increase the resourcing for primary healthcare services delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations because they know their clients well and will put in place a stronger framework around comprehensive primary health care. That is something we’ve been doing across the country, not just in Queensland, and will continue to do over—

Senator Roberts : Is that funding for nurses or doctors or—

Mr Matthews : It’s for both really. It funds the resourcing of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health clinic and the health clinic will use that for a range of things—it could be used for an Aboriginal health worker, for a doctor, a nurse or other things it may do from a comprehensive healthcare point of view. It is really about the patient coming in and having their needs understood and looking at their broader circumstance and spending an increased amount of time. It’s a little different from a normal visit to a GP. We will bring them in, spend more time with them, look at their other issues and try and provide some of those wraparound supports. That’s how comprehensive primary healthcare works within an Aboriginal community controlled health setting. One of the things we’re doing is increasing our investment in that over time and working with the sector in particular to expand that and look to improve how they service over time as well, which is their intention.

Senator Roberts : How would you characterise not just the quality of the relationship but the actions and behaviours that come from the relationship? Are you a money provider? Are you a resource provider? Are you someone looking over their shoulder in a helpful way that identifies shortfalls in the Queensland government’s approach? Are you advisers to them? How would you describe it?

Mr Matthews : Are you referring to the Queensland government, or to the Aboriginal health services?

Senator Roberts : The Aboriginal health services, with the Queensland government—not just Mornington.

Mr Matthews : I hope the Aboriginal health services wouldn’t characterise us as looking over their shoulder.

Senator Roberts : I mean in the sense that you are working with them.

Mr Matthews : Our intention is very clearly to ensure that we have a partnership approach with Aboriginal health services, which is one of the priority reform areas in the Closing the Gap agreement as well.

Ms Rishniw : Senator, we take the Closing the Gap agreement very seriously. It talks about a partnership with Aboriginal people and Aboriginal services. The money that Mr Matthews outlined goes directly to service delivery by community controlled health organisations. We provide funding—

Senator Roberts : It doesn’t go through the state government?

Ms Rishniw : No, it doesn’t. It goes directly to the sector. It’s deliberately flexible to allow them to address the particular issues around health and providing holistic health services to their community. We work very closely with the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, and all of the services, to make sure that what we are achieving is a collective set of outcomes that everyone has agreed to around improving health and wellbeing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Senator Roberts : It was wonderful to hear Mr Matthews talking about a holistic approach—not just health but health as an outcome of lifestyle. What about personal accountability? Two or three people in my office and I visited all the Cape York communities. Although the communities are quite different in their needs and their backgrounds, they have some commonalities. Mr Matthews mentioned Closing the Gap. I put it to all the communities that Closing the Gap perpetuates the gap, and they resoundingly said yes. First of all, the underlying intent is to focus on the gap which perpetuates the gap. But putting that aside, there is also what some people call the ‘Aboriginal industry’ and it consist of whites as well as Aboriginals, who are consultants and lawyers et cetera that feed off this and they perpetuate the gap, because without the gap there is no Aboriginal industry. Any comments on that?

Ms Rishniw : I don’t want to speak for Mr Matthews, but our job is to make sure that we can provide comprehensive health care for all Australians. The government invests significantly in the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as First Nations peoples because of the disparity in health outcomes to date, and that is what the closing the gap agreement is about. We have worked tirelessly. The community-controlled health sector has been a major part of the infrastructure of delivering health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for over 50 years now and to suggest in any way that that is not a necessary and evidence based investment—

Senator Roberts : I wasn’t suggesting that—

Ms Rishniw : I just wanted to clarify—because asking Mr Matthews for a comment on that. It is evidence based. It is clear. It is a government commitment.

Senator Roberts : You would agree, I would hope, that personal accountability has a lot to do with managing people’s health?

Ms Rishniw : Everyone, I think, across the country wants the best health care and the best for their family and themselves. Personal accountability is one element. We recognise social determinants of health and a range of historical factors as well.

Senator Roberts : So you’re agreeing with me that personal accountability is important?

Ms Rishniw : I think I said it was one of the factors.

Senator Roberts : It is one of the factors so it has a part to play. What we’ve done in this country, under both Labor and Liberal since 1972—people in the communities have told me we have created a sense of victimhood, not beggars but of victimhood, and that’s the opposite of accountability. What I’m trying to do is to get an understanding of the environment in which you work, because if that accountability is not there—these people in the communities are wonderful. There are a diverse range of them, as you know. But they seem to be held back by the ‘Aboriginal industry,’ maybe not deliberately, maybe subconsciously, but that is what’s happening, and lot of it has been caused by state and federal governments, particularly since 1972.

Mr Matthews : We are probably limited to speak from the health perspective. It is where our responsibility is. Just to repeat Ms Rishniw, it would not right be to characterise the community controlled health sector, that is delivered and run by Aboriginal people for Aboriginal people, in a negative connotation around an ‘Aboriginal industry.’ We fund them because of your point around getting good services delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We are talking about the provision of health services. There is clear evidence that it is effective in delivering it because it comes from an empowering place of empowering people to do it—

Senator Roberts : That is what I was after.

Mr Matthews : That is why we are growing the sector strongly, investing in it and trying to work very closely with the sector on the way through. I think if you were listening to Dr de Toca’s evidence around our response to COVID we’ve also centred that 100 per cent with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and experts for that very reason.

Senator Roberts : What I’m interpreting—it is very welcome if I am interpreting it correctly—is that you’re giving more responsibility to the communities for their health and managing that health?

Mr Matthews : This is always very difficult to verbal, but I would imagine from our colleagues in the community controlled health sector that they would say they are services that are—that their membership is the community and their boards are elected from their community, so they would say they are in and of the community. They would express their view very strongly around that in terms of providing services to their own people.

Senator Roberts : That is welcome news. Is there a plan within your organisation that is part of an overall plan within the government’s—I don’t know what’s Ken Wyatt’s department name title is. The department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or the—

Mr Matthews : The National Indigenous Australians Agency.

Senator Roberts : Is there a coordinated plan with the National Indigenous Australians Agency?

Mr Matthews : This is something that’s easily googled. If you google ‘national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health plan’, you’ll find the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan that was released on 15 December last year, which is now a new 10-year national plan around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, worked up very extensively by, and predominantly led by, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health experts in the sector around the development of that plan and refreshed to be consistent with Closing the Gap and many of the things we’ve learnt over the last few years. As I said, it was released in the middle of December.

It has at its very heart the concept of how the broader social determinants, linked with health, bring in a dimension around the cultural determinants of health, of how culture plays out for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and impacts on their health and how health needs to respond to that landscape. So that’s been recently refreshed. If you are looking at where the national plan is, that is probably the prime and most important one to have a look at. I’d encourage you to do that. We can provide the link on notice, if you like, just to refresh. If not, that’s okay. That would be well worth having a look at. I also note that it’s endorsed by the majority of the states and territories. It forms a plan now that is developed in and of through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sector, agreed by the Commonwealth government and endorsed by the majority of the states and territories.

Senator Roberts : Thank you. That’s welcome news, too, because there are a lot of outstanding people with a lot of potential in those communities who are somehow stymied by an invisible hand. It’s varying from, say, the Lockhart River, where they are really going ahead, to other parts of the country.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just quickly, we are very close to time, and I have one question that I would like to ask the officers before we finish up.

Senator Roberts : Last question, then, Chair. Thank you for that notice. Has there been a drop in the death rate from suicides in the last year? What’s the overall trend in suicide, because it’s quite alarming?

Ms Rishniw : I might go to my colleague online, Mr Roddam, who can talk about speak suicide data and prevention activities.

Mr Roddam : Overall, in 2020, there was a 5.4 per cent reduction in suicide for the whole population. Unfortunately, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, suicide remained the fifth leading cause of death that year, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to die by suicide at more than twice the rate of non-Indigenous people—27.9 per 100,000 population compared with 11.8 per 1,000 population.

Senator Roberts : Can you tell me the overall trend? Relative to the rest of Australia, it’s high. Thank you for that. What’s the overall trend? Is it increasing, decreasing, flat—

Mr Roddam : It did increase slightly in 2020. I’m just trying to get the figures for 2020 compared with 2019. I know that it was a little higher, while the whole-of-population rate fell.

Ms Rishniw : Senator, given the time, we can take that on notice and give you the data around the trends. But it also goes to why we are investing heavily in suicide prevention and mental activities across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We have a 24/7 crisis line that’s about to be launched—and we’ll start services from 24 February—and a range of other activities that Senator Dodson well knows we’ve been undertaking around suicide prevention.

Senator Roberts : And just like physical health, mental health is an outcome of cultural and social factors. I think those were Mr Matthews’ words.

Ms Rishniw : There are a range of social determinants that impact on an individual’s health across the board.

Senator Roberts : Thank you all for attending.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.

/by

Farmers always left high and dry by water allocations – MDBA Part 3

, , ,

When the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) allocates water to farmers at the start of the season, they do it based on a very conservative ‘extreme dry’ scenario.

This means farmers are allocated far less water then they should be. If the rainfall for the following season is above the extreme dry scenario (it very frequently is) the MDBA will allocate excess water to the farmers, but at the end of the season.

This end of season allocation is nearly useless to farmers as they need certainty from the start to be able to plant the amount of crops to match their water allocation. The MDBA seem to think they have a crystal ball and predict every year will be a drought. Farmers miss out, crops aren’t planted, small communities are slowly destroyed and less Australian grown food is on our shelves as a result.

MDBA questioning part 1: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/menindee-lakes-sdl-water-acquisitions-and-lock-zero-mdba-part-1/

MDBA questioning part 2: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/why-did-the-government-vote-against-a-water-trading-register-mdba-part-2/

Transcript

[CHAIR] Senator Roberts, I believe you have one question before we release the agency.

[Senator Roberts] Mr Reynolds, you gave us a statement here at Senate estimates on 28 May 2021, and I’ll just read from that:

Finally, the March rain has delivered a more positive forecast for the next irrigation year compared to the same time last year. Indicative opening allocations for next year under a conservative extreme dry scenario are …

Then you gave us the releases. In fact, the rain in that period was well above average, with some areas experiencing record falls. This is from your website. Even the area in red is now blue. I’m not blaming you for the weather forecast, by the way. Dam levels are from 92 per cent. It seems that farmers always start with minimal water allocations and then later, after the season, farmers get offered some more that farmers can’t use. So farmers have missed an opportunity to make more money. Surely this has to stop. Who provided the ‘extreme dry’ scenario? When was it changed to ‘pouring down’, as in this year? Did the use of the ‘extreme dry’ scenario cause farmers to lose early season water allocations?

[Mr Reynolds] No, it doesn’t. When we do our analysis, we model a range of scenarios. I don’t recall exactly the words in that statement, but I would have quoted from one of those scenarios, which was extreme dry—very conservative. States, under their allocation frameworks, provide the allocation to irrigators. The MDBA’s role is to advise the states on the volume of water they might expect to have under a range of scenarios. States adopt a conservative approach to allocating water to make sure they don’t over-allocate early in the season and are unable to deliver it later in the season—that is a much poorer outcome. When the MDBA provides advice to the states on the water they might have available, we provide them a range of scenarios, not just the extreme dry, and they work within their own allocation framework on where they actually make an allocation decision.

[Senator Roberts] On whose advice do you base that consideration?

[Mr Reynolds] The MDBA does the statistical analysis of projected inflows for the season and develops those estimates of the volumes of water that might be available to each of the states, applying the water sharing arrangements that are specified under the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. The states then use their allocation frameworks and their assessment of the appropriate level of risk in making allocation decisions.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you. Chair, we understand that there was a discussion about Yanco, which I hadn’t intended asking questions about. We’re going to evaluate the Yanco decision, because it is significant to us, but I’m not going to ask questions.

[CHAIR]: Thanks, Senator Roberts.

/by

Menindee Lakes, SDL water acquisitions and Lock Zero – MDBA Part 1

, , ,

The Murray Darling Basin plan has been a disaster for regional communities. Overwhelming complexity, water being flushed out to sea and bureaucrats thinking they know better than everyone else have caused enormous damage.

Despite the evidence, the government and MDBA refuse to take responsibility for the mess they’ve made.

MDBA questioning part 2: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/why-did-the-government-vote-against-a-water-trading-register-mdba-part-2/

MDBA questioning part 3: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/farmers-always-left-high-and-dry-by-water-allocations-mdba-part-3/

Transcript

CHAIR: Alright; thank you. Senator Roberts, over to you.

Senator Roberts: Mr Taylor, I’d like to reference an exchange we had at a previous estimates regarding Menindee Lakes. I’ll quote from Hansard. I said:

So, Menindee Lakes is a vital component of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan?

You said:

It’s a vital component of our environmental management of the system.

Then I said:

And it’ll stay there.

You said:

And we’re actually getting those golden perch out of that system, connected through the Great Darling Anabranch, down into the Murray and distributing those fish. They become callop, as they’re called in South Australia, and they travel thousands of kilometres over their life. So, this is a critical part of what we’re doing.

That was not an answer to my question. You dodged my question, so let me try again. Will the Murray-Darling Basin Authority keep the Menindee Lakes as an environmentally important wetland having the same area as it currently has, including water storage with the current capacity, with the level, of course, decided by basin inflows? This is Queensland water, and we’d like to see it used properly.

Mr Taylor : Not sure I’m in a position to answer on behalf of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in terms of feature plans and management. I think the other thing is that the Menindee system is a jointly managed lake and water resource, jointly managed between New South Wales, the Commonwealth, South Australia and Victoria. So I’m not in a position to talk about—

Senator Roberts: Is anyone from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority who could answer that question here?

Ms Connell : Mr Reynolds.

Senator Roberts: Will Menindee stay as it is, a vital part of the environment?

Mr Reynolds : As discussed earlier, New South Wales is scoping, or rescoping, the Menindee project, now called the Better Baaka project. That anticipates changes to the Menindee infrastructure and the operating rules for it. As departmental colleagues explained earlier, we’re yet to have a scope of that project brought forward by the New South Wales government. I can’t give you the assurance that you’ve asked for because that rescope project will inevitably change arrangements at Menindee Lakes. I think the proposal for the project is to look at how things can be done differently. If the project proceeds, then I think the circumstance at Menindee will be different to what they’ve been in the past.

Senator Roberts: So you can’t give me—

Ms Connell : It will continue to be subject to water resource plans and water sharing plans which will contain requirements in relation to environmental measures and environmental outcomes.

Mr Reynolds : Absolutely. The project in terms of its development will have to consider environmental impacts and benefits that can be achieved ultimately, but, until we see the scope of the works, I can’t advise on what the changes on the Menindee arrangements would be.

Senator Roberts: Setting aside the sustainable diversion limit acquisitions currently underway, how much water is still required to complete the sustainable diversion limit acquisitions? I’d like a figure. Secondly, how much is required to complete water acquisition, the baseline diversion limits?

Ms Connell : We addressed some of those questions this morning. The 605 sustainable diversion limit adjustment measure program is made up of about 36 projects for which a gigalitre component was identified when those projects were conceived. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority will go through a process we refer to as reconciliation in the lead-up to 1 July 2024, and I’ll let Mr Reynolds talk you through that.

Senator Roberts: Okay.

Ms Connell : Earlier this morning we provided an update on progress towards the 450 in terms of current entitlement holdings that are with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, projects that are contracted and projects we are in discussions with states over.

Mr Reynolds : In terms of the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism reconciliation process, the authority is required to take a decision in December 2023 as to whether or not a reconciliation is required. That decision can’t be taken earlier than that, because states are able to advise notifications to modifications of projects up until that point in time. So we won’t have clarity about what the package of works looks like until that point in time. If, on the basis of our understanding of the projects, their progress and the condition they’re likely to be in in June 2024, the authority determines that the adjustment amount is likely to be different than what was determined in the original decision, we will undertake a reconciliation. We will assess the projects as they are notified at the end of December 2023 and make an assessment of the volume of water, or the offset that they will achieve at that point in time.

Senator Roberts: You have a document on the website of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority entitled ‘Progress on Water Recovery’. Under the heading ‘Summary of surface water recovery progress’ it states:

Following the amendments to the Basin Plan, the overall target for water recovery is 2,075 GL/y plus 450 GL/y of efficiency measures by 2024.

That’s 2,525 in total. And then, on the third page, under the heading ‘Total water recovery still required’ it is just 46 gigalitres.

Ms Connell : We addressed those figures earlier this morning as well. The gap bridging target under the Basin Plan is 2,075 gigalitres—2,100, and I think five gigalitres have been recovered and are held by way of entitlements with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. So 98 per cent of the target has been reached, but there remain about 46 gigalitres across the basin that need to be recovered from different water resource plan areas.

Senator Roberts: The other comment Mr Reynolds has already covered, so thank you for that. Before I move on, how much water is required to complete the baseline diversion limits, the up-water?

Ms Connell : I guess there are three overall programs. There’s the water recovery target of 2,075 gigalitres, so there’s 46 gigalitres still to go there. Then there is the 450 up-water program, as it is known, which I referred to earlier in terms of what’s being delivered, what’s contracted and discussions we’re having with states. Then the third program is the 605 sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism program, which Mr Reynolds was discussing in terms of the reconciliation process that happens in 2024. There are 36 projects which go to make up that program of work that South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales have to deliver, and the authority will look at that program of works at the end of next year to determine whether reconciliation needs to happen to identify whether the 605 will be met or what component of it will be met.

Senator Roberts: As I’ve discussed before with Mr Glyde and Mr Reynolds and also the previous water commissioner, it’s a very complex issue, isn’t it? The whole thing is very complex, with many variables and a lot of variation.

Ms Connell : There are some key, major complex areas of work. The Basin Plan is a significant water reform, and there are some complex components, as you would expect in a system, I think, where there are 20 surface water areas and about 13 groundwater systems.

Senator Roberts: Then we have a naturally variable climate. The north varies considerably, in a different way from the south. So I would raise that for the future. Turning to the south-east drains SDL acquisition, Mr Reynolds, a reminder of your answer at the last estimates:

The water from the south-east drains has been put forward by the South Australian government as an SDL adjustment mechanism project. So the water that comes from the south-east drains into the southern lagoon will be accounted for through that process.

That means it will be counted as SDL. How much water is the Murray-Darling Basin Authority counting against the remaining SDL target for the south-east drains restoration flow?

Mr Reynolds : As we’ve explained previously, the assignment of individual volumes to projects in terms of the adjustment mechanism can only be an estimate, because the whole package of projects is modelled as a whole, and they interact with one another. We have made a range of estimates against individual projects. I will see if I can get the number for that particular project. I don’t think I have it in my papers here. I will have to get someone to provide that to me, but I will provide it this morning.

Senator Roberts: I would be very interested to see that number. I’m wondering if we’ve just found some more water.

Mr Reynolds : Well, the south-east drains project is part of the adjustment mechanism, so it’s been accounted for.

Senator Roberts: It is my view that this is a significant unaccountable flow—it hasn’t been to date—and may provide a substantial part of the remaining SDL acquisition that can both take the pressure off farmers elsewhere in the basin while restoring the amazing Coorong wetland and moderating extreme salination in Lake Albert by flushing from the south-east, not from the north-west; from the north-west is not really flushing. Have you the south-east inflows? I think the answer was ‘no’ in the last Senate estimates in October. Have you modelled the south-east inflows, both aquifer and surface flow? How much water is available? How much can be redirected—and this is really important—without interfering with agricultural production?

Mr Reynolds : We haven’t modelled that directly. The South Australian government manages that part of the system. We have consulted with them about the volumes. There’s not a direct estimate available of the total flow from the south-east drains, including through the groundwater systems into the Coorong. The operation of the south-east drains does provide water back to the southern lagoon in the Coorong, and that scheme has been developed and the operating rules have been developed to achieve that. There are requirements to manage the flows through the south-east drains. It is drainage from agricultural land. It does carry a nutrient load. There are particular management challenges with that water. So part of the south-east drainage scheme passes water through wetlands and the like to remove nutrient loads from that water before it enters the Coorong. If that’s not done, there are undesirable ecological impacts in the Coorong itself. That limits somewhat the volume of water that comes from the south-east drains. The South Australian government is continuing to work through those issues.

Senator Roberts: As I understand it, the drains are made by humans? They’re not natural and they take up a significant quantity of water, straight to the ocean.

Mr Reynolds : The area that’s been drained naturally was a low-lying marshy area, and water tended to lie in that area. Some of it would have seeped through groundwater systems to the sea. Some of it would have made its way to the Coorong. The drains are man-made structures that have taken water from that area and dried it out and made it more productive as an agricultural area.

Senator Roberts: I’ve been there and seen those drains. They’re definitely man-made. There is a belief that there’s a significant amount of water to be recaptured and sent to the Coorong.

Mr Reynolds : And water is being captured through that system and does flow to the Coorong. I think from memory it’s in the order of 26 gigalitres, on average. Obviously it would change with seasonal conditions. In wet years it will be more; in drier years it would be less. But it’s of that order.

Senator Roberts: My understanding is there’s a lot more water to be captured than that.

Mr Reynolds : I think the South Australian government clearly has an interest in trying to improve the health of the Coorong. They’ve undertaken an enormous amount of work in that region to do that. I’m sure they’re examining whether or not it would be beneficial to take more water from that region if it’s possible to do so, for that purpose.

Senator Roberts: So the Coorong problem has been man-made, not by the rest of the basin, but by diversion of water that used to go through the Coorong straight to the ocean? I’m not being critical, because in those days they were trying to look after their narrow scope. That’s something that, to return the environment to its natural state, would require a lot of water to go back to the Coorong and keep it clean.

Mr Reynolds : There are obviously significant volumes of water diverted from the basin, which has reduced the volume of water that reaches the end of the system, particularly coming down the Murray. Part of the challenge is to address some of those issues. To get back to the natural balance of what happened in the Coorong before river regulation would require all of the water that’s subsequently been diverted to be returned to the environment. No-one is proposing to do that. We’re looking for alternative solutions and alternative balances.

Senator Roberts: Shouldn’t that south-east portion be counted as part of the basin? You just said water is diverted from the basin, but it’s not included in the basin yet?

Mr Reynolds : I’m sorry; when I said that I meant water is diverted from upstream right across the basin. Very significant volumes are diverted.

Senator Roberts: This water’s going straight to the ocean, and doing damage by not going through the Coorong.

Mr Reynolds : I think the benefits that can be provided to the Coorong, by diverting some water from the south-east drains, are being realised through the project that’s been implemented. I’m sure the South Australian government and others will continue to examine where additional benefits might be able to be accrued. Significant money from the Commonwealth government has gone to the Goyder Institute. I think $8 million has been committed to examine options and other interventions that might be possible around the Coorong, Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth. That could include activities within the south-east drain system, although that has been explored fairly extensively already.

Senator Roberts: It’s very complex, and it’s made even more complicated by the politics involved at the state and federal levels. We will end it there for now.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m sorry to interrupt you, but could you make this your last question? Sorry, Senator Roberts! We knew what was going on.

Senator Ruston :They don’t look anything alike.

CHAIR: They don’t.

Senator Roberts: I don’t know who you’re insulting the most. That was my last question.

CHAIR: Make this your last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: Concerning Lock Zero, in the last estimates, you spoke about engineering challenges and other issues, and you said, ‘Lock Zero was examined in some detail.’ If salt water is used in the Lower Lakes to protect against sulphur emissions—and that would be a one-in-100-year type drought; it’s an absolute last resort—then suddenly we will be wishing we’d built Lock Zero, won’t we? Doesn’t the Murray-Darling Basin Authority or the department have documentation on Lock Zero? Your comment ‘examined in some detail’ suggests such documentation exists. It seems like too significant a project not to have some formal process underway.

Mr Reynolds : During the millennium drought, Lock Zero was considered as to whether or not it would be an arrangement that would help protect the Lower Lakes. Part of that was looking at what flow would be required past Lock Zero to ensure that the Lower Lakes retained their ecological character. There is significant concern that if the flow of fresh water to the Lower Lakes was terminated, and if just sea water was allowed in, that would progressively concentrate through evaporation and become hypersaline, and so the Lower Lakes would not be a natural estuary.

Senator Roberts: It’s not natural at the moment, with the barrage, is it?

Mr Reynolds : No, but the Lower Lakes naturally would have had a much larger volume of fresh water flowing to the Lower Lakes, to the end of the system. We take a lot of water out upstream for irrigation and other productive purposes, and so the natural balance of mixing of fresh and salt water at the Lower Lakes cannot be reinstated unless there’s a lot more water coming down the river system. Building Lock Zero does not alleviate that issue.

Senator Roberts: We’ll leave it there for now.

/by

Why did the Government vote against a water trading register? MDBA Part 2

, , ,

Speculative water trading is a blight on our country. Even still, the Water Act 2007 specified that a transparent, public register of water trades should be established. 15 years later, we still have no public register.

The most recent attempt to establish a public register, my amendment to the Water Act, was voted down by the Liberals, Nationals and Labor. The question is, what have they got to hide?

MDBA questioning part 1: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/menindee-lakes-sdl-water-acquisitions-and-lock-zero-mdba-part-1/

MDBA questioning part 3: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/farmers-always-left-high-and-dry-by-water-allocations-mdba-part-3/

Transcript

[CHAIR] Senator Roberts.

[Senator Roberts] Mr Reynolds, as a senator for Queensland, I have to cover many issues and, although I’ve travelled the entire Murray-Darling Basin, have overflown it and crisscrossed it many times, in listening to people I just can’t keep all the acronyms and numbers at hand. I just can’t keep them in my head. Fortunately, we have many farmers who watch these Senate estimates sessions in particular and they let me know when I’ve missed the details, and they’re excellent auditors. They know, from being on the ground, when I’m getting nonanswers. They tell me, and they’re blunt auditors. It seems to me that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is now avoiding the numbers for both acquisition and total targets. The Murray-Darling Basin—and Senator Patrick knows this—is all about numbers. The plan has reduced farmers’ businesses, rural communities and Australia’s agricultural capacity to a set of water numbers, supposedly, for the environment. Getting those numbers is like pulling teeth, and I welcome Senator Patrick’s partial success on the 605 earlier. For the rural community watching this at home to get a hint for the future, I’d like to ask again. I’m asking for three simple numbers. How much water has the government acquired so far under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan? How much is under acquisition? How much will the shortfall be against the plan in the absence of further projects, and where do you intend to get that water from? The third question was two combined.

[Senator Davey] Senator Roberts, do you mind if I throw one in as well to complement yours? From the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, how much actual wet stuff allocation do you have this year? There’s the difference between the entitlements you have, but this year the allocations may be over the 2,750 gigalitre rule. Who knows?

[Senator Patrick] And the costs associated with each of those [inaudible] too.

[Senator Davey] We want to know everything!

[Senator Roberts] We do.

[Ms Connell] I’ve lost track of the question! I’ll just provide the headline numbers, and then I’ll ask Mr Taylor to come to the table and talk to what he has available in this water year. In terms of surface water recovery, as I said before the break, 2,106 gigalitres of surface water has been recovered and is now held in entitlements by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. In relation to groundwater, 35.3 gigalitres has been recovered. In relation to the 450, two gigalitres in entitlements have been returned to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. We have another 16.4 under contract, and we are discussing arrangements in relation to about another 10 to 15 gigalitres with the states. In relation to the 605 gigalitres, the concept of that program of works is to—in lieu of 605 gigalitres being recovered from the consumptive irrigation pool, there are a suite of 36 projects which deliver environmental benefits in lieu of that. The framework under the Basin Plan requires the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to have a look at the end of next year at the progress of those environmental projects and the extent to which they will contribute, from an environmental measure, towards the 605. It is quite a complex concept.

[Senator Roberts] It’s very complex.

[Ms Connell] Yes. I do appreciate that. In terms of the current holdings that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder has to utilise this year, I’ll pass to Mr Taylor.

[Mr Taylor] This year, we have new allocations, up to 31 December, of 2,054 gigalitres. Up to the end of that same six-month period we have used 1,038. So we’ve used about half our water for this year at halfway through the year.

[Senator Davey] How much did you carry over from the previous year?

[Mr Taylor] The previous year’s carryover was 738 gigalitres.

[Senator Davey] That would have made available this year 2,7—

[Mr Taylor] 85.

[Senator Davey] Thank you.

[Ms Connell] I will just note that the department does have a webpage that sets out these water recovery targets, so we’d be happy to provide you with that information.

[Senator Roberts] We will come asking if we need more. Minister, the South Australian water storage is outside of South Australia—

[Senator Ruston] Yes, for geological reasons.

[Senator Roberts] We’re not complaining about that. South Australia’s a valid part of the plan. This is a national plan that includes—

[Senator Ruston] Thank you very much, Senator Roberts. We’re very delighted that you would think that.

[Senator Roberts] While we’re concerned about wasting our water, we’re not concerned about supplying South Australia and Adelaide, in particular, with water—

[Senator Patrick] It’s not Queensland’s water [inaudible].

[Senator Roberts] Well, we can argue that—

[Senator Patrick] It’s national water.

[CHAIR] Let’s not get into that.

[Senator Roberts] I’m not interested in getting into that. I’m just saying that South Australia has a right to that water. It’s longstanding.

[Senator Ruston] Everybody in the Murray-Darling Basin has a right. We can go into a discussion about ‘riparian right’ and the like but the plan outlines that this is a shared resource that has to be maximised to the benefit of all people in Australia.

[Senator Roberts] We want to protect the South Australians but we also want to protect the environment and we want to protect all the other stakeholders. It gets messy. It’s had a long history; some argue it is ingrained in our federation. South Australian water storage is outside South Australia, at Dartmouth, which South Australia partly funded, Lake Victoria and Menindee Lakes. Menindee Lakes has held water eight years out of 10. Even though government raised the natural banks a little to create a larger storage, Menindee has been a natural wetland since before Western settlement. Menindee stored South Australian water and local—

[Senator Ruston] They’re ephemeral, aren’t they?

[Senator Roberts] You could argue that, but they have stored water eight years out of 10. Menindee stores South Australian water and local irrigation water. While that water is there it sustains the amazing wetland around Menindee. And that has developed to counter natural climate variability. In Australia, the climate is more variable than in probably any other continent. But we wonder why a frog near a coalmine is an environmental matter of national significance yet 47,000 hectares of wetland is not. With 220,000 bird movements a year, it is a national treasure. And now the testimony in this place is that the state and federal governments are going to murder Menindee. The Murray-Darling Basin is murdering an environmental treasure to come up with water to meet environmental targets. That just doesn’t make sense to me.

[Senator Ruston] I don’t think there would be anybody else in the room who would agree with your term ‘murder Menindee’. That is a highly emotive way of describing how, collectively, everybody is trying to work together to engineer a solution to ensure the long-term sustainability of the river system whilst dealing with the social and economic implications of water recovery and the like that minimises any detrimental impacts. The sole purpose of the plan was to protect the amazing riverine environment, so I cannot accept your terminology around what’s happening at Menindee. At the moment, we do not have the submission back from the New South Wales government in relation to the proposal for activities at Menindee. Until we can actually see that, I don’t know that anyone could be making the kind of assessment you’re making. I acknowledge that you accept that the plan is for all Australians, particularly all those who live in the basin, but you are picking on one particular component of it and suggesting that it is environmental vandalism when at this stage we don’t really have any clarity around what is going on there. We need to be really careful that we don’t compare what happened prior to the development of the river system and what is happening now. There has been so much intervention along the river—through dams, locks, weirs and all sorts of infrastructure, including the urban build-up in towns—that it’s almost impossible for us to do anything apart from assess what’s before us at the moment. I would counsel against talking about what Menindee Lakes used to be like and what the Lower Lakes used to be like because so much has changed in the years since irrigation has occurred along the river. So we need to manage what is before us now.

[Senator Roberts] I accept that. At the same time, a fundamental target for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been to restore the Coorong, and that cannot be restored while we’re avoiding the science. But let’s move on to something else—

[Senator Ruston] It’s really about the words that you use. We seek for the Coorong to be healthy. Does that restore it under the true definition of the word ‘restore?’ I would suggest that that is very difficult. I mean, the barrages are there. They weren’t there.

[Senator Roberts] The barrages are there. The drains are there.

[Senator Ruston] Yes. When we talk about ‘restoring’, what we want to see is a healthy Coorong, a healthy Murray-Darling Basin system. We want to see environmental assets protected. But we also want to protect the river communities because they are such an important part of the economy of Australia and all the people who are supported by it. I think we need to be careful of the words we use because we don’t want to give the impression that somehow we’re going to turn the river system back to exactly what it looked like before there was any intervention. What we’re seeking to do is make sure the environmental outcomes are good.

[Senator Roberts] One thing that is very frustrating in the parliament is that so few decisions are made on data and science. They’re made on emotions, whims and looking after vested interests. You said everyone wants to protect the environment. I’ll get onto more of that in other questions. Minister, I have trust for you, so I’m not having a go at you. I’m having a go at several governments in the past and possibly this government. I don’t have much faith in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan because it’s not based on data. We don’t measure much of the river system, yet we’re allocating water. An ABC report was entitled ‘Basin states agree to support ACCC Murray-Darling Basin water market reforms to regulate brokers and market behaviour’. Last year when I moved an amendment to force the water trading register into life, which is a requirement of the Water Act 2007—the one that the Murray-Darling Basin has been required to produce since then—the Liberals, Nationals and Labor voted against it. I was told there was no need for a water trading register. It’s just speculation. There is no profiteering and no need for a register of water trading. What changed so that the states are now taking action?

[Senator Ruston] I’m not sure that I agree with the fact that the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party last year thought there was no need for—

[Senator Roberts] They voted against the amendment to bring in the water register.

[Senator Ruston] Yes, but there were a number of other complex technicalities around what was being proposed at the time, so I don’t think you can naturally jump to the conclusion that the government or the opposition didn’t believe that water regulation could potentially improve the operation of the river systems and improve the operation of how water traded. I think possibly it was that the mechanism by which you were proposing to do it was not something that we were necessarily agreeing to. But I’m happy to take that on notice and get you some more information because I have to say I can’t remember exactly.

[Senator O’Neill] Senator Ruston, just before you continue. Is there any chance that the document Senator Roberts was referring to could be tabled?

[Senator Ruston] That’s just a media story, isn’t it, Senator?

[Senator Roberts] Yes, this is a media story from the ABC. They’re talking about a mandatory code of conduct.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, would you like to have that tabled so others can refer to it?

[Senator Roberts] Yes.

CHAIR: Thank you.

[Senator Roberts] It just seems like this code of conduct is a way to smokescreen their reluctance to have a water trading register. It’s a way of avoiding the issue.

[Senator Ruston] I might speak with the secretary. In terms of the ACCC review and implementation I wonder if you could give Senator Roberts a bit of an update about where that’s at. We could see if in any way you can alleviate some of the concerns he appears to have.

[Ms Connell] Water trade and water markets are principally the responsibility of state jurisdictions at the moment, so states and the ACT are responsible for having and maintaining water registers. Each of them does have a register in place. In terms of the media release you’re referring to, it was to indicate that the water market reform process had been set up. Minister Pitt announced last year that he would appoint a principal adviser. Mr Daryl Quinlivan has been appointed to work with states to take what is a very significant report by the ACCC—I think it goes to about 700 pages and makes a broad range of recommendations—

[Senator Roberts] It has some serious concerns.

[Ms Connell] That’s right. Mr Quinlivan has been working with Basin states, supported by an advisory group, and consulting stakeholders more broadly to determine what should be the initial recommendations that are progressed. We can table a copy of Mr Quinlivan’s December advice. The advice sets out the five principal initial reforms that he recommends be progressed, and the basin states support recommendations in principle. Critically, at the moment there’s no code of practice to govern the behaviour of water market intermediaries, water brokers, so one thing the states agreed to is the development of a code that can put a compliance framework around the way that part of the market operates.

He also recommended that the Commonwealth introduce legislation to prohibit insider trading and market manipulation, so that’s something the department is looking very closely at. He made recommendations around collection and publication of trade data and a number of other recommendations. He is now working with basin states and stakeholders to develop a final draft which is due to the minister in June this year. So, the terms of reference for the work that he’s doing are on our website and we can provide you with a copy of that as well.

[Senator Roberts] Ms Connell and Senator Ruston, can you see the public and farmers, in particular, are very concerned? I haven’t discussed this with you, but apparently you had a successful business with flowers. Water is key to that, and you’ve developed remarkable efficiencies in the use of that water, as I understand it. I’m not a farmer, but I know listening to farmers that water is like gold. It dramatically increases the productivity of farmland, so it’s worth a lot of money. But it’s also worth a lot of money to traders and speculators, and we’ve removed the connection between water allocations and farmers’ property ownership.

[Senator Ruston] You’re talking about the unbundling of water from land?

[Senator Roberts] Correct; I am. What I’m saying is that, in the absence of significant measuring of water flows right across the basin, in the absence of science, the contradiction of science and the highly variable climate, which is natural—and we’ve got the north being different from the south, and people not understanding each other—there’s a lot of suspicion that the government, and governments in the past, have simply protected water traders because we still don’t have a water trading register. Whether that’s a state and territory issue, it needs to be done. And now we’ve got the ACCC saying there are significant concerns even though they didn’t identify any particular fraud. This does not build confidence in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, nor the plan.

[Ms Connell] I think there are three components to the question. So, under the constitution, states are principally responsible for water resource management, so the obligation is on them to establish and maintain water registers. Each of the Murray-Darling Basin jurisdictions has in place a water register at this point in time.

[Senator Roberts] I’m not interested in why we can’t do it; I’m interested in what we should do.

Ms Connell : It’s being done—

[Senator Roberts] It’s a major impediment to you.

Ms Connel l : and you can get access to those registers online. I think the Bureau of Meteorology now aggregates information from each of those state registers in their water information portal, so we can provide you with the link to that quite easy to use website.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you.

[Ms Connell] I would just like to get on the record that the ACCC didn’t find any evidence of speculative activity.

[Senator Roberts] I just said that, but they had significant concerns.

[Ms Connell] One of their key recommendations was to get in place a code backed by enforcement and compliance powers to improve the integrity and transparency of the market, and that’s what the basin states have agreed to and the principal adviser has reported on. We’re now working with basin states to look at how we can develop that.

[Senator O’Neill] But it hasn’t happened. What’s the date for that to commence? Senator Roberts, I’ve got a whole lot of questions that I want to follow up on. When you get out there and talk to people, as Senator Roberts has said, they just tell you straight up about—

[Senator Roberts] The corruption.

[Senator O’Neill] The corruption that’s happening. Their computers aren’t fast enough to compete with people who are in the space. You would’ve heard it as much as I’ve heard it. What’s the timing on the response to this?

[Ms Connell] We’re currently working with basin states to look at the development of a draft code. One of the key things will be to consult with stakeholders on what that draft code will look like. When making changes that will impact on a regulated community it’s important to undertake a process whereby we publish a proposed draft code, provide an opportunity for comment and also provide a period of time for that regulated community to come into compliance. We’re actively working with states on progressing that proposal.

[Senator O’Neill] But do you have a time line?

[Ms Connell] I can take that on notice; I don’t have it in front of me.

[Senator Roberts] I brought eight copies of an article from News Weekly, ‘Murray-Darling Basin Plan ruining the Edward River’. Once again, we’re talking about environmental damage of a type never before seen along the Murray system, caused in all probability by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The first paragraph of this article says:

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan (MDBP), which has the goal of protecting the environment—

As Senator Ruston said—

is instead destroying it.

And there are so many examples; it’s the same type of damage that we’re seeing elsewhere. We’ve raised this about the Murray itself. When is the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, or the department, going to convene a proper public inquiry into environmental destruction along the Murray River system? Landholders along the Edward are just flabbergasted at how much damage is being done in the name of the environment.

[Mr Reynolds] The Edward system, in effect, runs parallel to the Murray. Part of the work we’re looking at around the choke is how we manage water through that part of the system, and that includes water through the Edward River as well. Clearly, there are a lot of demands on the system to manage it for consumptive use as well as for the environment. One of the key things we’re looking at as part of the Barmah Choke Feasibility Study is how to manage the system holistically, not just moving a problem from one part of the system to another. So there’s a lot of activity to examine the Edward system as well.

Erosion is a natural feature within our river systems. We have a heavily regulated—

[Senator Roberts] Excuse me; some people would disagree with you. They’re saying the amount of water and the duration of high river flows are quite unnatural. Farmers along the Murray and people along the Edward are saying the same thing. That’s what’s doing the damage, according to them.

[Senator O’Neill] Exactly, that’s what they’re saying to me too, Senator Roberts.

[Mr Reynolds] There’s no doubt that we’ve regulated the river system to achieve a whole lot of benefits which that provides, but that has substantially changed the natural flow patterns in the river. We have higher river flows through summer because we’re delivering water to meet irrigation demands which are critical to the prosperity of many communities throughout the basin. That’s one of the aspects of the Basin Plan: we work through that balance between environmental outcomes and the social and economic prosperity of communities throughout the basin as well.

There are going to be impacts on a regulated system—there’s no doubt about that. We’re looking, through the Barmah Choke Feasibility Study work, at options we might have to alleviate some of those pressures on that part of the river system—the Edward, the Murray and, indeed, the Goulburn system as well. I can’t say that there are no impacts on a regulated river system, but I guess those impacts are balanced against the other benefits that they provide to communities in a wide range of—

[Senator Roberts] I’m not accusing you—and I mean this sincerely—or anyone here of anything. Government in this country—and I’m not talking about the Morrison Joyce government, I’m talking about federal governance—is quite often about wealth transfer. The more regulation we have then the more that can be hidden. It’s built into this, the whole thing. There are just so many avenues for it to be loose and sloppy and the people who pay, time and time again, are the everyday Australians who pay for the mess in government.

I’m not having a go at you; I’m not looking at you in particular. I’m just saying that this is a mess. How can we sort it out so that the people and the environment stop paying the price for mistakes?

[Senator Davey] I think that finishing that choke study might be a good first step.

[Mr Reynolds] In that part of the river system, in particular, there is significant work, investigation and analysis on how we can manage some of these detrimental impacts while still achieving the good impacts that people are looking for.

Some of the impacts we’ve seen in terms of high river flows and the river flowing at higher flow rates, or at least at levels higher than it has in the past, are the result of lost capacity in the river system and the deposition of sand within the Choke. That means to get the same volume of water through the Choke and downstream that we had in the past, the river needs to run at a higher level for a longer period of time. That’s absolutely the challenge that we’re dealing with. The work that we’re doing to understand that, and to understand the options we have to take the pressure off the river system, is a critical part of that intervention.

[Senator Roberts] I’m saying the core problem may be something even deeper. Thank you.

/by

Services Australia burning $90.7 million for flash riverfront city office

,

Services Australia is pressing ahead with plans to move to convert 5 suburban offices into one riverfront high-rise office. The fit-out alone will cost taxpayers $89 million. After that, the leasing costs for the high-rise office will be $1.7 million a year more expensive than Service Australia spent on leases for the entire financial year.

How on earth can an extra $91 million cost be justified as ‘value for money’ for taxpayers? I certainly don’t feel like it’s money well spent.

Transcript

[Chair] Senator Roberts. So we’ll give Senator Roberts a call.

[Malcolm] Thank you Chair and thank you for being here tonight. Might, also have some questions about Services Australia’s service centres. Services Australia is spending $89 million purely on a fit-out for their expensive new riverfront high rise office in Brisbane. Minister, when Australia has such a huge debt, due to the COVID restrictions, what is the cost benefit that a Services Australia would achieve from year one? And why not postpone it?

[Chair] Senator, you may be surprised to learn that I haven’t done a personal cost benefit analysis on the particular project. But I’m more-

[Malcolm] Wouldn’t most projects have a cost benefit?

[Chair] I’m just saying I haven’t-

[Malcolm] No, no, I mean-

[Chair] Yes, of course. So what I was gonna say is that I would, perhaps, if with your indulgence, ask the agency to please provide the cost or the justification for that particular project.

[Services Australia] Senator, we support a work force that’s over 30,000 people. We require both office space and as I’ve outlined, have a range of service centres and residential properties. We have 392 commercial properties. We are where we can looking at ways to reduce the overall costs of the office footprint. And so you will see us in places like Brisbane, amalgamating some of the office space. They all go through a proper procurement process, which in the whole and the whole cost benefit analysis is looked at. It is important to that we maintain office space that meets contemporary work, health and safety standards. And is able to manage a modern and contemporary technology. So all of those aspects go into ensuring that office space remains fit for purpose. And I can assure you that we look very carefully at making sure we manage our property footprint and service centres within the agency’s envelope for property.

[Malcolm] Thank you. Looking at some of the, I think five service centres, from the suburbs in Brisbane are being amalgamated into one, downtown?

[Services Australia] No not service centres. We need to be very clear about that. The service centres are separate. We are looking to amalgamate a smattering of different back office leases into a better fit for purpose centre.

[Malcolm] So these are not service outlets?

[Services Australia] No senator.

[Malcolm] Okay. They’re not customer-

[Services Australia] They’re not shop fronts if you like. So we, as I said, we’ve got a very large workforce. Most of our telephony and things are done in big smart centres, we have large technical workforce lawyers, all sorts of people. We all work in offices and we have 318 shop fronts and then access and agents points. We also do have some residential properties to support our remote and regional servicing.

[Malcolm] From the figures I’ve got, the annual, the current annual leasing bill for Services Australia in Brisbane, this financial year, is 32.35 million or 1.73 million cheaper than the proposed new building. That’s per annum. Are there any risks to productivity? Because of-

[Services Australia] There’s no, no Senator, there’s no risks to productivity.

[Malcolm] So you’re gonna pay more to go downtown? 1.73 million more?

[Services Australia] I will take on notice… Lease costs are renegotiated at various points in the leases of other buildings anyway. So extrapolating how other lease costs may have gone up around a single lease. Let me take on notice particular details around the five sites versus the cost of the one.

[Malcolm] Okay, thank you. How many public servants in your department are now working from home?

[Services Australia] For various reasons we have around 10,000 people working from home. So Services Australia has a mixed workforce. So some 28, 29,000 Australian public servants, but there are also service delivery partners that support us. And some, and contractors, particularly in our ICT space. So a number of those people were also working from home and some of our service delivery partners have been able to work from home. But broadly about 10,000 people are working from home as part of the Services Australia at the moment.

[Malcolm] Is there any reluctance from people coming back to the office?

[Services Australia] We’ve not experienced that we’ve had. We are nationally distributed. So our workforce, we manage our workforce against each of the state and territory requirements. For example, we had many more people working from home in Victoria for large parts of last year In Canberra, most people were still coming into the office if they to work; we’ve seen different arrangements through Omicron. You know, our work is our people both work from home and come to the office and we haven’t had any real issues with people coming and going in that arrangement.

[Malcolm] Yeah, thank you. Last question. I understand Services Australia has the federal government’s second largest property portfolio after the Department of Defence and you lease around 720,000, almost 721,000 square metres of commercial property. What do you do to ensure that property costs are reduced and that services are located where they’re needed? I know, I’ve just learned that these are nothing to do with customer interface, but… What are you doing?

[Services Australia] So Senator, I think, as I’ve stated, we are, what you’ve outlined with things like, bringing together five leases in Brisbane, we’ve done something, we’re doing something similar. There’s a new building being built in Adelaide which brings and reduces three or four leases into one. So we are trying to drive an efficient and fit for purpose, office requirements. Every dollar that comes out of my budget into a property is money I can’t use for transformation or other things. So we are very focused on driving an appropriate fit for purpose workspace that delivers the outcomes for the best value, which is as we are required to do, under the PGPA; and consistent with the finance property guidelines.

[Malcolm] So in your response that you’re gonna give me on notice. You’ll be able to tell me why we’re going to go downtown and have $1.73 million more expensive than the current scattered five outlets in five centres in Brisbane.

[Services Australia] Well, I will take on notice that framing of your question and we will-

[Malcolm] And you’ll check the assumption?

[Services Australia] Yeah, we’ll check the assumptions that you’ve got there and own the decision and the context around, the full context of our decision to do that.

[Malcolm] Okay, thank you very much, thank you, Chair.

[Chair] Thank you, Senator.

/1 Comment/by