What changed to make the Coalition adopt country-killing net-zero?

, ,
https://youtu.be/25wrsuzXz8Q

Scott Morrison won the last election by bashing Bill Shorten on his climate policies, especially a net-zero emissions commitment. After getting elected for not buying into the climate nonsense, Scott Morrison unexplainably signed us up to net zero despite CSIRO confirming there was no change in the ‘Science’™.

There’s still no proof that human produced carbon dioxide affects the climate and needs to be cut. By signing up to net-zero, Scott Morrison has given a death kiss to productive agriculture, mining and every Australians power bills with no justification..

Transcript

If you could be as quick as you could.

[Roberts] Thank you. And thank you all for attending. My questions are gonna be initially to the minister. And then if there’s time to the Chief Executive, of CSIRO. Minister, referring to the government’s change in its 2050 net zero policy in the 2019 election, the government’s opposition to the UN’s 2050 net zero carbon dioxide policy gained you many votes and a lot of political traction and you used the the policy, Labor’s adoption of the policy to really smash the opposition leader Bill Shorten. Just two years later, after emphatically repeatedly and thoroughly criticising Labor and the Greens, there was an unexplained reversal last year and the government adopted the UN’s 2015 net zero carbon dioxide policy. What is the specific change in climate science in which the government’s change of policy is based?

Oh, well, thank you. I think to answer that question in detail I think it will probably be best for the environment minister, but I would simply say that I don’t accept the premise of all of what you’ve said in terms of-

[Roberts] What do you disagree with?

Well, you said unexplained. I mean, obviously we went through quite a detailed process. The prime minister spoke on a number of occasions about his desire to get to a net zero position if it can be done in a way that protects Australian jobs and continues to see industries thrive. And that’s what Minister Taylor worked on. Now we’re not obviously in the space where we have the detail in terms of those portfolios, but it was explained over a period of time. The government made the decision. Obviously, it played out publicly where there was a conversation, I think, with the Australian people. And obviously, there was a live debate that you were aware of that the coalition went through when the government came to a conclusion.

[Roberts] Okay. It wasn’t explained in terms of some change in science. There was no references. There was no document. No publications referred to no specific page numbers of the change in the data or the cause. So there was nothing to change the policy.

Well, as I say, the government was not prepared to commit to such a policy without being able to do the work as to how we would get there and how we would do so in a responsible way. And that was the the job that Minister Taylor in particular was tasked with. And that was the the work that fed into the government decision. Now, in terms of the detail, the various portfolio parts of that, I think that’s probably for another part of estimates.

[Roberts] Okay.

I think that summarises the government’s position.

[Roberts] Well, let’s go back a step further. What’s the basis of the government’s climate policy and ensuring policies on consequent policies on energy, agriculture, manufacturing, social policy and other aspects that the UN’s climate and associated policies impact? What’s the overall basis?

Sorry. I might just get you to repeat that question, sorry.

[Roberts] What is the basis of the government’s climate policy and the consequent policies that stumble on from that on energy agriculture, manufacturing, social policy and other aspects that the UN’s climate and associated policies impact?

Well, look, it’s a fairly broad question.

[Roberts] It is.

I might ask officials if they can assist.

[Man] There are appearing in my data.

Yeah. [Joe Evans] Miss Evans.

Very quickly, Joe Evans, the deputy secretary in the department and Senator, the basis is really the globally agreed science on climate change, which is articulated through the International Panel on Climate Change reports

[Roberts] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

That’s the one. Yeah.

[Roberts] Okay. Thank you. That was nice and quick. Back to the minister. Cutting human carbon dioxide output has had huge costly impacts across our society, especially on fundamentals for productivity and prosperity, for example, energy. Surely the only sound basis for a policy with such economic consequences is the specific effect of changing human carbon dioxide output. The impact for example of a specified change in human output of carbon dioxide, what specific impact would it have on climate factors such as temperature, rainfall, droughts, wind? So the specific impact. Then when the effect is quantified, only then can we do a cost benefit analysis of the cost of doing that and the benefits that come from that. And significantly, we can’t do any measurement of progress as we implement the policy unless we’ve got that specific impact of carbon dioxide. What is that specific impact of carbon dioxide on various climate factors?

Well, I’m happy for officials to elaborate, but I mean, in terms of what the government’s approach has been, it has been to be part of The Paris Agreement. So part of collective action across the world where we are doing our part, and we’ve been doing that obviously with our emissions reductions to date, which have been tracking, in fact, ahead of many comparable OECD nations and many sort of comparable resource-rich nations, such as Canada.

[Roberts] So what would be the extra impact of tracking?

But if I can also go to your question, and in the preamble to your question around, you talked about other economic impacts or impacts in relation to higher energy prices and the like. What we’ve seen under our government in the last few years is actually energy prices coming down year on year and coming down quarter on quarter. So we as a government never look at these issues in isolation. We look at it as part of that collective response and taking our responsibilities to the environment seriously, but never taking our eye off the ball, in terms of the need for affordable and reliable energy for instance. And that’s something that we’ve been delivering and that’s been our track record.

Senator Roberts, we got to go to the office of the chief scientist at 6:25. So I know you did want to ask some questions to the Chief Executive Officer, of CSIRO. So I just wanted to give you that chance.

[Roberts] Thank you. So essentially what you’re saying, Senator Seselja, is that your answer is the same as the one Senator Cormann gave me repeatedly when I asked questions in the Senate and wrote him letters? That was, we’ve got to do our part of global agreements.

I’m not aware of exactly what former Minister Cormann-

[Roberts] That’s the gist.

Well, as I say, I’ll take you take your word for that.

[Roberts] I can show you his letters.

Sure. I’m not disputing. All I’m saying is I’m not aware of exactly what Minister Cormann told you, but my evidence is the evidence I’ve just given.

[Roberts] Assuming what I’ve said to you of Senator Cormann’s responses, you’re agreeing with it.

Well, look, it’s a difficult question to answer without seeing all the detail of what you’ve said but I think my evidence speaks for itself.

[Roberts] Okay. Bob Hawke’s Labor government first introduced the climate topic in the eighties. Then in 1996, the Howard Anderson Liberal-National’s government first made it policy. On what specific quantified effect did they base that policy? Do you know?

Well, look, I think you’re talking about history of before I was in this place. And so I would prefer without having been involved in those discussions, I don’t feel qualified to give a detail answer on that.

[Roberts] No, I understand. It’s okay. Are you aware that the Howard-Anderson Liberal-National’s government implemented their renewable energy target that is gutting electricity and industry, generally? That they stole farmer’s property rights to use their land. And they did that deceitfully going around the constitution, section 51, clause 31. And that John Howard was the first leader of a large party to adopt an emissions trading scheme, which Tony Abbott rightly called a carbon dioxide tax. Are you aware of those major policies that are now still in play? And John Howard actually said that the renewable energy target has gone too far now?

Well, I certainly wouldn’t accept your characterisation of some of those policies in the way you’ve framed them, and certainly in relation to those fine leaders of our nation that you’ve sort of characterised their policies in a certain way. So no, I wouldn’t agree with that.

[Roberts] Okay. Thank you.

Sorry. Senator Roberts, I’m sorry-

[Roberts] I just got one thing to follow up.

Well, it’s gotta be very quick.

[Roberts] It will be very quick. Are you aware that six years after being booted from office in 2007, in 2013, John Howard admitted, at a global warming sceptics annual address in London, that on climate science he was agnostic yet he introduced these policies?

No, I wasn’t aware of that, but I am aware-

[Roberts] Thank you very much, chair.

Thank you, Senator.

/by

70% of Australian COVID deaths had a pre-existing condition

, ,

Recently the Government changed its tune, but you used to be a conspiracy theorist for pointing out there was a difference between dying with COVID or from COVID. Now with the official release of Australian Bureau of Statistics data we have it confirmed just how many of those who died had other contributing factors.

It’s just another tick on the list of things “conspiracy theorists” been saying all along that the Government has tried to deny the truth of.

Transcript

[Malcolm] Thank you Chair, and thank you all for being here. My questions have to do with death data, particularly from COVID and information gathering. Can I reference your diagram entitled, Data Flow for Doctor Certified Deaths? I think that’s it there. It’s off your website.

[Committee Member] Do you need a copy of that, Mr. Gruen?

[Dr. Gruen] It’s a question of whether it’s in this publication or not but I know a copy would be helpful.

[Committee Member] Not sure this is speeding things up.

[Malcolm] Multitasking.

[Dr. Gruen] So just in summary, it’s a really simple workflow. So it’s a data flow for doctor certified deaths. The workflow is, someone dies, death event, doctor certifies, or it goes to a funeral director, but that’s only a small percentage. And then from there it continues to where the doctor then sends a certification sent to the state births, deaths and marriages. And then from there, the state officers send data weekly to the ABS, that’s broad summary.

And of course Senator, it doesn’t include deaths that would go to the coroner, so it’s not all the deaths.

[Malcolm] Correct, but that’s a small number.

[Dr. Gruen] 20 percentish, I think.

[Malcolm] 20, okay.

[Dr. Gruen] I believe so.

[Malcolm] But they eventually get entered in later, when the coroner has resolved.

[Dr. Gruen] Yes.

[Malcolm] And we’ve also got the Queensland process here, but that just verifies what you’re saying. Can I have copy back please?

[Dr. Gruen] Yes, certainly.

[Malcolm] So is that correct?

[Dr. Gruen] If it came from our website, it’s correct.

[Malcolm] And my summary, which is backed up by the-

[Dr. Gruen] I think the summary, I didn’t hear anything in the summary that I would take exception to.

[Malcolm] Thank you. When a doctor certifies a death, they certify a cause of death, thank you. If the cause of death is unknown, the matter is referred to the coroner to decide. Between 86 and 89% of deaths are doctor certified, meaning we know the cause of death at the time we know of the death. So my question is, the transfer of doctor certified death data from the state to the ABS, how long does that take? And has this reporting time changed over the last three years?

[Dr. Gruen] We can take that on notice exactly how long it takes but certainly what we have started to do, and we started doing this, I think in 2020, was to start publishing deaths data purely on the basis of deaths certified by doctors. So before that, we had an annual publication of all deaths but it was very substantially delayed. So the annual publication would come out something like 10 months after the end of the year for which it was reporting. One of the other things that we did as a consequence of COVID, was to see whether we could provide useful information on mortality much faster, and so we instituted a new publication, which is monthly, which is called Provisional Mortality Statistics. And what we do is report on doctor certified deaths that we have collected up to that point in time.

[Malcolm] And then if they come in later because the doctor is slow, whatever, you add them.

[Dr. Gruen] Exactly, so in other words, if you look at the subsequent month’s publication, it will have slightly more of certified deaths in the previous month because new ones have been added, that’s correct.

[Malcolm] Okay. So referencing your website, the causes of death in Australia, the last data release, I think you may have explained this, was September 2021 for the period calendar 2020. That’s what you said, it was about nine or 10 months later. Is this the most recent data, other than the COVID data released on the 15th of February? That’s this one here, COVID mortality in Australia.

[Dr. Gruen] I’ve got it. So the answer is, the annual data is the deaths from both doctor and coroner certified. That’s the annual data, but we are as well as that, doing a monthly publication of just doctor certified deaths. Those come out monthly.

[Malcolm] So the annual is accurate in terms of, it got the coroners.

[Dr. Gruen] It’s complete.

[Malcolm] Complete, thank you. Yeah, they’re all accurate. So, let’s continue. So referencing the COVID-19 mortality in Australia which you have in front of you, issued 15th of February, 2022. Quote, it says, “COVID-19 deaths that occurred by 31st of January, 2022 that have been registered and received by the ABS.”, end of quote. So here we’ve got death data, and cause of death data that’s only two weeks old. Not three months old for single mortality figure or 10 months for the cause of death. Could you go through that report on the bottom of the first page, Mr. Gruen? 2,639 deaths where people died with or from COVID. What do you mean by with or from, specifically?

[Dr. Gruen] So that’s explained later in the document. The vast majority of them are from, a small number are with. So if you look at page three, it explains, there were 83 deaths, which were COVID-19 related. Sorry, I’m reading from a doc point in the middle of page three.

[Malcolm] No, no, I’ve got it sampled.

[Dr. Gruen] 83 deaths, which were COVID-19 related. The person died with COVID-19, confirmed or suspected, but it was not the underlying cause of death.

[Malcolm] So COVID was not the underlying cause, it was something else.

[Dr. Gruen] That’s right. So just to be clear, there were 2,704 deaths that were either with or from COVID, and of those, only 83 were with, the rest were from. So the vast majority are from.

[Malcolm] The cause of death was COVID, okay. So if we turn over to page two, at the top of page two, you have chronic cardiac symptoms with the most common preexisting chronic condition for those who had COVID-19, certified as the underlying cause of death. That goes back to the previous page, the second bullet point, the majority of deaths had an underlying cause. So where would that fit in, the 83?

[Dr. Gruen] No, no. So there were a substantial proportion of the people who died from COVID had preexisting conditions, right? But the preexisting condition didn’t kill them, but the COVID was the underlying cause of death. But the fact that they had a preexisting condition, was material.

[Malcolm] So is there any percentage of those who died with or from, who had chronic cardiac conditions?

[Dr. Gruen] Yes. It’s a good publication, Senator. It’s worth reading.

[Malcolm] I haven’t read it all.

[Dr. Gruen] No, that’s okay. Associated causes conditions in the a causal sequence, page eight. That will tell you about all the… Hang on, preexisting conditions, sorry. Preexisting conditions, page nine. And there’s a chart on page 10, which shows you what the conditions were and the proportions.

[Malcolm] So that’s percentages, are they?

[Dr. Gruen] Yes.

[Malcolm] Okay, so these are percent of the 83?

[Dr. Gruen] No, percent of the 2000. We’re talking about people who have… Yes, that’s it. Preexisting conditions were reported on death certificates for nearly 70% of the 2,556 deaths due to COVID. That’s a sentence at the bottom of page nine. And then the conditions, that chart-

[Malcolm] On the graph.

[Dr. Gruen] The chart shows you the proportion of chronic conditions that were reported on the death certificate. And you can have more than one, cheerfully.

[Malcolm] Cheerfully, right. Okay, so turning now to birth data…

[Dr. Gruen] That’s not gonna help.

[Malcolm] The Australian Bureau of Statistics releases birth data at the end of the year following. This data could influence the debate around the effect of vaccines on reproduction and may provide reassurance to vaccine customers. Why does it take so long to report on a simple metric like births? I understand the delay in the deaths for the getting the accurate annual figure, but why does it take so long for births?

[Dr. Gruen] Yeah, so I don’t know the answer to that question.

[Malcolm] I will take that on notice, Senator.

[Dr. Gruen] Yeah, we can certainly take that on notice.

[Malcolm] So the Australian Bureau of Statistics budget has grown 18% in the last year from 497 million in 2019/20 to 588 million in 2021. Is that enough to get your data out in a timely fashion?

[Dr. Gruen] So as you would be aware, the bureau publishes data across a very wide range of topics, economic, social, environmental, demographic. And so, obviously timeliness is one of the things that we care about, and in answer to Senator Walsh’s questions, I was talking about some of the new products that we have produced that have been much more timely to help decision makers in the pandemic, but there’s no question, there’s a limit. And the other thing that we care critically about is accuracy and making sure that what we produce is correct. So some of these things do take a substantial amount of time, that we are cognisant of that, and we do our best to publish them as quickly as we can, and it ultimately is a function of the resources available to us.

[Malcolm] Last question. What you’re saying, and I would agree if this is the case, is that it is better to have accurate data a little delayed, than timely data that’s not accurate.

[Dr. Gruen] It depends on the circumstances. In a situation where a pandemic has just broken out, we made the judgement that we were happy to produce data that was somewhat less accurate, fast. So there are circumstances where you are willing to accept that trade off.

[Malcolm] Is there any way we can get that

/by

How many Aussie businesses are on the verge of collapse? 

, ,

The amount of business tax debt that is overdue with the Australian Tax Office has skyrocketed by 14% in 12 months to $40 billion. This is a very worrying sign. A business which is struggling to keep afloat will try and delay their payments for as long as possible, hopefully to keep some liquidity and survive another day.  

Eventually however, many businesses can’t keep going like this and collapse. This blowout in overdue debt is a worrying sign of how many businesses in Australia are on the edge. The Government’s response to COVID has wrecked our economy and country and the full effects of lockdowns and restrictions are still to be fully felt. 

Transcript

Around. Thank you.

Okay. Senator Roberts.

Thank you chair, and thank you all for attending. Minister, When all the COVID protections, when are all the COVID protections ending for businesses? You know, for example, the Australian taxation office pause on debt collection activities, and what have you provided to ensure businesses are supported and not thrown to the wolves?

Well, Senator, to answer the second part of your question, types of measures that we outlined in the last couple of budgets, such as, the lost carryback arrangements, the small business loans programmes, they’re the types of support that have been embedded for businesses to help with the economic recovery coming out of COVID. In terms of the dates of when, in some cases already have occurred, or to occur in the future. Certain protections around solvency arrangements, or ATO debt recovery practises, coming to end. I’ll let agencies, where they can speak to any of the details of those. Probably not the right person for that though.

So Senator, there’s a range of support measures that have been provided. The minister referred to the loss. Carryback there’s also obviously the temporary full expensing measures that go to June 2023. They’re the support measures, stimulus measures that I’m aware of in the tax space. I will pass to the ATO who can talk about the administrative actions that they’ve been taking to support business. And I think some of your question or some of the aspects of that support in the space of insolvency or, you know, market front features is probably best put to markets group later this evening. But I don’t know if the ATO want to add anything on the administrative actions.

Yes, Senator. We have recommenced the very measured approach to debt collection. We are concerned that the longer businesses sort of stay out of engagement with us. The more problematic those collection of debts are. I mean, the fact of the matter is that our total collectible debt has, as at 31 December, 2021, has increased by nearly $5 billion. That is collectable debt which is largely, I understand undisputed debt. So they’ve put in a bad statement. They’ve said, they’ve earned this amount. They’ve withheld pay as you go, they’ve collected GST, and for one reason or not, they haven’t remitted amounts they’ve acknowledged they’re responsible for. We are instituting a process of contacting businesses individually to make sure they’re aware of the debt and trying to come to an acceptable payment arrangement at least. But it is something we just cannot ignore because of the debt stock has gone up about 14% from the same time last year, and it’s now around $40 billion. So we have to focus in as empathetic way as we can. But it’s something we just have to get on with without jumping out there too quickly. It’s very well known in the advisory community that we are doing this now. And in some cases they’re saying, well, you should because the longer we leave it the more likely some of these amounts just won’t be paid. But if our Chief Service Delivery Officer wants to add anything to that, I’ll pass over to Melinda Smith.

I thank you. Commissioner Melinda Smith. Chief Service Delivery Officer. I just echo the commissioner’s comments. Last year, we actually had over 8 million engagement activities that we put in place to help small business and individuals. And the growth tends to be in the small business debt to actually help them and assist them to understand what’s their liability and how do we help them to actually get back on their feet. And we’re seeing some positive signs payment plans are being set up. We have very high kept rate in terms of those effectiveness of those payment plans. And as the Commissioner commented, we’re getting some terrific feedback from the community about the balance we’re having to take very empathetically based on quite unique circumstances.

Thank you. So it it’s fairly, and this is not a criticism of you. It’s a comment about the situation. It’s fairly vague. And I understand that. So what does your research indicate will be the likely business insolvency rates for the next two years and across what industries and regions

Senator, I don’t know that the ATO, and they can obviously speak for themselves. We don’t know the ATO undertakes its own modelling or research in relation to business insolvency rates. And again, revenue group of treasury wouldn’t be the right agency to provide analysis in that regard. To just add to at least answer to your first question. I just wanted to check but the relief for directors against personal liability for insolvent trading, that was part of the initial package of measures has also expired. So, in that sense some of those initial early extreme COVID protection measures that were put in place at the depths of uncertainty have come to an end as the ATO indicated from their perspective, they now manage debt recovery in their cautious and targeted ways that they’ve indicated and are very conscious in terms of, in terms of the impact of their activities and seeking to maintain business viability while doing so. The government did outline some other insolvency reforms which I can get some information tabled if you like. I’d note that insolvency rates have been down quite significantly as a result of both some of those temporary measures, but also the additional financial support government has provided to businesses during the pandemic. I’m not aware of there being any spike in those insolvency rates since any of these measures have come to an end. But we would expect to see at least a normalisation of those rates.

Minister. Thank you. The early on. And in fact, the first and second day of sitting single day sessions on this coronavirus issue were on Monday, March 23rd, 2020, and then Wednesday the April 8th, 2020. And I pointed the government to Taiwan. Which has had a far superior performance to ours. They, despite having a population similar to ours, have had one quarter that casualties per million population that we’ve had. They did it without locking down. In the previous Senate estimate sessions, I confirmed with the Chief Medical Officer and the Federal Department of Health Secretary, the seven components that would be suitable for seven strategies for managing a virus comprehensively and properly. And the Federal Government has missed the two key ones. Never even looked at it even though they were mentioned months ago. And as I said on the first single day sessions back in 2020. I believe the Federal Government has mismanaged COVID. Now you probably won’t agree, but,

No I won’t Senator.

But you know, the facts are there. So, What’s happening is that the Federal Government has not protected people. And at the same time has decimated their economy and we are losing a lot of revenue.

Senator Roberts. Have you got a crisp question-

Yes. I’d like to know when the government is gonna come up with a proper comprehensive plan.

Well, as, you noted on the way through Senator Roberts, I don’t agree with your assessment there. Australia has some of the lowest fatality rates in the world and some of the strongest economic outcomes, a jobs market that is booming and is seeing levels of participation that are at record points for Australia and are above the performance of other developed economies. So Senator Roberts, I think we have a very strong record there as Prime Minister’s indicated. Has every decision that we have managed to, that we have made right throughout the course of the pandemic and being the one that we would make with the benefit of hindsight. No, of course not. If we’d been able to foresee every potential twist and turn along the way, we would navigate the route differently. But we’ve been dealing with the global pandemic with different variants that have come along to the COVID 19 virus and we’ve responded accordingly. We have applied through the last two budgets in economic recovery plan that has stimulated business investment that has seen the jobs market recover very strongly in Australia, that has seen the budget improve in ways beyond what had been forecast. And we’re obviously committed to continuing to implement that plan.

Thank you for that minister. I just quote some figures here from Adam Creighton. He’s a well respected, clear thinking economist who relies on data. And he’s pointed out, Australia overtakes Japan in COVID deaths, a densely populated nation with many old people that never once lockdown, never mandated vaccines and barely tested anyone. No riots, no tear gas. The lockdown argument has become a sad joke. You didn’t implement lockdowns, but you enabled the states to. Taiwan with a similar population to ours. We have 4.4 times higher death rate per million population. Taiwan never locked down. They properly tested, traced in quarantine. So my question was, when will you, I’ve checked with this Chief Medical Officer. There are seven strategies that he confirms. I’ve omitted none. I’ve got none that are in there that shouldn’t be there. Seven strategies. The government is not doing the two most important ones. When will you come together with plan

Senator Roberts? We have applied a plan right throughout the pandemic, responded to circumstances and have the clear economic recovery plan as I said before. I’d also just make the point in terms of your comparisons there, that lockdown is used as a single word or phrase to encompass what different people have in mind. There have been, in the countries you referenced, some very tight restrictions on human movement and activity in response to what, COVID 19 and limitations in terms of areas of activity that have had in terms of economic impacts and impacts on different businesses. Very significant impacts in parts of their economy. There are circumstances that every country’s grappled with. I don’t say that as in any way as a criticism. We have indeed engaged quite closely at different times with Japan and with Taiwan during the pandemic in terms of sharing information, in terms of assistance between between one another where possible for things like PPE or the like, so. There is much that we admire and respect about their responses, but I think to sort of characterise as you have that makes it sound like they’ve managed in a way where there haven’t been some very tight restrictions that are analogous in parts to the way some of the states have applied lockdowns or ongoing restrictions is not accurate in terms of what they have actually done in those countries or in the country of Japan and of course the economy of Taiwan.

Of Taiwan, which is way in front of us in terms of performance on COVID has not locked down. Their economy and their economy has basically suffered just a minor blip. I think 0.6 of-

Senator Roberts. I need to share the call.

Thank you chair. I’m finished.

Excellent.

/by

Are our Navy Frigates going the same way as cancelled submarines? 

,

It has been revealed that our Navy frigate program is facing big problems, with fears they will be underpowered, unable to run propulsion and radar at the same time and have serious flooding design flaws. 

One Nation led calls with other Senators to ditch the expensive French submarine duds. Defence acquisitions doesn’t have a great track record, will these frigates follow the same path as the submarines? 

Transcript

[Chair] Please Senator Roberts, you have the call.

[Roberts] Thank you chair, and thank you for appearing today. We’re pleased that the government has at last listened to and cancelled the submarine contract. What was the cost to Australia as a result of cancellation of the French submarine contract?

[Dalton]Senator Roberts expenditure to date on the attack class submarine programme was $2.4 billion. We’re in a process of negotiating with the two prime contracts, Naval group and Lockheed Martin Australia, the transition out of those contracts, that they’re sensitive negotiations, you’ll understand,

[Roberts] Yeah, I can. that we don’t want to talk about how that might play out in terms of dollar figures.

[Roberts] Sometimes I might argue, but not then. What progress has been made in determining the future of Naval defence procurement of submarines and other hardware options?

[Dalton] In what sense?

[Roberts] How can we make sure this doesn’t happen again?

[Mead] Senator, Vice Admiral, Jonathan Mead, I’m the chief of the nuclear power submarine task force. And I’ve been empowered to deliver a nuclear powered submarine capability for the Australian government, for Australia. So since the 16th of September, 2021 the task force working with other government departments and working with our US and UK partners, have made excellent progress in order to get to an important milestone, in beginning of 2023 so that we can identify the optimal pathway for Australia to acquire these nuclear powered submarines. I would just like to sort of emphasise that the pathway is more than just the actual platform. The platform is something that we can readily identify

[Roberts] Excuse me, platform being the boat itself?

[Mead] Correct, the actual submarine itself there Senator. But first and foremost, we need to satisfy a number of prerequisites. I can’t emphasise this enough, the safety and the security aspects associated with anything nuclear, but particularly nuclear powered submarines, need to be recognised with every aspect of the programme. And we, you Senator, the Australian public would absolutely expect that the department and the government would keep safety and security at the top of our requirements. So we’re working with our US and UK partners. There is a very significant series of delegations in Australia right now, combined US and UK teams. There are three specific delegations that are in Australia, two right now, they’ve been in Canberra talking to defence officials, obviously talking to the task force, talking to other government departments. They have gone down to Melbourne. They’ve gone down to Adelaide and had significant discussions with ASC, ANI, they’ve looked at the shipyards. They’re talking to workers down there. There is an another delegation, from the US and UK, that have just arrived. And late next week, there’ll be an even more senior delegation where I will take them down to Adelaide, and I will host, what’s called a joint steering group. That is a key decision body, a recommending body, that assesses the risks and the progress of what we are working on. This will be the third such steering group, I went to Washington in December of last year, where we had the first joint steering group. We did a virtual one in January of this year, and I’ll host the third one in late February. We are making very good progress. There are a number of key areas that we are working on right now. I’ll put the platform aside. But these absolutely support the platform itself. We are working on strategy and legal aspects and we are working on education, training, opportunities, the workforce. So you’ll know we’ve identified a scholarship programme, 300 scholarships over the next five years. We’re sending people as I speak, Australian Navy officers, to University of New South Wales to do nuclear engineering degrees, nuclear science degrees. We’re sending people overseas to do degrees at MIT. We’ve got a scholarship programme within the department of defence. We are a scholarship programme with STEM for cadets.

[Roberts] All right, what aren’t you doing?

[Roberts] So I welcome your comments about safety. As far as I know, the nuclear powered submarines have been around for decades. So, and coming from the Americans and the British.

[Mead] That’s correct. So US, UK have been operating nuclear powered submarines for about 60 years. We intend to leverage off their impeccable safety record, but I do want to emphasise that safety and security, when you’re dealing with nuclear, nuclear power, nuclear powered submarines must be afforded absolute priority, Senator.

[Roberts] We’re pleased to hear that. Senator Hanson and I support the nuclear decision, it seems very sensible to us, so that’s not a concern, but it is something new to Australia, so that’s obviously a risk. Has Australia done it again, this is in general to defence again, has Australia done it again by entering into the $45 billion contract for the hunter class frigates, already described as expensive duds by some, that will be slower than called for and underpowered, in terms of running its radar systems at the same time as operational propulsion systems?

Senator Roberts I’ll invite Mr. Dalton, seeing as he’s still at the table to respond, at least at a high level to that commentary, noting that quite a bit of detail has been covered already this morning on that project.

[Dalton] Senator, I think we’ve spent the last hour and a half discussing in quite some detail, some of those issues that we’re managing around the hunter class frigate. I would say that the projected total acquisition cost of the programme is $45 billion. That is not the contract value, and that is not the current approved value. So we’re taking much smaller bites as we go along, but

[Roberts] Depending upon success?

[Dalton] Yeah, that’s part of it. But I think you know, the discussion that we’ve had today demonstrates that we’re on a process, a design process, that is structured to manage risks and we, and the chief of Navy, has already testified this morning that he is confident that the hunter class frigate will fulfil the needs that the Navy has for a modern, state of the art frigate, optimised for anti-submarine warfare.

[Roberts] Okay. So I’ll keep my questions short out of respect for everyone here. Is it true that there are risks to the crew in the event of flooding or fires?

[Dalton] Again, Senator we don’t think that’s a likely outcome in the final design. We’re working through some risks that have come up, in the design process and looking at what’s happened.

[Roberts] So there are some risks, but you’re hoping to manage them?

[Dalton] There’s always risk. These are war ships, they go in harm’s way. And what we’re looking at is how do we mitigate best those risks and what happens when the ship is damaged. So we are making sure that when the ship is damaged, that the risks are absolutely mitigated as much as we possibly can. But we should not be fooled. These ships are designed to go into combat and combat can create damage.

[Roberts] I accept that, but if there are inherent flaws, before they even reach combat, that make them even more vulnerable, that’s my concern.

[Dalton] Senator what we’ve canvased this morning, at some length is in terms of those media reports being informed off of some documentation, which was work done by defence, seeking to identify extensively the potential risks faced in relation to the Type 26 and the hunter class that will be built across the type 26. Importantly, as officials have outlined, that report didn’t go into the detail of the type of mitigations and other work that is equally being done to manage and address those risks, which importantly is being done on the type 26 platform and of course on the hunter class platform.

[Roberts] So thank you, minister, it seems then that these problems were foreseen before the contracts were entered into, in review?

[Woman] No.

Senator Roberts, as a few people have addressed already this morning, these are always highly complicated procurement activities, design and build activities, that all come with risk. Nobody should think that there is a risk-free proposition in relation to building a highly sophisticated war ship.

[Roberts] We’ve just come off several, and the submarines we’ve been talking about this morning, several damaging processes in defence, so will the frigates go the same way as the sub’s, what’s your level of confidence?

[Birmingham] No Senator, they won’t, we do have a level of confidence there and the systems in terms of design finalisation and moving into the build stages, are systems that are built having learnt lessons from previous procurement decisions. The fact that defence is clearly undertaking the type of risk assessment work that has been discussed this morning is a plus. We should all be pleased for the fact that they are identifying those risks and working through them at these early stages, while we are still in design stages, where such mitigations can be pursued. These are some of – it’s similar in the sense that, you know this is a project, where right now the work that is being undertaken in Australia, is prototyping work. That’s a lesson learnt from the past, in terms of ensuring that we test those build systems before we get to a point where you have actually created a bigger problem in the build undertaking that could have been rectified if you’d learnt those lessons before through activities such as prototyping.

[Roberts] So these are my last questions on this topic. Are these fresh designs or are they rebuilding or modifying an established design?

[Birmingham] Perhaps I’ll let Mr. Dalton explain that again.

[Dalton] So the frigate, the hunter class frigate is based on the United Kingdom’s type 26 reference ship design. That is different from what we were doing in the attack class submarine programme, where the attack class submarine was a new design submarine. It evolves from previous ones, but it was a new design for Australia. And I would say Senator, that the attack class submarine programme, you know the government has made, you know, a very brave decision in light of changing strategic circumstances and that revolves around how we could employ conventionally powered submarines in high risk environments, high threat environments in the 2040’s, in 2050’s. The decision to move away from the attack class submarine programme was not based on the performance of the attack class submarine project, it’s based on the changing strategic circumstances that Australia finds itself in. So I don’t think you can compare those, you know to say that the programmes are broken because we’ve moved on from the attack class submarine programme.

[Roberts] The changing strategic circumstances we find ourselves in and the changing availability of capability to Australia.

[Dalton] Exactly.

[Roberts] Yeah. The last question.

I’ll come back. Do you want me to do it now?

[Ross] You have the changing security control requirements getting worse, but a delivery date.

[Chair] Tells me about another five minutes so we might just sit over time for a short while.

[Roberts] Last question on submarines. Has a live torpedo ever been fired from a Collins class sub?

[Dalton] Yes.

[Roberts] Have all the torpedo’s been unarmed dummies?

[Dalton] We can show you pictures Senator.

[Roberts] Sorry?

[Dalton] Yes.

/by

Companies illegally back filling risk assessments to justify jab mandates 

,

Workplaces jumped the gun and implemented jab mandates for employees without doing their legally obligated risk assessment. When caught out, some have tried to ‘backfill’ their risk assessment, to make it look like they had done the process properly in the first place.  

As the Fair Work Ombudsman has told me, on the face of it this would be fraudulent under Workplace Health and Safety laws.  

If you suspect a workplace has backfilled or retrospectively made a risk assessment for a jab mandate after implementing it, you should immediately report them to the Work Health and Safety Regulator in your State. 

Transcript

Thank you.

Oh! Senator Roberts. Sorry. Sorry, It’s the lights.

That’s all right. I don’t mind. Ms. Parker, I’m not aware of the details of the Fair Work Act. Immense as it is. I’m concerned with companies employers including universities, backfilling risk assessments. It’s a topic Senator Matt Canavan touched on earlier, backfilling risk assessments to justify the decisions on mandating injections. Is that part of your remit to explore that?

Look, it’s a work health and safety matter. So, if they are undertaking a health and safety risk assessment, as you say, they’re doing it afterwards to make it look like,

Well, when I meant by back filling is exactly that, to make it look like they do it up front but it’s rubbish.

Yeah, I understand. Yeah.

Yeah. You know what I mean.

It’s a work health and safety issue and they would need, I would encourage them, whoever you’re talking about, particularly to contact their Work Health and Safety Regulator in the state that it’s occurring in.

Unfortunately that’s a state government.

Yes, that’s correct.

Which is quite often putting the pressure on the mandate injection.

It depends on, there’s a difference between mandating and actually coming up with a risk assessment after the fact. I think that’s a different issue.

What I’m talking about is the risk assessment is done supposedly upfront.

Yes.

But it’s rubbish.

Yes. I still think they could contact the work health safety regulator because that seems to me a breach of the requirements but it’s on the face of it, but it would have to see it in.

Rather than the breach of due process in negotiating something.

Speaking in the general,

Appears that way, yes.

Speaking in the general, to reverse engineer a risk assessment rather than genuinely taking into account that the risks and benefits and,

Consultation.

And the genuine matters for consideration would without giving you legal advice, be something that’s fraudulent under Workplace health and safety laws. And so I would suggest people in that situation take a good look at that and consider the safety regulator that’s relevant to their workplace.

The only thing I’d add to that Senator is, the Work Health and Safety Authorities are independent statutory authorities. So they operate independent from government and it’s not unusual for Work Health and Safety authorities to take departments to court, etc for where they feel they’ve failing their duties. So, people should have confidence in going to their regulators.

Thank you. One final question, just getting a gut feel from you. The massively thick, Fair Work Act has got a hell of a lot of, I can see you smiling before you broke burst into laughter, got a lot of complexity in it. And it works for the members of the IR club, HR consultants, legal lawyers, large union bosses, employer associations that are kept in work by having problems to fix. The employer-employee relationship, which should be the fundamental and primacy of that relationship at work has been ignored, shoved aside, and too often vested interests get involved. Do you see any sense of that?

So, what I would say is that, it’s our job to try to cut through that. So, we’ve been established to try to educate and help people with that. So, absolutely agree there’s complexity, there’s individual arrangements, they’re all different, people have case by case issues. It’s complex system, but so is work, so is life, so is going, you know, everyone with different jobs has a different arrangement. That’s the nature of the business we operate in. Our job is to try to cut through that and help people to determine what’s the right thing to do. So if an employer rings us then we will talk them through what it is they’re concerned about and we will help them to make it right. We can provide them with outsourced legal advice. We can give them written advice. We have very good education products, very good websites. We try to make them simple. We consult on them. We get feedback on them. We have a small business hotline. We work very hard to try to simplify the system as much as possible. So they don’t have to feel overwhelmed, which is what I think you’re talking about.

I am .

Sorry. In fairness to Ms. Parker, she only gets to work with what we parliamentarians give her.

Exactly.

And it is a very large and it is a very complex act. But as you and I know, Senator Roberts, it’s the kind of sensitive area that requires all the different parties in this parliament to work together in order to get it through. And as we saw recently with the last Industrial Relations Bill to come before the parliament, some in this parliament would stand in the way of the kind of simplicity and transparency that makes it fairer for everybody, and that generates the kind of economic opportunity that works best for the people who need it most in our community.

Can I just highlight, hang on, Senator Roberts. Can I just highlight, we are 20 minutes over our supper break. Is it? What do they call it? Late break. I like supper better Still Late for smoke senators Roberts. But, do you want to continue or-

Yeah, just very briefly in response to the minister.

Be very brief. Thanks

The complexities make it impossible for some small businesses and especially for some workers, including those represented, by so-called, big unions. because the union bosses are part of the club.

They are.

And so what we need, and Ms. Parker alluded to it, the primacy of the workplace relationship between employer-employee needs to be brought back with unions, If the workers want representatives. Got no problem with that. But I’ve already got Dave Nunan, Michael Ravbar, the BCA, other groups, interested in exploring that issue, because the CFMEU legal counsel, the ETU legal counsel had both said we’ve got too many damn lawyers in this mess. They’re lawyers.

Well look, I don’t disagree fundamentally with what you’ve got to say there but the barrier doesn’t lie with government. The barrier lies over that side of the room.

I would say the barrier lies with a lot of people in this room and other rooms.

Okay. Well without getting into a debate. Thank you Senator…

/2 Comments/by

Reserve Bank wants a Central Bank Digital Currency in Australia 

, , ,

A Central Bank Digital Currency goes hand in hand with the idea of a Digital Identity. With all of your information and money stored online, central banks or governments could turn off your access to money and society in the blink of an eye.

The last time I asked the Reserve Bank about a Central Bank Digital Currency, there seemed to be no real plans. Conveniently they are now considering it, just as the feared Digital Identity Bill proposal is being pushed by Government.

Transcript

[Chair] Senator Roberts.

Thank you. Thank you for appearing again. I’m gonna start with a sincere compliment, Mr Debelle. I’ve been impressed with your frankness and your directness and your succinctness. You convey a lot of confidence and I would also like to start by complimenting the Reserve Bank for the answers I received in the last estimates, which after examination were complete and factual. So question one, Chair: the Reserve Bank has now signed on to the International Central Bank Digital Currency Platform, Project Dunbar, and I quote, “aims to develop prototype shared platforms for cross border transactions which will allow financial institutions to transact directly with each other in the digital currencies issued by participating central banks.” Now, as I understand it, Mr Debelle, Australia will be testing this platform, along with Malaysia, Singapore, and South Africa, which suggests we have a digital currency to use, to test the platform. Where is the Reserve Bank on the development process for the Reserve Bank Digital Currency and what’s the timeframe here for testing and implementation?

Hello, pass that one to Ms Bullock, please, Senator, she’s the expert in this space. Well, has carriage of this, at least.

Thank you, Senator. So, the first thing to note is that Project Dunbar is a proof of concept, so I’d distinguish it from a pilot. Pilot is where you actually have actual real money. This isn’t a pilot, it’s actually a proof of concept. So really, what it’s about is going through the technical infrastructure you might need, the legal arrangements you might need, to patent requirements you might need to set this sort of multicurrency approach up. So there is no Central Bank Digital Currency, we don’t have one, the other central banks don’t have one, it’s purely a proof of concept, if you like, It’s a little bit of a desktop exercise with a little bit of experimentation with technical approaches to do it, so there’s no actual Central Bank Digital Currencies involved.

Okay. Thank you. Oh, sorry.

I was just gonna go on to your second question, if that’s all right.

Okay.

So, your second question was about where we are at with Central Bank Digital Currency. So, we’ve had a multiyear process in this. We’ve done some small experiments. We’ve experimented internally with the concept of a wholesale Central Bank Digital Currency. Again, it’s not real, it’s just sort of a mock-up if you like, and we’ve done that internally to see whether or not individual banks could perhaps use it for settlement between them. We’ve also expanded that fairly recently. There was a report in December, Project Atom, which was an experiment again with Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank, Perpetual and Consensus and ourselves. And the concept here was, again, a proof of concept. It wasn’t a pilot; a proof of concept to see whether or not a Central Bank Digital Currency, paired with tokenized syndicated loans, would actually make a more efficient way of having syndicated loans transacted through the economy. We released the report on that in December and I think it proved that there were some efficiencies in this area, but –

Excuse me, did you say there were inefficiencies?

Efficiencies.

[Roberts] Efficiencies.

Efficiencies. So, syndicated loans is a very manual process, and quite lengthy, and what the project proved was if you tokenized the syndicated loans, you had a Central Bank Digital Currency to transact amongst the various players in the syndicated loan, that actually that made that a much more efficient process. Whether or not you can do it with normal payment systems as well is another question, but we didn’t test that, so there’s that. We’re also participating, as you mentioned, in Project Dunbar with the Bank for International Settlements Innovation Hub and those three other countries, and we’ve recently formed ourselves a Central Bank Digital Currency Group in the Payments Policy Department, and we’re going to be engaging with the Digital Finance Cooperative Research Centre, which is looking at all sorts of things digital. We’re going to be engaging with them on looking at Central Bank Digital Currencies as well, so that’s a little bit of a potted history of where we’re at with our work on this.

Okay. Thank you. If a new digital currency is to be created out of electronic ledger entries, will existing amounts of cash be converted into digital dollars? The public may be confused about how this is going to work. Can the Reserve Bank please provide a simple overview of what happens after the project gets the green light? Where’s the value coming from? So when we have a cash?

What we’re assessing, Senator, really, is exactly that: their value, given we have a pretty decent payment system as it is, which includes cash, clearly, but also electronic settlement, and you sort of nailed the question, really, which is: is there value in this? Is it worth the investment at this stage or not? Michelle, I don’t know if you wanna add anything to that.

The only thing I’d add, Senator, is that there is no suggestion in which we are getting rid of cash. This concept is not to replace cash and it hasn’t even been decided that we would do it. This would be a decision not for the Reserve Bank, but for, in fact, the Government, and it wouldn’t be replacing cash, so that’s very clear.

When I was talking about the value, I wasn’t talking about the value of the process. Is it gonna be more efficient? Is it worth doing, so I appreciate your answer and that quite clearly, that’s one valid interpretation of my question, but what I was getting at was, if someone’s got so much value in Australian dollars, how will that be converted into digital currency dollars or whatever the currency is? Will they still have that purchasing value?

Sure. So the way that most central banks are looking at this around the world is that the central bank itself won’t be providing people with digital money. It will work like cash does. So at the moment, if you want cash, you go to your ATM or your bank and you withdraw some cash from your bank account. A digital currency, if we had one, would work in a very similar way. You would go into your bank and your bank would have presumably a digital wallet, or you’d have a digital wallet, and you would take some money out of your bank account and you would put it into Central Bank Digital Currency, just like cash. So you can think about it in a very parallel way.

Yes, but if someone’s got $2,000 in cash today in their bank account, will that give them the equivalent purchasing power if there’s a conversion into digital currency?

Yes. Correct. It would be exactly the same as if it was a $100 bill or $100 on your mobile wallet.

Okay. Thank you. Now the BIS is involved. So, one specific case: our foreign exchange reserves are used to settle international transactions. These will now be replaced with the Reserve Bank Digital Dollars, if it goes ahead. Is the process to simply replace the US dollars we have in reserve with US Government-issued crypto dollars or a similar value-basis digital currency?

[Debelle And Bullock] No.

[Bullock] Do you wanna take this?

Straight to the chase: no, Senator, we would still continue to hold $USD reserves in the instruments we currently hold them at, which is primarily US Treasuries.

Okay. That’s pleasing to hear. What are the risks in doing this, for example, if this was handled badly, not necessarily from the Reserve Bank, but for the people you’re dealing with overseas, if the system wasn’t tight? What are the various risks that you can foresee that need to be managed?

This is why I think there’s a lot of water to flow under the bridge before any advanced economies really have launched into this. There are obviously cyber issues. You need to make sure that the system is secure. Overseas consultations demonstrate that people are very concerned about privacy, which is a very valid concern, but by the same token you’re also concerned about a use of digital currency for criminal purposes, so there’s a balance there. Another concern, that is one that most central banks identify, is concerns about the banking system and whether or not there might be a flight of deposits, if you like, to the Central Bank Digital Currency, which would have implications for banks’ balance sheets, potentially make it easy to run on banks, if people were concerned about banks, so there’s a whole lot of financial stability risks and issues associated with it. That’s just a sample of some of the issues that need to be considered if we were going to go in this direction and have some sort of what I would call “retail” Central Bank Digital Currency.

Thank you. Two more questions, Chair. Digital or cryptocurrency is not backed by any asset. It’s literally an exercise in trust that the government can protect the value of someone’s currency. Is this the time now to start talking about getting an asset backing behind this new currency, such as gold?

Senator, just like cash at the moment, it would be a feat currency, which is to say it isn’t backed by anything. And you’re right. It’s all about trust in the institutions of the country, in the government, in the Reserve Bank, so in that sense, it would be just like cash, if we were going down this route, it would be an unbacked currency.

But it’s backed by the government’s capacity to raise revenue from its citizens, basically.

Backed by the government’s capacity to raise revenue, did you say?

Yep.

Thank you. Last question. During COVID, there’s been a hell of a lot of money spent on non-productive outcomes. As much as food and rent can be considered non-productive, they’re essential, but they’re non-productive, the outcome of long-term borrowing for short-term gain is inflation. Is spending on productive capacity: roads, railways, bridges, dams and irrigation in this recovery phase, likely to produce a lower inflation outcome across forward estimates than continuing to spend on what can only be described as economic sherbet?

I don’t know, I mean, that’s an an interesting question, Senator. I mean, I’m not sure I would draw that distinction, I think food I would regard as a pretty productive and essential service, an essential thing for people to consume, so, I mean, we build roads for a purpose, not just because, which is to satisfy people wanting to use them, and the same with food and same with shelter, so not quite sure how we can draw such a clean line between what’s productive and unproductive.

Well, perhaps, well food is essential, as I said, perhaps spending on non-productive assets: entertainment, instead of travelling overseas, people are buying new cars, that kind of thing. What I’m talking about is spending on such items that may be essential, but not producing increased wealth, could lead to inflation. That’s the risk. On the other hand, spending on something that increases productive capacity, like a dam with irrigation systems to supply increased food productivity and lower the cost of food, leaves people better off and wealthier overall. That’s what I was getting at: a productive capacity, rather than just consumption.

There is a reasonable amount of dollars investment in infrastructure at the moment, that’s increased quite a bit, both from the Commonwealth and the State Governments, so that sort of spending is absolutely happening. Again, I’m still not quite sure I would draw such a clean distinction. In the end, people consume what they want to consume and I’m not sure it’s up to us too much to tell them what’s good and bad about that, within reason.

Well, that’s a wonderful statement to hear coming into my ears now. I love that, but yeah, sorry?

I said, “I thought you’d like that.”

So what we’ve got, though, is an acknowledgement that there is money being spent on infrastructure. You’ve answered my question. I just personally believe, Chair, that we need to spend more on improving our productive capacity. Thank you very much. Again, Chair, I’d like to put on record that the Reserve Bank always answers quickly, succinctly and factually. So thank you. It’s really appreciated.

[Chair] Dr Debelle, you’ve got a fan there.

[Roberts] Yep. He has.

[Debelle] Thank you.

/by

Coal LSL – Caught Out

,

After an independent report vindicated One Nation and casual coal miner’s accusations of unscrupulous malpractice, the pressure has been on the Coal Long Service Leave Scheme to give workers a fair go and on Government to clean up their agency. Coal LSL initially tried to refuse coming to Senate Estimates and over the course of many more sessions repeatedly denied anything was wrong. We now know that was a lie.

Transcript

Chair.

Okay, thank you. I will go to Senator Roberts.

Thank you chair, and thank you for attending again. And, my first question is going to the to the minister, and I note that the KPMG review of Coal LSL report came out today.

Yes.

I haven’t seen it, but it came out.

Yes, it’s out.

So we’re looking forward to reading that. Thank you very much for arranging that.

Thank you for working so constructively with government on it.

Well, it’s a big concern as you know, for us, the coal miners in Queensland and New South Wales. Now, I note that KPMG was engaged to undertake the review of Coal LSL, in relation to the underpayment and abuse of casual coal miners. KPMG has also conducted the audit of Coal LSL. Doesn’t that create a conflict of interest? And what did you do to manage this conflict? Because the audit could have influenced the review and the review could have influenced the audit.

Look, I don’t regard that as giving rise to a conflict of interest. There was no direct financial interest for KPMG to do anything other than act consistently, with its duties as an independent examiner there.

Senator, I’m aware there was an audit,

and commissioned by the corporations, it’s conducted by PWC.

During procurement processor. When we selected an independent review and a KPMG, we looked at any consultant and at the time with engaged to buy. The corporations may causing a perception of a conflict interest, we have exclude them. So at the time we engaged KPMG and the KPMG wasn’t working with the collective corporations or any other projects, but Miss Pearl Kumar may have given updates on. Are they been engaging KPMG on the consult?

You welcome, thank Senator. Thank you, Senator.

I can confirm that KPMG has not been engaged by Coal LSL to conduct any work. They’ve not been involved in our internal audit programmes. They’re not engaged by the ANAO to do our external audit. So, from, yeah, I think we’re confident to say that any conflict of interest certainly wouldn’t exist with KPMG conducting that work on us.

Now I’m going to leave out my second question because the report may, the review report may address that. So I’ll just go straight to my third. When will Coal LSL fix its broken system that disadvantages coal miners, casual coal miners everywhere? And when would you remove the biassed and conflicted members from the board, so workers get a fair go? I’m talking here specifically about what I see and what we’ve talked about for a long time now. The conflicts of interest with having significant, well 50/50 minerals council in New South Wales and CFMEU from New South Wales involved. When will that be addressed?

Senator Roberts, without wanting to spoil your reading, because you know, spoiler alerts are sometimes needed on these things. One of the recommendations in the report is that there’d be independent directors added to the board and the expectation that that would assist with dealing with the problem you raise.

Okay. Thank you. We’re pleased to hear that. Last question, Chair. The one key resources case where many casual coal miners missed out on their fair pay back pay conditions, seems to have been blatant phoenixing to us. Yet, this rip-off of workers was accepted by your government, the courts, labour and the CFMEU and Hunter Valley. More needs to be done to protect casual coal workers to get equal pay and entitlements and safety. One nation has proposed the equal pay for equal work bill to protect casual coal workers. What are you doing to make sure that this doesn’t happen again people have lost there.

The KPMG report and I’ll paraphrase somewhat here, acknowledges that there has been difficulties and confusion associated with a lack of clarity on what constitutes a black coal worker and also the changing environment and timetables on which people work. It plans out our ways in which that can be dealt with so that we don’t face that problem in future. It also provides some good recommendations for how to resolve those concerns as they have arisen in the past. I’m optimistic that as we implement the government’s response to those recommendations, we will have that in a more satisfactory place for everyone involved.

Because this is affecting tens of thousands of families who are significantly underpaid compared with permanent workers doing the same job. But it’s just one of a suite of issues. This is just, it’s very important to coal miners. And we’ve been relentless in this, and we’re pleased to see what you’re doing, but it’s a one tiny aspect of the bigger picture, which we can.

Look, I share your sincere concern for making sure that this works for everybody. And that’s why I’m really optimistic that what’s come to us through the KPMG report, and all the recommendations to government have been accepted, in, you know one form or another. And I’m really pleased to say that we’ll be working to do what’s necessary to make all of that much more functional for the future.

I look forward to reading the report and thank you chair.

Thank you, Senator Roberts.

/by

Government approach to Industrial Relations disastrous

,

Australians have had their workplaces wrecked by the Government’s COVID mismanagement. Casual Coal miners have also been let down for years. I asked the Attorney General about this and more at Senate Estimates.

Transcript

Thank you, chair. And thank you all for attending today.

Nice to see you again, Mr. Hehir, it’s always a pleasure. I mean that sincerely. Minister, I’ll just read 11 points from my additional comments to the job insecurity inquiry report. These are the things that we see in addition to exploitation of casual coal miners which we’re gonna have a further discussion about tomorrow.

[Michaelia] Yes, you and I, yes we are.

Yes. And which we’ve been trying to make progress for a couple of years now, in addition to the exploitation of casual coal minors, Australians are suffering right now from what I consider to be COVID mismanagement both federal and state, due to capricious lockdowns and mandates. People are uncertain. The second thing is the phasing out of the coal industry and jobs under the part under the policies of all four major parties, the erosion of people’s rights and freedoms, especially workplace rights and freedoms in this context. Increasing energy prices which are decimating manufacturing and hurting agriculture. The killing of manufacturing as a consequence. The lack of much needed tax reform. The lack of much needed economic reform. Increasing debt. Workplace health and safety systems being bypassed. Australia’s productive capacity being destroyed. And this is the one I want to ask questions about, the failure around industrial relations systems and more. There’s a lot that’s hanging over workers heads. And small business in particular.

Okay.

Would you agree? And I think the solution in many cases is to come back to the basics of employer-employee relationship, the fundamental workplace relationship. So with regard to the coal miners in Queensland and especially the Hunter Valley, we’ve seen workplace safety and health jeopardised, bypassed, people threatened with firing, being fired if they raise safety issues, made a submission to the Grosvenor mining inquiry. The issue of Simon Turner, no worker’s compensation, no accident pay for injury, sacked while being injured, injuries and incidents not being reported, pay rates for casuals being 40% less than people on permanent employed by the mine owner, right next to them doing the same job and the same roster. Coal LSL, which I commend you for the report that’s come down today.

Thank you. And I think they’re coming later on to-

Yeah, we’ll be there.

Yeah, no, that’s what I thought. Yeah, you’ll be asking the questions, yes.

Yes. As we have been in every session for the last two years. The loss of coal miners, basic leave and other entitlements and the threats of dismissal. So these remain outstanding and still to be addressed. And we’ll be talking more about that tomorrow.

Yes.

What I see, minister… I’ll let you finish.

[Michaelia] No, I’m just having a look at something you’ve written, just to make sure I’m all over it. Yep.

My question is basically the exploitation of casuals, is I believe a symptom of a highly complex, needlessly complex industrial relations system that is not serving workers, not serving small business, and not serving some employees, and families and workers are getting jammed in the middle.

[Man] Does the report correctly address?

We see large companies, multinationals in particular, using casuals to bypass industrial relations systems instead of sitting down and negotiating with their workers and with the union we just see a bypassing through casuals. So what I’m asking you is, is there any understanding in your department that the exploitation of casuals is a signal or a symptom of the fractures in the industrial relation system?

Okay, there was a lot of commentary there but what I might do is hand over to Mr. Hehir, who obviously has looked at the job security report, and get him to take that question.

Thank you, Senator, for the question. In terms of the the casuals, it’s probably just worthwhile clarifying. So where casuals are employed by the company themselves they are still subject to the same industrial instruments that the company has either negotiated or the Fair Work Commission has made. So in terms of where the company itself is the employer, there is the negotiation and discussion process that you talked around the company having with its employee, where there’s an EA, should have occurred. So certainly there should be clear processes within any enterprise agreement around how the various employees will be treated and what they’re entitled to. I think in part, you are referring to the combination of casuals and labour hire?

[Roberts] Yep, thank you for picking that up.

So that does make for a more complex situation recognising that labour high would regard as less than 2% of the workforce traditionally, but it is an important mechanism that is used by both host employers for short term work when they need it. And as part of when the need arises. So recognising that it’s an important and valuable part of the economy. It’s clear that when it leads to different rates of pay it does cause some level of confusion. In terms of-

And beyond that it causes some kind of angst as well, and is not very helpful for safety.

I accept that. And I know that there’s been a number of comments within the report itself around that broad issue. It’s certainly something that the department will look at very carefully. It has been raised both within the main body of the report, as well as within your comments, in terms of how does that work? The reality is The Fair Work Act and the framework upon which it sits was designed around an employer being the legal entity that actually employs the person rather than necessarily the location where they work. So that’s the nature. And the Fair Work Act is clear that we have minimum rates of pay. But what we actually wanna see is higher rates of pay than the minimum, being negotiated by employers and employees. So that’s, I think one of the very clear principles within the bargaining provisions within the Fair Work Act, that we actually want to do that. The only mechanism that… and the mechanism is focused on the individual businesses. And in this case where you’ve got two businesses working, or the employees of two businesses working in the one location. I agree that can cause angst and confusion but it’s certainly something that we need to have a look at in response to the work. And that’s something that we’ll provide advice to the government on once we’ve had the opportunity to finalise our analysis of the report. But I having said that, the very important focus within the Fair Work Act is that we do want people to bargain. We do want businesses and employees to get together and to think about how they can increase productivity and then share that productivity in the form of increased profits and in increase wages. So, and the clearest mechanism to do that we feel at this point is on an individual business basis.

Thank you. You gave us a comprehensive understanding of, and I know you’ve got that, of the casual work situation and the abuse of that. And I’m certainly validating that some casuals want casual work, and I’m not just talking about the coal industry here, but even in the coal industry some casuals do want casual work. They prefer to have that option but there has been some abuse of that. And I believe that the complexities of the industrial relations system in this country right now make it as such that some employers, rather than facing up to negotiation they will bypass that and establish a labour hire relationship. Some labour hire companies are good employers, some are not and some rely upon basically cutting wages so that they can make a profit by getting the margin and still leaving the business owner with superior profits. So that’s definitely a strategy that we can see. So my question that I don’t feel was answered was that do you consider that the complexities… And the Act is what, this high? 600 odd pages? the complexities of that Act lead to workers, small businesses in particular, and even some big businesses, not having clear understanding of the employer-employee relationship. And so we dive into all kinds of other arrangements.

Senator, the Fair Work Act is a substantial piece of legislation. It does have a number of parts. But we’ve certainly heard commentary in the past that it’s complex and difficult, and we acknowledge that commentary. At the same time, and we do understand the importance of this as well. There are important workers protection, in terms of the bargaining process and other things in terms of making sure that the bargaining is done fairly. And certainly there is some concern that those procedures inhibit the bargaining but they’re also really important in terms of the principle of making sure that the bargain is fair. So getting that balance right is something that we continue to think about. We as a department, we honestly really engage in the discussion around productivity growth. We think it’s a significant issue for Australia and large parts of the Western world that productivity growth is low. And we would certainly encourage parties to bargain. But the reality is that the Act is based on both providing the opportunity to bargain but also making sure that those bargains are fair. And I think that’s sometimes where we see the complaints about complexity always happy to have a look and say, how can we attain that fairness in a more simplified fashion? And that’s where we-

And Senator Roberts, I mean, you often come with the Fair Work Act and the various iterations of it in terms of just to demonstrate how big it is and how much both employers and employees have to navigate. Because it’s both parties understanding their rights and obligations. And certainly without a doubt, it is a complex Act. And it was one of the reasons, you and I discussed this. It was last year now, I think, the stimulation to the reforms to casual employment providing a definition, to provide clarity, as to what a casual is. Offering the ability to convert to permanent work, clarifying the Rossato decision, the devastating 39 billion impact on the double dipping and what that would’ve done to business. So I do agree with you and we certainly have been able to make some headway in relation to parts of it, but obviously the other parts of the omnibus bill didn’t get the support, but they are, I think, some concrete examples of where you can actually put in place. So for example, an actual definition, give the ability to convert, clean up a court decision and actually give certainty to employers. But I certainly acknowledge that this is something that you raise time and time again.

Yeah, and the fundamental-

Can I just check how long we have to go? I usually like to rotate the call every 15 minutes,

Another 10 minutes.

That’s absolutely fine.

What I’m getting at, minister, is that the fundamental problem is that despite the intentions of everyone involved the Fair Work Act, the previous work choices attempt the marren complexity, lack of understanding the fundamentals. And what’s happening with the Fair Work Act is that the workers and some small businesses and even some large employers are sidelined in favour of the industrial relations club. Lawyers, consultants, HR practitioners, large union bosses, large industry groups and the worker is sidelined. And so do you see any need then for restoring the primacy of the workplace relationship, the employer-employee relationship, and I know that the fair work Act, Mr. Hehir, does have protections in it, but when it’s so complex, the protections get lost. And so making it clear on workers’ rights, entitlements, protections, safety, which I know assist productivity. So instead of these things being bypassed they’re actually entrenched and allowing for flexibility because more and more workers today see alternative structures of work and work times in particular whether it be uni students or small businesses or casual coal miners, they want that.

And I think you make an important point in terms of the ability for, in particular employees, to choose the type of work that they want to want to undertake. And that is why you’ll never find the coalition government in any way, demonising casual employment as so often happens. And in particular, in this committee it is a valid form of work that so many choose. And when we can take you through the statistics in relation to casual employment. But also that landmark reform that we did pass in terms of that ability to actually convert should you wish subject to certain conditions. Again, it’s about giving both the employer and the worker, the employee, the choice to do that. Just in terms though of people actually understanding their rights, very important obligations, very important under the Fair Work Act. I think a lot of the work that The Fair Work Ombudsman does and in particular, that investment in its educative role is so important, working with small businesses, because there’s often the small businesses that don’t have that capacity to understand the Fair Work Act. And they’ll be on later on today, if you want to come back and ask them questions in terms of what is the educative role of The Fair Work Ombudsman.

We asked that at the last estimates.

We can get an update then of these estimates. But that’s a really good point because it’s not just about the Fair Work Act itself, as you’ve acknowledged, there are other ways and means, and one of them is ensuring that The Fair Work Ombudsman is able to get out there, talk to employees, talk to employers, and actually educate them on what their rights and responsibilities are.

I know that I’ve had a very positive response and fact agreement that David Newman from the CFMEU, Michael Raba from the CFMEU and from Queensland, from the Business Council, Australia, from Small Business Associations, that they’d be willing to sit down in a process to explore a much simpler and better and more effective industrial relations frame work. So I know an election is coming so I’m not expecting you to make any commitment and this is a touchy area but is there any appetite for that if it’s done properly?

Oh, well, I think when you look at the work that the coalition government has done you look at the omnibus bill that we brought forward. I mean, that was certainly done in a period of over 12 months, I believe. In terms of the consultations amongst different stakeholders. Unfortunately, when we brought it to the floor of the parliament, it wasn’t supported by the Australian Labor Party. But I think our appetite for making things simpler and in particular, as I said, the coalition reforms through casual employment and in particular cleaning up the issue of double dipping and the potential devastating impact of the $39 billion impost on business, I think does show a genuine commitment to working with all stakeholders to improve the system.

And with due respect, I just wanna finish with this point. I think that that casuals conversion was needed and essential. The shame was bogged down in so much misrepresentations by a lot of people, but quite frankly, I think that was tinkering and not reform. It was reform of casuals, but not reform of industrial relations.

[Michaelia] Understood.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, chair.

[Michaelia] A lot of .

I’d like to say one thing. As the minister indicated the casual amendments, the bill, that does introduce the national employment standards casual conversion and national employment standards. And does simplify assistance prior to that introduction into the NAS, you got a different conversions in the awards in the enterprise agreement, in the particularly black coal mining industries, there are confusion about whether the peoples are eligible for conversion or not. There are peoples who may not have a conversion, there was a gap. So by introducing it into the Fair Work Act as a national employment standards that provides a universal right to all the employees and in certain ways also simplified the systems.

And I accept that and appreciate what you said, Ms. Yang. The fact that the black coal mine award prevented, excluded casuals yet there was still casuals under various types of enterprise agreements, which were not, I don’t believe they complied with the law, indicates that the industrial relation system is a mess. But that’s why we supported the introduction of casual conversion because it does clarify things for people. But there’s a long, long way to go to fix this mess.

Yes, and the casual conversion does now apply to the people’s covered by the Black Coal Mining Award.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Senator Roberts

/1 Comment/by

Could perennial wheat be a 40% increase for graziers? Grains Research Development Corporation

,

Irrigators are heading north to escape nightmare restrictions in the Murray Darling Basin. Many are coming into the beautiful black soil plains of the Flinders river in North Queensland. At the moment this area is natural pasture covered with deep rooting grasses that support grazing.

While the soil supports broadacre crops, this introduces an erosion risk in the floodplain, and most of the black soil plains are flood plain. Replacing deep rooted grasses with deep rooted grains, to create mixed grain and grazing properties seems to make sense.

In 2008 the CSIRO released a paper which suggested making this change could provide a 40% increase in revenue per hectare. I asked what we were doing to look at these developments which could turn the North into a new foodbowl.

Transcript

I’m going to go to Senator Roberts for questions.

Thank you Chair. And thank you both for being here today. I’d like to commend your work on perennial wheat and preventing soil erosion. It’s something that we’ve only just become aware of and the Chair knows, from her experience in North Queensland, that this is very important to the Flinders area in particular, stopping the soil erosion up there when we convert to crops. I’d like you to talk about, I’ll give the the other senators some background so that it makes sense, I’d like you to talk about deep-rooted, perennial grains, please. A quick background: irrigators are heading North to escape the nightmare restrictions in the Murray-Darling basin. We’ve spoken with some of them in the Gulf. Many are coming into the beautiful black soil plains of the Flinders River in North Queensland. At the moment, this area is largely natural pasture covered with deep-rooting grasses that support grazing. While the soil supports wheat, cotton and other broadacre crops, this introduces an erosion problem in the flood plain, and most of the black soil plains are flood plain, and they get their rain in a short part of the year. Replacing deep-rooted grasses with deep-rooted grains to create mixed grain and grazing properties seems to make sense. In 2008, the CSIRO released a paper which suggested making this change could provide a 40% increase in revenue per hectare, so that would be phenomenal on top of the figures you’ve already stated. So I understand that the Grains Research and Development Corporation are working on perennial wheat. The Woodstock Research Centre near Charters Towers is, I understand, trialling perennial wheat. Can you please provide an update on the progress of perennial grain development as it would apply to Queensland cropping?

Thanks Senator, look, at this stage we obviously have a number of investments, certainly in Northern Australia and in the Northern region of the grains industry. Some of these are very highly adaptable to the new area that you’re talking about. Perennial grains is actually not an area that GRDC has been concentrating at depth in, in recent times. It is something that people are raising with us as being an opportunity to look at in that Northern or the Far Northern zone. And if it obviously falls into the remit of GRDC, which is amongst our 25 leviable crops, which obviously wheat is, we can certainly have a look at it. At this stage, we’re not doing a lot of work, there is some trial work, as you say, going on up there on a run, alternative and different crops. Some of them aren’t in our remit, but we’re certainly happy to look at what those opportunities are. And we’ve got some discrete initiatives up there at the moment to look at what could be possible. And we also have some very good rotations, agronomy solutions and husbandry opportunities with our traditional cropping programmes, bring rotations into the North that might be extremely beneficial, and also mitigate some of those issues that you’ve actually raised around erosion and accessing those unique opportunities in those deeper soils.

So, it looked as though the perennial wheat was first raised about 2011, I think, from the GRDC, and then we saw some more material, just in 2021, from an external body: the rising potential of Australian perennial wheat. And it really does seem amazing, because you increase the fodder for the cattle or the sheep, as well as reducing soil erosion. So the way I took the conclusion, from what you’re saying, is that you’ve done little work on that at the moment, is that right?

That’s right, Senator. I mean, there’s certainly obviously opportunity that we’re happy to look at, but perennial wheat in the North has not been deemed a priority by growers as part of our current RD&E plan, but, as I say, we are doing discrete work and we’re in consultations in the Far North about what could be possible. So, we have investments, as I say, up there and we’re consulting heavily with, particularly, growers on the ground and some of those other stakeholders that work in that region, such as QDAF, to see what other opportunities we could bring to bear and what research needs are required. And we’re at the table for that.

What are the obstacles at the moment to do more work on that?

Well, there’s probably minimal obstacles. We just need to make sure that we actually design whatever research may be required up there to bring to bear some opportunity. We need to make sure that we’re actually gonna meet the agro-ecological zone and also the climatic and soil conditions. I know that your report that you mentioned, that’s recently been done, they’ve identified an opportunity. We’re more than happy to look at that, in consultation with the players up there, and see what might be possible. Perennial grain, particularly in our traditional region, Senator, had not provided either short- or medium-term opportunity. We’ve been able to bring to bear far better outcomes with our husbandry and agronomy outcomes in our traditional grain-growing areas with our new rotations and the technologies that we bring to bear using annual, as opposed to perennials.

So, what I interpreted, Mr Woods, from your opening response to that second question is that you’re careful to not develop something that people are not interested in. Is that right?

We prefer not to have an unroadworthy vehicle before we start, Senator.

Okay. And Henry Ford said, when someone said, “Why are you building cars? There are no roads.” He said, “The roads will come.” And they did. So, it seems very exciting. And your main obstacle at the moment is the lack of market reception, or customer reception, is that it?

That is correct, Senator. There’s not a lot of acceptance or engagement or excitement with regards to perennials, in the grower spectrum, so I think there’s some work to be done.

Okay. That will do me. Thank you very much. I’d like to contact your agency if we could. Can we do that?

Very happy to, Senator. Thank you.

[Roberts] Thank you, Mr Metcalf. Thank you Mr Woods.

[Chair] Mr Woods, thank you.

/by

Government opening the door to China’s bullying in Antarctica

, , ,

Australia claims a very large part of Antarctica as our territory. Despite this, China is muscling in, refusing to sign treaties and building 5 research bases in the Australian Antarctic territory. To add to the worries, Australian Government has back-flipped on its plans to build a strategically important, all-weather runway at Davis research base.

This opens the door for China to do it instead, further eroding our claim to Antarctic territory.

The decision came from the minister for environment which begs the question, have we let China take a strategic win because we were a little bit worried about the penguin’s feelings?

Transcript

I think the last stretch.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here tonight. Minister Sussan Ley recently made a decision to not proceed with the building of an all-weather runway at Davis research base in Antarctica. What level of consultation did the Minister have with the Department of Defence and what advice was received prior to making such a decision, which many see as retrograde?

Senator, I can probably assist with that. That was a decision taken by the Government. There was extensive consultation with a range of departments and indeed I and Mr. Ellis personally, were in discussions with the Secretary and the CDF and others on that matter before it was considered by Government.

I understand Defence were pushing it.

I think the view taken by the Government was that the combination of the very significant environmental impact, the proceeding with the airstrip, would do together with the very sizable cost, ultimately meant that proceeding with a project that would not provide results for another 15 or 20 years was not viable. However, there are a whole range of other ways that we are very confident we’ll be able to ensure continuing and indeed expanded presence in Antarctica.

Was the Minister aware of the likelihood of China then building the strategically important runway, thereby enhancing its claim for a portion of the Australian Antarctic territory when the Australian Antarctic territory is renegotiated, or even sooner, because China is not a party to the Treaty?

A full range of geopolitical and other considerations were available to government in taking the decision, Senator.

Is the Minister aware that China has already built five research bases within the Australian Antarctic territory to enhance its future claim?

The answer is yes, we certainly are aware. I’ll let Mr. Ellis answer as to the number, but certainly we’re aware that China, and indeed a number of other countries, have established bases in the area claimed by Australia.

Does this mean that environmental issues, such as the comfort of penguins can be used to negotiate, to negate issues of national security to the detriment of all Australians? You mentioned that, you mentioned the 15 year time span for the return, I’ve just come from the Australian Rail Trade Corporation and they’re talking about a 30 year timeframe.

Some of these projects do involve a long period of time, Senator. But the answer is that we are very confident that the right decision was made, taking into account all of the factors and, as I’ve said, indicating that Australia’s is continuing presence. Our scientific research, our expeditionary exploration are second to none and we’ll continue over the decades ahead.

So is this yet another example of the short-term strategy visions that have dogged Australian antarctic policy, antarctic policy making us a pushover for the Chinese Communist Party?

I wouldn’t agree with the premise of any of that Senator, Australia very significantly ensures that we are a strong player in the international system that focuses on Antarctica, on CCAMLR and Australia, through investments, such as the Nuyina, which we’ve just been talking about at 1.8 billion dollar investment together with all of the other activities that Mr. Ellis and our hundreds of staff, both in Hobart and in Antarctica undertake, we believe that we are very much ensuring Australia’s interests are protected and advanced.

Perhaps a question to Senator Hume. The Chinese Communist Party just rolls over weak leaders. They see in Australia a country that is handed over its sovereignty to many UN agreements, destroying our energy, for example, our property rights, UN policies gutting our culture. These get no respect from the CCP and I think it makes us targets. So, was this the best decision to make at a time of heightened concern about the expansion as policies and aggression of the CCP? Especially as what they’re doing to us in trade.

I don’t necessarily agree with the premise of your question, Senator Roberts, but what I will say is that Australia in no way will be ceding any of our territory. The decision that was made was always gonna be contingent on a final investment decision next year and careful consideration of the environmental impact, economic investment and broader national interests. Australia feels that it’s particularly important that all nations place the Antarctic environment at the absolute centre of their decision making, and respect to the Treaty system. And the government is now considering further investments in our scientific research and environmental programmes in Antarctica. That include to continue to create jobs and investment for Tasmania, as the international gateway to East Antarctica.

Thank you, Chair.

[Attendant] Thank you very much.

/by