Government delays moving Defence data from CHINESE-OWNED company

, ,

Sensitive Defence information is still being held at data centers owned by Global Switch, a Chinese-owned multinational company, despite promises to have all government data migrated out by 2020. Regardless of the complexity of the move or data being “less sensitive”, this is an unacceptable situation. The Chinese Communist Party must be laughing at our Government.

Transcript

Okay, thank you. Getting onto storage of defence data, including critical secure data. In February, 2021, the Australian federal government renewed its contract with the firm Global Switch, despite serious security concerns. The company has hosted Australia’s sensitive and high security data for some time. Elegant Jubilee, a Chinese consortium, bought 49% of the parent British company Alders Gate Investments, causing an ownership change for Global Switch in 2016. Then treasurer Scott Morrison said in 2017 that the defence data would be shifted back to a government owned hub for security reasons. After he became prime minister, he later decided to extend their contracts with Global Switch. Does the firm Global Switch still host Australia’s sensitive and high security defence data?

Senator, Jeff Goedecke, First Assistant Secretary ICT Service Delivery and Reform. The Global Switch facility, which is completely controlled by the commonwealth, does hold some of the less sensitive data. There are as indicated in the release by secretary Moriarty in February last year, there are plans in place to migrate that data from Global Switch by 2025. This is in accordance with the whole of government hosting strategy.

So why was it decided to continue this arrangement, hosted ultimately with, with Chinese ownership?

It’s, it’s, it’s not Chinese ownership. As I said, the Commonwealth owns, has complete control of the facility, both from a physical perspective and from a, and a, a protection from a logical sense, from an ICT perspective and security perspective. The amount of equipment and data, and the complexity and interdependencies, necessitate a longer term to remove these things. There’s a, a great deal of reliance on defence business continuity, that requires a staged approach to remove this stuff. It basically, the complexity and size of the footprint, the payload inside the data centre, means it was impossible to, to move that over a very short period of time.

So when was the decision last made to, to leave it there, and eventually you take it off by 2025?

So, just bear with me, Senator

And Senator, Greg Moriarty, Secretary of the Department. All of, all of the highly sensitive information is, is long gone. So what, so-

What sort of information is there?

Well, this-

So we, so what happened was the government approved, back 2018 for defence to be funded to move what was sensitive data from the data centre out. That occurred by June, 2020. So that was all removed. Because of the size of the footprint of the remaining data, which is less sensitive data, again, still protected from a government perspective and government controlled. There was a, there is a process in place now where we are, have an evolution to move that data out. And that ties in with the additional lease, which expires in 2025.

So what is that less sensitive data?

It, it’s for a range, range of things. It could be administrative related. It could be some sort of logistic, but we wouldn’t normally discuss exactly what type of data we hold in what locations.

So there’s no risk whatsoever of the Chinese accessing it, ’cause they’re pretty good hackers.

There, there is no risk.

What, what, why can you be sure of that?

It’s, it’s based on the, the the facility itself has physical controls in place. That’s everything from, from it being a fully manned facility, it has all of the CCTV capabilities. It has, you know, alarms, it’s fully accredited. And in fact, the facility is accredited to look after more sensitive data. That hasn’t changed. So there’s a higher level of security than would normally be afforded that level of data, which is an important factor as well. In addition to that, we have ICT securities. So cybersecurity controls where we, we monitor that we have a, the defence security operations centre monitors cyber activity. And that includes that within the footprint as well. Gateway, secure gateways also assure the information. So from a defence perspective there aren’t risks related to that, Senator.

Has it been tested at all? ‘Cause the Chinese, some Chinese are very good hackers. I’m sure you know that.

Absolutely. So there are, defence has no indications at all that there’s been any compromise at all related to data held in that facility.

So it’s not a case then of the, the Fox looking after the hen house?

Not at all.

Okay.

No, but, and, and just to make sure that, I mean, that, that is why the government has, has directed defence to move all of the data by a particular point in time. Senator, we believe that the mitigation strategy that we have in place is very robust for the, for that level in, in fact, as Mr. Goedecke said, it’s, it’s much more significant wraparound than what normal data of that level would be. But we are moving out. We are, we are gonna remove absolutely any risk by, by removing ourselves from that, from that data centre. And the government has, has agreed the timeline.

Thank you. And thank you, too.

Additional Information

https://www.itnews.com.au/news/defence-delays-global-switch-data-centre-exit-by-up-to-five-years-560042

https://www.afr.com/companies/telecommunications/federal-bodies-struggle-to-exit-chinese-owned-data-centre-20200304-p546p5

/by

How is the Digital Transformation Agency going to handle the Digital Identity Bill?

, , ,

The Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) is meant to be the Government’s shining beacon of making things better with technology.

Instead, they have a long list of failures, from paying google to harvest government data, to abandoning cloud storage projects and dumping possibly sensitive source code into the public domain.

You have to ask, if the DTA is meant to be the Government’s leading technology agency but has such a dismal record, what hope do they have of implementing the infamous Digital Identity Bill?

Transcript

[Fechner] I’m happy. No opening statement. Thank you.

All good. Thank you. Senator Roberts, you have the call until 11:00 PM.

[Roberts] Thank you, Chair.

And then I’ll cut you off.

The Digital Transformation Agency has concluded an enterprise deal with Google in respect of Google Analytics 360. The Digital Transformation Agency charges Australian government agency websites for their Google data, which I assume is a cost-recovery exercise. How much are you paying Google for this service? Either 2021 actual or 2022 projected, please.

Thank you for the question, Senator. So the Google Analytics service is actually put in place to ensure that we actually have good information on the utilisation and feedback of government services, so it provides for the continuous improvement of our government activities. I will need to –

[Roberts] So what does it cost?

So we have our Head of Procurement here, Michelle Tuck. Can we take that number to find out what the actual costs are for Google Analytics?

[Tuck] Take it on notice?

Take it on notice.

[Roberts] Thank you. Google can obviously see all the data that you can see. After all, they just sell it back to you. On a normal private website, Google would be able to see identifying information for the website, visitor or entity, being IP address, device identification, sign-in If they are logged into Chrome, etc. Google would then store that data in the data file they already maintain for that entity. Google’s data file does not include names, but it does include locality, age, gender, employment, purchases, interests, travel, search and web history, and much, much more. Are Google adding data about private citizens who use a government website to Google’s own data records?

Senator, I’m happy to seek advice on that, but the actions of Google and those particular activities would be a subject to Google and any prevailing laws.

So, it’s quite easy for them to harvest the data because nothing precludes them from doing so?

Senator, there are aspects of data, so the DTA generally refers to the digital components of these. There are some specific data areas and they’re subject to PM&C, so potentially that question could be referred to PM&C.

Are we able to get them on notice from you?

If it’s an issue for PM&C, Senator, I’d say it would have to go on notice for them.

Thank you. Now let’s change topics to the Federal Government’s style guide. This will interest the chair. Recently the Senate rejected the use of gendered language and sent the style guide back for review. Who instructed the Digital Transformation Agency to de-gender language in the style guide?

Senator, the style guides have actually moved to be the responsibility of the Australian Public Service Commission. You need to refer those questions about the use of the style guide to them.

Thank you. So I’d have to ask them for a hard copy of it?

They’re responsible for the management of the style guides.

Okay. So let’s turn to cloud.gov.au. This was an attempt, as I understand it, to create a single standard for cloud storage of data, including websites across the whole of federal government. Did I get that right?

That was the original intention.

Okay. Original. Okay. This project was shut in 2021. And the source code for this web standard was put into GitHub, which as I understand it is a repository for code, freely accessible, where anyone can download it. Could a hacker learn anything about what could be in use in federal government websites and data servers, based on the information that they can freely obtain and contained in the GitHub files?

So Senator, the purpose of cloud.gov.au was to produce a safe and secure, and freely available to government entities, access to cloud services environments. As that capability has progressed, it was clear that the market was able to provide those services and the intent behind the security has been largely replaced with other components that we have, such as the hosting certification framework, which accredits cloud service providers to make sure that the controls that are in place for those services sit with government, so we have protections about where that data is stored, how does is transit and who has access to it. So cloud.gov.au became redundant from that purpose.

Yeah, I understand that, but apparently the source code for the web standard was put into GitHub where anybody can access it.

Senator, it’s my understanding right now that the services that are used, or used in that function, are all being decommissioned or moved onto alternative platforms.

[Roberts] But they’re already there on GitHub, which anyone can access.

Senator, GitHub is a repository for code services. It’s not necessarily the code service itself. It’s separate. It is actually the description of the language, and if it’s going into those GitHub repositories and it’s open source, meaning it’s freely available, it really is in public domain. Much of GitHub is actually contributed to by other parties other than government and it becomes a community of development services.

So why was this project cancelled?

Simply because of the transition to highly available public cloud services, the high security associated with those things, and the addition of additional controls, such as the hosting certification framework that added specific controls to make sure that government was clear where government data was stored, how it was actually moved, and where that data was being managed by others, including third parties, that it was safe and secure in those locations.

How much did this undelivered project cost across the project life or the arc, I think you call it, from January, 2018 to September, 2021?

Senator, I can take that on notice. So I commenced on October 13th, so it’s a bit before my time for those specifics.

Okay. So, okay, you and I are both scared of the wrath of the Chairman, so we’ll move on. This is not the only terminal outcome of one of Digital Transformation Agency’s programmes. May I reference the whole-of-government platform’s programme, which was retired. Once again, the source code for the six different projects under this programme was put into GitHub for anyone to download, but you’ve explained that. So my question is the same as before. No, you’ve explained that, that doesn’t matter. What was the cost of the whole-of-government platforms programme across its project arc, or life?

Senator, can I take that on notice again?

[Chair] Last question.

[Roberts] We’re getting there, Chair. [Chair] Last Question.

Okay. myGov is a joint venture between Services Australia and the Digital Transformation Agency. The app is proving problematic at best with a rating of 2.4 out of 5, which is on this graph here, so being less than half, that’s a fail by my understanding. We can see a pattern emerging here. Any attempt to modernise and standardise federal government data formats, storage and handling runs into apparently turf wars and gets terminated. Now we have the Digital Identity, and I’m leading into the question, Chair, now we have the Digital Identity, another of the Digital Transformation Agency’s projects, which will be part of life for every Australian. And in many ways it will enable control of many Australians in their lives. So a rating of 2.4 won’t cut it. How long will it take the Digital Transformation Agency to put in place the framework necessary for the Digital Identity to function at 5, not 2.4? How much will that cost, and what are your chances of success?

Senator, I think I’d like to seek a clarification on that. myGov does not currently have an app that’s in the public domain. They’re currently in a private beta for it. There is no myGov app that’s currently available.

Okay. So come to the question, then, there’s a history of failures going on in this area, digital transformation, how long will it take the Digital Transformation Agency to put in place the framework necessary for the Digital Identity to function at a rating of 5 out of 5? How much will that cost, and what are your chances of success?

So Senator, just again, to clarify, the App Store ratings generally rate the particular functions in there. So the Digital Identity is a framework and it allows multiple providers to go through. Part of that framework allows for the government to have a digital identity, and that’s the myGov ID as it currently stands. There is an app associated with that, and that app is simply about ensuring that people can enrol a Digital Identity for the government. Its actual main purpose is to provide access to safe, secure services through government via that identity in place of providing other digital credentials. So, yes, part of the aspect, but also the stepping up of credentials as well, that sits in that space, Senator.

[Roberts] Thank you, Chair.

/by

ASIO confirms anti-mandate protesters not violent extremists

, ,

The mainstream media tries to falsely paint anti-mandate protesters as extremists. Its the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation’s job to monitor people who are actually violent extremists. They told me what we already know. Protest and political dissent against mandates is completely lawful and it is only a small fringe element who take advantage of the whole group to push violence. The overwhelming majority of anti-mandate protesters are law-abiding peaceful people.

Transcript

Thank you very much Senator Keneally. Senator Roberts.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you all for appearing today. Recent public statements from you indicate ongoing issues of interference by foreign nationals in Australia, including attempts to influence the electoral process. Is this considered to be an ongoing threat from that identified foreign power?

As I said, in my threat assessment centre there are multiple countries. So this threat is real. It happens at all levels of government, local, state and federal. And that threat continues. In fact, espionage and foreign interference is now supplanted terrorism as our country’s principle security concern. And that’s not to take away from the terrorism threat.

Are the identified risks. Well, you just told us they’re serious, very serious.

They are.

Right throughout all levels. From your public, changing the topic slightly. From your public statements, why are so many everyday Australians opposed to mandated COVID-19 vaccinations? They’re opposed to the mandating, not to the vaccinations necessarily. Why are they being monitored?

Well, that’s not my remit. That’s nothing to do with me in terms of whether people are opposed to mandates or want to get vaccinated. That’s not a violent extremism problem that doesn’t fit within my head security. So we don’t monitor or follow those people. If those people also happen to be violent extremists promoting communal violence or politically motivated violence then they would get my full attention. But if they’re not in that category as I said in my speech last week,

“The vast majority of these protestors we’re seeing at the moment are not violent and they’re not violent extremists.”

Mike Burgess, Director General of Security Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Senate Estimates 14 February 2022

That’s very pleasing to hear that confirms pretty much exactly what the AFP commissioner said just an hour or so ago. But the press has perhaps taken a slant on that. So thank you for clarifying that. And having been at the protests on Saturday, people are just excellent. Why would you consider? Okay. You’ve eliminated that. You said in your recent security annual threat assessment that you do not have a problem with people holding opinions. And would only intervene when these opinions involve promoting violence. You’ve just confirmed that again. What evidence links everyday Australians exercising their right to peaceful protests to being considered domestic terror extremists? I take it that’s a media exaggeration.

Well no, in terms of protest protests, its lawful public dissent is totally appropriate and right for people to do, but actually if people are preparing for or advocating acts of violence then they do fall into my agency’s remit and we will watch them carefully to understand what they’re up to and with our police partners work to stop them from harming Australians.

Yeah. There is a small element just about every group who takes advantage of the group.

There certainly is.

Thank you. No, I don’t need to answer… ask the seventh question. Everything’s covered. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.

/1 Comment/by

Who profits from Inland Rail’s half billion dollar property purchases?

,

The Australian Rail Track Corporation is projected to spend $494 million dollars on acquiring property for the proposed Inland Rail route. Despite rumors of certain people buying land on the route prior to the purchases, the government refuses to release who they are acquiring the properties from with nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayer money.

Transcript

Happens when you don’t think it through. Thank you, Senator Roberts over to you.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you all for appearing tonight. What is the current budget for property purchases for the Inland Rail project?

It’s $494 million.

494 million, thank you. In the last estimates, I asked Infrastructure Australia a simple question. Who owns the land being purchased by Inland Rail? And I received this response on notice. Quote, the full cost of the property acquired for the Inland Rail project will not be known until all 13 sections of the project are completed. The cost will eventually come out. That’s the end of the quote. Cost will eventually come out, but apparently ownership will not. Firstly, when is Inland Rail scheduled for completion?

Current schedule of completion in late 2026.

[Malcolm] 20.

2026.

2026, thank you. My office is aware of reports as to who bought land prior to the announcement of the Inland Rail alignment, which we of course pay no heed to. So is it the position of the Minister that the public will never be told who owned the land the Australian taxpayers just spent 494, or will spend $494 million buying, and that we’ll have to wait until 2026 or later to find out how much we paid for it?

Yeah, I think per that previous answer, it would not be our intent to disclose the information about individual landowners.

So the taxpayers are paying for something but won’t receive any any accountability for it until another four years, if it’s finished on time? So we can’t find out as representatives of the taxpayers. Okay, let’s move on. In 2010, the ARTC stated Inland Rail would not be cost effective if completed in 2021, but may provide a positive net value by 2035 against a projected cost of $9 billion if rail freight demand increased. In the 2015 business case briefing paper two, the ARTC found $16 billion in GDP increase over the first 50 years. The project tonight I understand we were told is now stated to have a total cost of $14.5 billion, with solid third party, independent assessments, at over $20 billion, some well over $20 billion. When was the last time the cost benefit of Inland Rail was calculated in terms of net present value? And specifically, what was the total financial benefit to the taxpayers over the payback period? And what is the payback period, and what project cost did you do the sums on?

Do you want to give business case?

Do you want me to take?

Yeah.

Yeah, okay. So since back in 2020 when the increased equity was provided, there was an update to the economic benefits. So there was a revised assessment that came out with a net $18 billion economic benefit over that same period, 50 years, that you mentioned. And in that sort of same timeframe, the Commonwealth Government also did some further studies that looked at some of the economic benefits that would be capitalised, not just from that $18 billion which is really associated with efficiency improvements in the supply chain, but then a further $13.3 billion that was found to be catalysed by the stimulation of further regional economic industry and development. So that was probably the the latest updates in that regard that were undertaken.

And perhaps I can just add the comment that we haven’t seen the full business case. Much of it has been redacted from memory. And the assumptions, in particular, just slight changes in the assumptions can dramatically affect the business case and all the claimed economic benefits. And we’re kept in the dark about some of the assumptions. So I’ll go on to the next question. The Inland Rail business case relies on a series of calculations about transit times, intermodal delays, train speed, track wear, projected freight volumes and revenue, route reliability, amongst many others. By way of example, the share of freight Inland Rail will attract supposedly on the Melbourne to Brisbane route will go from 26% currently to 62% by 2050. And that’s one of the massive assumptions. And these assumptions, models, and calculations are said to be commercially sensitive. So, as I’ve said a minute ago, they’ve not been made public and will not be made public. Is that a correct statement?

It’s exclusive.

Look Senator, the business case for Inland Rail was produced in 2015, which was the last one. Simon, do you want to make?

Yeah, it was certainly public. And I’m not sure exactly what assumption you’re looking at, Senator. It’s not-

Well, I’ll read them again. The transit times, intermodal delays, train speed, track wear, projected freight volumes and revenue, route reliability, amongst other things. And some of the reports that were submitted or made by some of the big four accounting firms or management consulting firms, they’re not available. And we understand that two reports contradict each other.

So Senator, the information that you went through is available. We can certainly, we could talk through it tonight or we could certainly come back to you outside of the session with that information.

We’d appreciate you coming back, that would be great.

Yeah, absolutely. I’m only aware of one. Sorry, I’m aware of one macroeconomic report to do with the assumptions around the GDP and also the market share figures, which was undertaken by the PWC Deloitte. EY undertook a more specific reasonable analysis. We’re not aware that they contradict. They were looking at quite different elements of the benefit streams of the programme.

Well, perhaps we could show you what we mean by that with the reports and with some documents, and you could at the same time as you can come back with your assessment. And we’re happy to arrange that with our office.

[Simon] And we’d been more than happy to do that, Senator.

Thank you very much. Minister, why is this project proceeding when the taxpayers are most likely to lose tens of billions of dollars if the taxpayers are not benefiting qui bono? So who is?

Well, I think based on the answers you’ve received and some of those things that’ll be taken on notice and subject to further conversations between you and the officers from ARTC, I think some of the assumptions underlying your questions may still be in contention. But obviously, the principle is that it’s a project worth backing and the government remains willing to do that for the good of the country. But obviously, further detail required to satisfy the questions you’ve asked so far. And hopefully the officers will give you the answers you’re after.

Okay, Chair, I’d just like to ask two questions, following up on what you asked. Thank you. The preferred alignment from the ARTC 2010 Melbourne-Brisbane alignment study became the final alignment in the 2015 programme business case. Is there any significant change between those two alignments? Because on a map they look the same.

The short answer is yes, that there were some minor adjustments. Off the top of my head, I’m probably couldn’t navigate through all of those. But the Inland Rail, route history document, does detail those and gives a lot of further detail. We can come back with some more if you need.

That’s on the website.

Yeah, that’s on the Inland Rail, the ARTC website, yep.

Okay, thank you. Last question to you. And this may be touching on something that Senator Van asked about. In the last estimates, I asked Major Transport and Infrastructure Projects about Inland Rail environmental impact assessments. And Ms. Hall, the First Assistant Secretary replied, the route has actually been set. This is a quote. The route has actually been set. The purpose of the environmental assessment processes are to give confidence to the communities that the environment is protected. So environmental impact assessments are still underway, and yet the route is set. Is it a statement of fact that the final Inland Rail route was decided before the environmental assessment of that route had even been started? So are you backfilling the project? Backfilling the EIS’s?

Senator, I think you’re referring to me. The route has been set. The purpose, as we’ve just discussed before, Minister, Mr. Helena has said is that an EIS process is designed to give assurance to the community, give assurance to the regulatory requirements. A coordinator general, for example, in regards to Queensland will set the conditions by which that piece of infrastructure needs to be built. So that is the purpose of an EIS process.

[Malcolm] Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

/by

Bureau of Meteorology: Report doesn’t link humans and climate change

, ,

Whenever I ask politicians to prove climate change is real and caused by humans they always point to the Bureau of Meteorology report, State of the Climate. But the report only publishes temperatures and observations, it doesn’t link any changes with carbon dioxide created by humans.

BOM admits in this questioning that the report itself simply confirms that the climate is variable without attributing a cause for it. If this is the case, why do politicians and so-called experts keep claiming this report proves carbon dioxide from humans is a danger and must be cut?

Transcript

[Metcalf] Senator Roberts.

Thank you, Mr. Metcalf and Dr Johnson and Dr Stone for being here tonight with us. My questions are fairly simple and they go to one of your documents that you’ve produced jointly with the CSIRO, namely, the State of the Climate reports that come out every two years. What is the purpose of these reports?

As I say, Senator, that report comes out every two years. It’s something we’ve been doing with CSIRO for many years now. The genesis behind both agencies for coming together to produce the report is to provide an authoritative summation of the state of Australia’s climate from arguably the two most trusted sources of scientific knowledge on our climate, so the purpose is really to provide the most up-to-date and trusted reporting of the various parameters that contribute to Australia’s climate.

Thank you. The reports confirm that climate varies naturally, or at least that’s my conclusion. Is my conclusion valid?

I think there’s a lot of variability in the world’s climate Senator.

Thank you, yet the document seems to be written, Dr Johnson, in a way that subtly and implicitly reinforces the notion that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. Now I see no empirical scientific data within a logical scientific framework proving cause and effect within the State Of The Climate reports. What are you doing to stop people drawing that misleading conclusion from your report?

Well, Senator,

I think it’s important for the record to note that none of the State of the Climate reports in any way whatsoever make statements with respect to global emissions.

Dr Johnson, Bureau of Meteorology at Senate Estimates 16 February 2022

They merely report on the state of various climate and ocean parameters over time. So, if you look at the reports, and I know you get a copy of them, they chart a trajectory around a range of parameters: temperature, rainfall, so on and so forth, sea level, ocean temperatures, and so on, over time, and they show, quite clearly, that on all of those parameters, or most of those parameters, the trend is increasing, so whether it’s temperature or sea level rise or air temperature, ocean temperature, and so on and so forth, it does show for a number of parameters that there’s quite a degree of variability across geography, for example, around tropical cyclones, rainfall and so on, so it merely reports what we’re observing, Senator. And I think it’s very well established now, and I think this is the view of the Bureau, or at least they strongly agree with us, that the cause for that increase in temperatures is absolutely, or predominantly, due to the activities of human beings. I think that’s well established, Senator, and it’s not for argument.

So there’s nothing in the report, I’m sorry I cut you off.

[Dr Johnson] No, no, I was finished.

Okay. Thank you. So there’s nothing in the State of the Climate reports that proves that, but you rely on other documents and other work to prove that connection between human activity?

[Dr Johnson] Clarify, prove what?

Proof that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and needs to be cut. So that is not the purpose of the State of the Climate reports?

Well, no, it isn’t the purpose, but the State of the Climate reports clearly show the trajectory of CO2 in the atmosphere for many, many years, well over a hundred years, I think it’s a very well established fact, Senator, that the predominant cause, not the only cause, but the predominant cause, of that warming trend is human activity.

Well, yeah, I’m not asking about that, you have that view, but I’m asking whether the State of the Climate reports actually show that: scientifically prove that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut?

Well, I’ve got the report in front of me. I don’t believe there’s a section in there that, well, that’s right, it’s not the purpose of the report.

[Roberts] Thank you.

The purpose of the report is to report on observations that we are taking on or around a range of parameters in Australia’s climate. That’s all it does.

Thank you very much for clarifying that. That’s fine. When I asked for empirical scientific evidence proving, proving, that carbon dioxide from human activity poses a danger and needs to be cut. ill-informed MPs refer solely to these documents on occasions, as do some ill-informed media journalists and citizens. Is it the intention of the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO for the document to do that implicitly, even though that’s, Dr Stone just said, that’s not the purpose of the document?

I’m just wondering whether you can clarify what your question is, Senator. I think we’ve made it really clear what the purpose of the document is: it’s to provide a synthesis of our observations of Australia’s climate and oceans. How others choose to interpret it’s up to them, but the report is very clear, it lays it out very clearly and has done it pretty much in the same way for the best part of a decade.

I accept that. You’ve repeated that three times now. Thank you for that clarity. I’d like to know about the intention behind the wording, because so many people misleadingly come to the conclusion that the State of the Climate reports prove that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. Is the wording deliberately misleading or is that just their lack of scientific understanding?

Well, I can’t speak on behalf of others. I can only speak on behalf of us, which is the wording is, I think, crystal clear and great effort has gone into making sure the wording is clear. It’s simple to understand in its reporting of the observations that we’re making. It does nothing more and nothing less than that.

[Roberts] I agree with you and –

How others choose to interpret it, Senator, is for them, but I think you read the report, it makes it very clear what we’re reporting on, and I think right up the very front of the report, if I’m correct, it makes it very clear what the report isn’t.

[Roberts] Can I just ask?

Did you want more?

No, no, no, that’s fine, actually. I don’t need to ask that question. Thank you very much, Dr. Johnson, much appreciated.

/by

Pilots and COVID Vaccines

, ,

Pilots are restricted from flight 24 hours after any vaccine. I want to know if there has been any occasions where an air safety incident has been reported connected to a vaccine adverse event.

Transcript

Terrific, thank you. Senator Roberts has some questions.

[Roberts] Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing here tonight. For the period, 1st of July, 2020, to the current date, could you please provide on notice a report detailing all aviation safety incidents, where COVID and or a COVID vaccination is mentioned as a contributing factor?

We would have to take that on notice, senator.

[Roberts] Of course. Yeah. Secondly, are there practises in place to ensure that air crew do not fly immediately after a COVID vaccination or booster? And if so, what are they, and why were they determined to be necessary?

Senator, I’m not aware of any restrictions.

[Man] Senator Andrea is much the acting executive. Take that off. Lot easier. Andrea’s, much the acting executive manager for the stakeholder engagement division and aviation medicine sits within that portfolio. The way we treat vaccination for COVID is the same as any other vaccination. So it’s got a 24 hour exclusion period after you vaccinated.

[Roberts] Thank you. Thirdly, we’re informed that there was an incident where the crew were informed by flight crew, where there was an incident where the crew of a commercial aircraft turned off fuel to both engines during flight. We’re informed that a potential factor in this incident was COVID vaccination. You know, brain fog that sometimes comes. Please provide, can you please provide full details of any incident resembling this description and provide full details of the investigation report and recommendations on notice.

And that one might actually be better directed at the Australian transport safety bureau as well, but we’ll see what we can find at our end as well.

[Roberts] Have there been any similar incidents where the reported cause was a TIA, or a transient ischemic attack, a minor stroke?

Senator, we haven’t had any incidents reported to us of that nature at all, in relation to COVID vaccination. We’ll check on notice but to my knowledge, we’ve had no incidents reported to us.

[Roberts] How long after having had a COVID 19 or a COVID 19 vaccine are air crew allowed to pilot a commercial aircraft? I’d take it 24 hours after vaccine, what about after COVID?

So after COVID, it’s treated in the same way as any illnesses. So it’s up to the pilot to assess whether they’re impaired or not. And if the impairment goes for more than seven days then they’re required to see a medical examiner to clear them back to line and that’s that’s standard for any kind of illness.

[Roberts] Thank you, I appreciate your direct answers. That’s it, Chair.

/1 Comment/by

Did the police use Long Range Acoustic Devices at the Convoy to Canberra?

, ,

There has been many attempts to paint anti-mandate protesters as extremists. It’s not true and even the Federal Police have said so. At the protest some people were concerned about the appearance of possible Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD) and whether they were used or not. We didn’t get an answer back straight away but the police will have to give me an answer on notice.

Transcript

[Senator Keneally] Yeah, at this point.

[Speaker] Thanks Senator Keneally. I ask Senator Roberts, who’s just got a couple of minutes of questions.

Thank you. And Mr Kershaw is it?

[Kershaw] Kershaw, yeah.

Thank you all for appearing today, and before I ask my questions, I just want to thank you for the work you do and your AFP and work. And also the liaison with the State Police in Queensland and the ACT. I was at the protest; very proud of the behaviour of the people and so pleased that, and I agree with you, those groups were infiltrated by a couple of people, and that’s very small, so I appreciate that. Quickly, these questions are coming from a constituent: In relation to the Convoy to Canberra protest activity at Parliament House just last weekend, pictures of the day appear to show some types of devices at the front of Parliament House in between the entry to Parliament and Parliament lawns where the protest was in fact occurring. Can you confirm whether the AFP had long-range acoustic devices at Parliament House on Saturday?

That would be something that is our police methodology, which we would have to look at some sort of public interest immunity claim, Senator.

Is there any, surely it’s in the public interest to know whether or not they were there, without delving too much into it?

If I could take that on notice, I’d have to get advice.

Okay. I’d be happy. I understand. I’d be happy for that. And also, if you could tell us what type they were, please.

Sure.

And can you confirm whether or not they were used at any point?

Sure.

Thank you very much. And thank you, Chair.

/6 Comments/by

Un-Vaccinated restricted from citizenship ceremonies

,

The Government claims the un-vaccinated are allowed to attend citizenship ceremonies. Despite this, constituent after constituent has written to me saying that they have been turned away from citizenship ceremonies because of their jab status.

Not being able to attend these ceremonies can put your entire citizenship application down the drain. The Government is in effect saying that if you aren’t vaccinated, we don’t want you as a citizen.

Transcript

Senator Roberts.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for being here today. My questions are fairly straightforward and they’ll be fairly quick. Are staff of your department telling people they must be vaccinated in order to attend citizenship ceremonies in Queensland?

There are state orders that are applicable. I’ll ask Mr. Kefford, who administers our citizenship programme, to come forward.

Thank you.

It’ll be a function of what the state public health orders are. And you’re interested in the state of Queensland-

Yes, I am.

Particularly? State of Queensland, Mr. Kefford.

Thank you, Senator, the conduct of citizenship ceremonies, we rely significantly on local councils around the country. And as the secretary’s indicated, this department doesn’t impose conditions relating to public health on the attendants or not at those functions. So, for example, the Australia Day ceremony here, the guests were required to comply with the ACT’s rules, their being the representative local council for that purpose.

Do we provide advice to that effect? In other words, I think the senator’s question is what the department is advising.

The department’s advice is that the ceremony needs to be conducted in accordance with the code, the ceremony’s code, but the public health arrangements are a matter for the states and the local council.

Thank you for that. And thank you, Mr. Pezzullo. That’s exactly what I’m after. I’m told by some constituents in Queensland that this has happened to them. They’ve been told by your department that they must be vaccinated in order to attend the citizenship ceremonies in Queensland.

Well, Senator, I’d prefer to receive more precise information as to the circumstances.

Well, my understand is that it’s the same as you just said.

So if my departmental offices, as they properly should, are advising attendees to conform with applicable state… Well, state or territory, in this case state, public health orders, then that’s appropriate, but as Mr. Kefford said, we don’t have a separate vaccination policy or vaccination mandate that we apply to ceremonies. It’s a function of what the state orders are.

So Mr. Pezzullo, understand, there’s an anxiety that’s being caused because the federal agency is telling the people that the Queensland agency requires double vaccinated when it doesn’t. The Queensland COVID requirements for citizenship ceremonies are not a function of vaccination to attend. They basically exclude citizenship ceremonies and any… Yeah, any citizenship ceremonies.

Well, we’ll take on notice on whether we are misinterpreting or misconstruing the Queensland public health orders, but I can assure you there’s no such thing as a Department of Home Affairs public health order.

No, no, I’m not implying that. I’m saying that your staff apparently are telling some of our citizens in Queensland that they must be double vaccinated rather than saying they must comply with the state government’s health orders.

Mr. Kefford, without any particulars from the Senator, can we shed any further light on this matter?

No, Secretary, my understanding is our approach has been to say you will be required to comply with the local health requirements and nothing further.

[Roberts] Okay. Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

APRA dangerously quiet on house prices

, ,

House prices are skyrocketing out of the average battler’s budget. Despite warnings of a possible housing bubble, APRA is banking on the banks only losing 2% from their mortgage books in their “stress testing”. This threshold sounds very favourable to the banks and allows them to get greedy at the possible expense of Australian homeowners.

Transcript

Stress testing banks during COVID-19 dated 15th of December, 2020. I have a question about one of the criteria APRA uses to stress test a bank, and that is a fall in real estate prices or to use a simple explanation, the ability of a bank to maintain liquidity during a real estate meltdown. Can I say it like that?

Well, I think Senator, it’s more a question of whether they can sustain their solvency, which for us it’s more of an issue of a capital, but liquidity is an important consideration as well.

Thank you. From the report, the figure APRA used as a proxy for a real estate meltdown was the loss of $49 billion in residential mortgages over three years. Is that correct?

That sounds about right, I think Senator. I don’t have the document in front of me, but-

That’s what I’m reading. Thank you. And with that loss being 30% of the total bank loss in the period of the stress test, as a loss rate, this would translate into 2% of Australian banks residential mortgage loan book. Is this correct? And please confirm your figure for the value of residential mortgages held by Australian banks. What is it?

Oh, well I think the, now I think the, if we’ve published that number, Senator, I’m quite comfortable to correct, total mortgages the banking system would be-

In the term of residential mortgages.

Yeah. Sorry. Total residential mortgages. Housing loams We’re talking about here. Owner-occupiers and investors would be, it’s in the order of a trillion dollars, I think Senator that’s something that we can come back to you on.

Thank you for that.

Very happy to take it on notice.

Okay. Thank you. Final question on this topic before moving onto a simple topic, can I confirm that APRA is projecting a real estate meltdown would only cost our banks $49 billion in losses on mortgages, and that loss would accrue over three years? That seems to be a very favourable assumption for the banks.

Well, that’s the, that’s the impact that we expect to have on the bank given they have collateral against their loans. Many loans have very low loan-to-value ratios. So in many cases of banks we have loans that even with a substantial fall in real estate values the banks would incur no loss, that’s not to say the borrowers would be unaffected by any means.

Well, I think that’s the concern. Sorry, go ahead.

Senator, I was going to add, I mean, it’s just to your question of projection or forecast, this is stress test. So, it is a set of assumptions that we use to look at the resilience of the sector and the entities involved. So, it’s not forecast or projection.

Okay. Thank you. It’s just that our constituents are concerned that we’ve had 20 years of the banks putting a lot of money into real estate, and taking it away from small businesses and funnelling it into real estate. And we’ve seen real estate prices increase a lot recently. Some people are calling it a bubble. So basically the question amounts to, are you letting the banks do as they please, and then sweetening the impact for the banks?

Well, Senator we don’t allow the banks to do what they please. We’ve got a raft of prudential standards that ask the banks as they’re making commercial decisions to take risk into account, and where we see risks, and I think an example of that would be the recent increase in the buffer, APRA acts and takes action.

Okay. Thank you.

I can just note for the record that, Mr. John Lonsdale was the one who provided that answer. Just leading into your next question.

Does APRA embed staff in financial institutions, like say the Big Four banks?

[Byres] No.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

/by

Election Integrity: Make sure our elections cannot be rigged

,

The Australian National Audit Office is one of the best agencies in government. They do great work chasing down wasteful government spending and exposing poor management.

The few times they have looked at the conduct of our elections, like in 2015, the report card was a solid fail. They haven’t audited the conduct of our elections since then despite promising to.

Last night at Senate Estimates the Auditor General was very honest and upfront with me. He cannot confirm the Australian Electoral Commission has comprehensive performance standards for elections. He cannot assure the Australian people that the electoral systems are fit for purpose.

He did say that the way for the community to be assured about the integrity of elections is through the Parliament acting. One Nation’s Election Integrity Bill (read more) was written for this very good reason. Whatever happens in the next election, if it passes, the public can have confidence in the result.

Parliament must pass an election integrity bill before the next election.

Transcript

Senator Rice, Senator Roberts, very quickly.

Thank you chair, and thank you all for attending. Hello Mr. Heir. I’ll just give some background, and then the questions will be quick.

Very quickly, Senator Roberts.

If I can reference the report titled third follow-up audit into the Australian electoral commission’s preparation for the conduct of federal elections. It’s ANAO audit number 6 2015-16. This inquiry was called by the joint standing committee on election electoral matters. The terms of reference were a performance audit focusing on the adequacy of the Australian electoral commission’s implementation of recommendations arising from earlier, and they are audit reports. Your findings were and I’ll quote, no meaningful action has been taken had been taken prior to 2013. The election that triggered the audit in relation to those recommendations directed towards more secure reporting of election night counts on the development of comprehensive or the development of comprehensive performance standards for the conduct of elections. And finally, conclusion number eight, ANAO plans to undertake a follow-up audit following the next federal election to examine adequacy and effectiveness of the AECs implementation of these 10 recommendations in that report. Did you do that followup audit?

We did. We didn’t do a followup, followup audit Senator of exactly that nature. We did a further audit, which was, which was focused on particular aspects of procurement, including IT, for the scanning system system following the next election. But now we didn’t follow up each of those recommendations as was then proposed.

Thank you. Can you confirm that the AEC now has comprehensive performance standards for the conduct of federal elections?

No, Senator we haven’t been in there to conduct a performance audit in this space since that, that one I mentioned. So, no, we don’t, we don’t, we don’t have current knowledges as to that know.

I like your quick answers. How, how would anyone know if that would, if they’d done that?

I suspect you’d ask them in estimates.

We’ve asked them lots of times and their questions are their answers. Why didn’t you do the follow-up audit? That would have been the fourth followup audit on the AEC.

I think we, what we decided to do was in the context of what was going on in the, in the office at the time, which was the IT procurement, that that was probably a, a better order to undertake in the AEC. It’s not a huge agency. It’s not the one. We go into every year. So, so about picking the topic. And at that particular time we thought that was that that procurement audit was a, a better topic to undertake.

Can you say with confidence that the AEC systems now are fit for purpose?

We haven’t been into the entity.

How can people be assured of the integrity of future elections?

I think through the parliamentary processes is the appropriate way for the community to be assured through the oversight. The parliament gives of the, the office.

I could make a comment. Do you not against you? Do you have the authority to audit?

Yes, I say yes.

Okay. My last question chair, in your submission to the finance and public administration’s inquiry into my Commonwealth electoral amendment integrity of elections, bill 2021. ANAO made this statement, I quote in accordance with the auditor General’s mandate under the auditor general act, 1997, the auditor general is empowered to conduct a review of a particular aspect of the operations of the AEC at any time. ANAO could have conducted a followup audit in respect to the AEC’s noncompliance with multiple ANAO audits. Yet you chose not to why I?

Think of.

If there were multiple audits.

We were doing.

My multiple follow-up audit. Sorry.

We did multiple followup audits then the last audit we did, I made a decision that the.

Not follow up at the specific electronics.

Yeah. That was the reason.

Will you audit the next election.

I.

Was seen it also understanding it through. The first three follow-up audits followed what happened in the 2013 election with Senate Ballot Papers in Western Australia being effectively lost. And whilst there are three audits that audit was conducted the then audit general received a specific request from the joint standing committee of electoral matters for us to do follow-up audit work, looking at an earlier audit we did have the 2007 election as to where those recommendations have been implemented. The only reason there were three followup audit wasn’t was because the joint standing committee of electoral matters, wanted us to one of particular things looked at very quickly. And so that’s why there were three performance audit. So we packaged up what are the recommendations we could follow up as a higher priority in a shorter timeframe and then a medium timeframe and then longer timeframe. So it was, it was by seen. By three audit was really packaging out the follow-up to that all the way earlier audit report, to meet a request of the parliament, So, you know.

So as Mr. Hare said, it’s, it’s a matter of looking at the, what the followup is in context of what’s going on. Okay. Thanks, Chair.

/1 Comment/by