Will Australia Post apologise to Christine Holgate?

, ,

A damning 255 page report has slammed the board of Australia Post and found that Christine Holgate did not breach any policies. We know from the small businesses that operate licensed post offices that Christine Holgate was well respected and had a reputation for actually getting problems fixed. I questioned Australia Post at Senate Estimates.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Disappointing to note that the CEO of Australia Post, the former CEO of Australia Post, Christine Holgate, has taken up a new role rather than pursuing a return to work in Australia Post. I’ll explain more about why it’s disappointing in a minute. In denying Ms. Holgate “her legal principles of procedural fairness and natural justice,” can Australia Post employees, licensees, and customers expect the same treatment as she got?

Senator, I’d prefer not to comment on matters dealing with the board and that have been very well dealt with, with the inquiry and the 255 page reading that we’ve received yesterday. But I think those matters should be kept entirely separate from the matters that happen on a day to day basis at Australia Post. I think that they’re very different matters-

[Malcolm Roberts] I can imagine you-

Those matters have been well covered.

[Malcolm Roberts] I can imagine you are advocating that, but the description of your board chairman’s behaviour in giving evidence to both Senate estimates and committee’s subsequent inquiry has shown him to, at best, have an appalling memory, and, at worst, at being deliberately evasive and misleading. I’ll just relate a personal example, personal interactions with the LPOs, because this issue about what happened to Christine Holgate goes well beyond Ms. Holgate. It goes to the goes to Australia Post. The ministers have done enormous damage, I believe, to Australia Post and to the LPOs. Now I’ve been pursuing issues for the LPOs strongly and vigorously. We’ve gone out into the regions and we’ve listened to people in the city LPOs, and they have told us, for years, that their needs have not been met. They’ve not been listened to. They’ve been abused. They’ve been trod on. So prior to Ms. Holgate becoming the CEO, that’s the way the LPOs are treated. And what stunned me, was the LPOs is just swung straight in behind Ms. Holgate. Very, very strongly behind her. And they said that, she actually told me later, that due to my questions in Senate estimates, she said, “There’s a problem here.” And she went out and listened. And the LPOs were very, very grateful for that. And they swung in right behind her. Angela Cramp from the LPOs, very strong advocate. The LPO is we’re writing letters to us, saying how much they appreciate Ms. Holgate. They’ve never had that kind of support and now they’ve lost it. And the way she’s been dismissed has left a lot of people wondering what’s going on in Australia Post. That’s why it’s so important.

Senator, if I could try and separate those issues and matters that have been dealt with well by the inquiry in the former CEO. But I could give you my, having grown up on a farm myself, and coming from regional Western Australia, and joining Australia Post because of its far reach into regional and rural Australia, I appreciate, as does Ms. Sheffield, who looks after community and consumers and all of the LPOs, how important the LPOs are to Australia Post. We are absolutely committed to the LPOs. And as Ms. Sheffield said, the first round of payment reform was what 55 million increase in additional payments. So there is a significant amount of support within Australia Post here at this desk today and back in the offices right across Australia Post. So, we do appreciate everything the LPOs do. They’re a very important part of the Australia Post. And will be for a long time to come out, I hope.

[Malcolm Roberts] But we’ll be assessing it by listening to the LPOs, as to what happens, because they are Australia Post in many communities. And they’re the community, they’re the heart of many communities. So-

Senator, and just take that on board. When I sat down with the chair of the Australia Post Advisory eh-

[Ms. Sheffield] APLAC.

APLAC. I always get the acronym wrong. Outside his LPO and discussed matters, and we are listening to LPOs every day. It’s very important.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, I just had a text message from Angela Cramp. And she’s saying, “He has had no contact with LPOs since he took over the role. He’s not responded to anyone.”

From Ms. Cramp-

[Malcolm Roberts] To me.

Directed at me?

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.

I haven’t had direct contact with Ms. Cramp. As I said, I sat down with the chairman of APLAC, and I’m out in post offices, corporate and LPOs alike. So, as Ms. Sheffield, on a regular basis.

[Malcolm Roberts] We hope it doesn’t go back to the way it was pre-Holgate.

Can I also add to that, Senator? We have worked very hard to build those relationships with licensees. We understand and value licensees incredibly. This week, we had an APLAC board where we brought everyone together, which Angela Cramp is a National Director on. We, you know, we’ve just finished six weeks of road shows, where all licensees were invited to the communities and we will be coming, well hopefully, COVID permitting, in Woolongong next week for, you know, to ensure that we hear from our licensees because we agree with you. We have to listen. There is a lot of change happening in our community. There’s a lot of change to their business, and there’s a lot of change that needs to be there to support them. And whether it’s in looking at what products they’re offering, outlets, payments, lots of consultation, and we really do value the input that they have, in both associations, both LPOG and POALL provide a lot of input and provide, not just to myself, but to teams of people at Australia Post that really are there to do the best. And we don’t want anything to go back. It won’t go back. This payment reform is written. It’s an agreement. It is there to stay, and the next phase will be an agreement. So, really it is, it is there to really support them and help them to grow. Because we know when LPOs thrive, Australia Post thrives. And that’s why we created the payment reforms so that they’re not, it’s not a cost, it’s actually a cost of sale. It’s based on growth. So as e-commerce grows, they grow, because they get a greater share of parcel revenue, which they never got before. So the whole basis of how that set up, actually, is there to drive their growth and ensure that their businesses grow.

[Malcolm Roberts] Right. And as you said, it didn’t happen before. Thanks to Ms. Holgate, it has happened. So we’ll be watching very, very closely because we don’t want to see it go back to the previous days. Will you be implementing Senator Pauline Hanson’s recommendations as part of the committee’s recommendation and report that came down yesterday that the Australia Post chair, Mr. Lucio Di Bartolomeo, be removed from the board, given the scathing conclusions and comments about his behaviour?

Senator, thank you very much for that question. I don’t think it’s the responsibility of the acting group chief executive to comment on the chair. The chair has put a statement out yesterday afternoon saying he’s committed to continuing to lead Australia Post. So, but it’s not for the acting management, and as acting CEO to comment on, on that.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’ve had other questions on services so I’ll put them on notice.

That’d be great.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much.

/by

Meat and Livestock – PFAS

, ,

Growers on PFAS affected land are concerned that our huge beef export market could be under threat if PFAS is detected in Australian beef. Their concerns are completely valid even though officials from Meat and Livestock Australia. who are meant to work for the long-term prosperity of the meat industry, didn’t seem that concerned.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you chair, thank you for being here today. My questions are to do with the PFAS contamination of our food chain. Your Meat and Livestock Australia function is to foster the long-term prosperity of the Australian red meat industry. Is that correct?

Correct.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. One of the significant challenges to this industry is the increasing presence of PFAS in the red meat supply chain. Does Meat and Livestock Australia have an advisory on PFAS contamination of cattle?

Senator, with respect, I think it’s a very limited threat. And I think the publicity and push of that issue from a very small number of producers doesn’t accurately represent the threat. I think our industry is incredibly, incredibly conscious of not just our bio security reputation, but our responsibility to ensure that we provide a safe and wholesome product to all of our customers globally, which go to a hundred markets globally. This issue is something which has been extensively, extensively evaluated by the authorities responsible. And while we are aware of it, it’s certainly an issue that is being monitored on an ongoing basis.

[Malcolm Roberts] Who are those authorities who are responsible?

So, as far as the level or potential contamination, the responsibility for making decisions about potential contamination would sit with groups like SAFEMEAT. And the FSANZ would actually set the requirements or the levels that would have to be triggered for it to be a challenge.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s the Food Standards Australia New Zealand

Food Standards, Australia New Zealand Food Standards, that’s correct.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, we’ll come back to them. I would disagree with you because from, I’m not talking about FSANZ, but other authorities supposed to be overseeing this PFAS issue and not doing their job. That’s quite clear from the questions we’ve asked. So, next question: Are you aware the Food Standards Australia has PFAS regulations under review and, later this year, there may be maximum PFAS levels specified that your breeders will need to act on? I think it’s timetabled, at the moment, to come out early September, 2021. But given that, I think, the early ones are behind, it probably be late later this year.

No, Senator, that’s something that’s their responsibility. And if there’s need to support them in providing information or technical support for that, I’m sure they’ll contact us.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m very aware, I’m very concerned, about the threats to our export industry. The Australian beef industry is worth 28 billion a year. And the export portion of that is 17.2 billion, which makes it one hell of a big industry. So are you aware that the European Union have now enacted a recommendation of six micrograms of PFAS per kilogramme of body weight as a recommended maximum daily intake? A figure that mandates the effective elimination of PFAS from meat.

No, Senator. The setting of MRLs is not something that comes under our responsibility.

[Malcolm Roberts] You’re not aware of it?

No.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Does Meat and Livestock Australia consider that our $28 billion a year meat industry might be headed for a substantial disruption caused by these new PFAS limits in Australia and in our major export markets?

No, Senator, I don’t. I think it’s important for context, so this can sound quite significant but I think it’s important that these are very, very isolated potential incidents. So no is the answer to your question.

[Malcolm Roberts] Have you considered what a PFAS scare may do to our livestock industry? Have you done any modelling or risk assessment at all?

So, we’re certainly aware of the potential of what those scares could do. And of course, as a result of that, we’re conscious of, we’re aware of, I’m assuming you’re talking about this specific issue, which keeps coming up regardless of the support that gets provided to that producer. So yes, we are aware of what the potential of those scares can do. And it is disappointing that an individual, regardless of the disproportionate support they get from any sectors of the industry, continue down this path.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, I’ve got letters in front of me from the Charolais Society of Australia, the Australian Brahman Breeders’ Association, and the Australian Registered Cattle Breeders Association. They’ve all called on the government to relocate the graziers from affected properties to remove PFAS from the food chain. They’re worried about what’ll happen if that is detected in the food chain. The Australian Registered Cattle Breeders Association agree and added that failure to fix this problem can only lead to a disaster for the Australian meat industry. Why has Meat and Livestock Australia ignored your own breeders recommendations?

All due respect, Senator, those letters haven’t, I don’t think those letters have come to us. But also, Breed Societies, whose primary responsibility is the recordkeeping of pure-bed livestock, are not the people we should be relying on for information around chemical…

[Malcolm Roberts] What about the other two?

They all are, all three of them are. Breed Societies, the Registered Cattle Breeders are the peak organisation for the Breed Societies.

I accept that. Aren’t they, though, concerned about the future of their industry?

Your industry?

I’m sure they could be made concerned, Minister. If they were, if they received the representations that we have received from the producer, that I assume we’re still talking about the same one, I can imagine they would be concerned.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m aware of several producers.

There’s a main producer that’s raised this a number of times and have said they would take this further.

[Malcolm Roberts] I wouldn’t dismiss it because you’re counting one, there are several. And they’re deeply concerned not only about their own livelihoods, they’re concerned about the whole industry. It’s palpable, you can see it in them.

Sorry, sorry, Senator, I didn’t mean to sound dismissive. We’re not being dismissive at all. I think what the point I’m obviously not making well is it’s very important that we appreciate from a bio-security and food safety point of view. In our industry, we have incredibly good systems in place, and we have the authorities like FSANZ and SAFEMEAT who have responsibility for this. And we lean very heavily on their authority and expertise to manage this issue. And if it becomes more of a policy issue, then that’s a representative organisation responsibility. We absolutely will support any of those, if there’s more technical information required. And we do take on board these issues every time they are raised. But we all have a responsibility to rely on the authorities who have the expertise and responsibility for this, which is what we’re trying to do.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’ve been through various types of diet in my years on the planet. in the last few years, I’ve become completely meat-eater, that’s all I eat. So it’s very important to me personally, to my family, but especially more so in my responsibilities as a Senator representing constituents. And I’m not just talking about people who have got PFAS problems themselves, but people in the beef industry because it’s a very important industry to our whole state and our country. And I’m deeply concerned what would happen if this gets out of hand, if we don’t hit it off. So has Meat and Livestock Australia considered that, of all the stakeholders in this industry, you are the best situated to lead a whole of industry response to the PFAS issue? That solution being to relocate farmers from land destroyed by PFAS pollution from defence bases, and in so doing removing the source of PFAS contamination from our food chain, and removing the risk to this core meat and food industry?

Sorry, Senator, none of those things are actually our responsibility. None of those things actually fit.

[Malcolm Roberts] What is your role?

Marketing and research and development, Senator. Those are our responsibilities. And if there’s technical issues that we can support any of the participants in this, as far as understanding what contributes to it or what can be done, that’s absolutely the sort of thing we should be considering. But the relocation and compensation is absolutely not something.

[Malcolm Roberts] No, no, I’m not arguing that you should take responsibility for that. But I’m arguing that your function, as we agreed in the first question, is to foster the longterm prosperity of the Australian meat industry, Australian red meat industry. You agreed with that. I’m saying that this is a serious threat.

And that our contribution, given that function, would be to ensure that, if there’s a technical information that’s required that can be developed through research and development to support these activities, then absolutely. We would be prepared to support that. But as far as the examples you were using before around relocation and rectification.

[Malcolm Roberts] No I’m saying bring your pressure to bear, because…

No. Sorry, Senator. We absolutely could not do that, ’cause that’s not, that’s absolutely not in our responsibility. We can’t be putting pressure.

[Malcolm Roberts] You’re just watching this?

No, no, Senator. That’s not at all, that’s not at all right. You asked me, can we put pressure to bear on the people who are responsible to do this. And no, we are not, we can’t be taking action like that. The representative organisations…

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m terrified that Europe could get one contaminated sample. And given the way that the UN and the EU are now focusing on decreasing meat consumption, that one contaminated sample could destroy the imports of beef, huge industry in our state and our country, into Europe. And then we’ve also got the Greens with the potential to use this issue to stop the meat industry altogether. So, surely there must be something to head this off. I love my lamb and beef.

Which is an excellent, Senator. And I’d love to give you as much confidence as possible. And all I can say, I think, is where the issue sits is a very long, long, long away from what you just described. And if we can help in providing technical information to support that, then we’re certainly happy to do that.

Senator, Senator Roberts, probably one of the places that you might be able to prosecute this with more success might be next week in health, because FSANZ are very much at the forefront of making sure that this issue is dealt with. So that, that might be a good place to go.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. Thank you both. Thank you chair.

Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.

/by

Over 40% of Australian Land Mass under native title

, ,

With 40% of Australian land mass currently under a successful native title claim, you can see how estimates of up to 80% of Australia being claimed under native title by 2050 are very possible. There are currently 177 native title claims awaiting determination right now.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you for attending today. My questions are to do with native title projections.

Thank you.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What are the current costs of administrating administering Australian native title claims each year, please?

Kathleen Denley, assistant secretary of the native title unit. So the approximate cost per year is 140 million. I don’t have the exact breakdown, but I can get it for you. The majority of that money goes to the national indigenous Australians agency who pay for native title representative bodies. There’s also money that then goes to, for example the Federal Court, the National Native Title Tribunal. There’s some administered funding that goes to native title respondents funding schemes. There’s also an anthropologist scheme which the department administers for some funding for native title anthropologists and some money that departments such as NIAA and AGD expend.

[Malcolm Roberts] It’s a massive undertaking. Could, could we get the breakdown on notice please?

Certainly

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Secondly, how many claims have been finalised to date?

Senator just to clarify, do you mean native title claims as distinct from state compensation claims?

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.

I’ll have to find the exact figure for you Senator. According to the data held by the NNTT as of the 3rd of May, there are 524 determinations and 177 active claimant applications

And of those determinations Senator 416 are consent determinations and 53 were litigated determinations.

[Malcolm Roberts] How many 53 did you say?

Result of litigated determination.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What human resources are being used to assist progressive progressing native title claims.

Could you

[Malcolm Roberts] How many people in the department are working on that?

Oh, so the native title unit in the attorney General’s department? So I think we have approximately 14 staff. However, the unit is also working on things other than native titles, such as the closing, the gap measures in conjunction with the national indigenous Australian agency

[Malcolm Roberts] And how many people would be employed full-time equivalent on, on government funding outside the department?

Senator, Just before we go onto outside of the department we also, our legal assistance area would also process claims under a number of schemes. I don’t have those details. We’ll take them on notice and I’ll give you an estimate if you

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Yep. How many claims are currently in the system yet to be finalised? Is that a 177 active?

That’s right. That’s of native title determinations. There are also native title compensation claims that are currently before the courts.

[Malcolm Roberts] How many of them?

I think there’s approximately 15, 14 or 15.

[Malcolm Roberts] When is it considered that the remainder of unfinalised claims will be finalised?

I’d have to take that question on notice. I think there’s a range of cases that are still before the courts for a variety of different reasons. I’d, I’d have to take the question on notice to see if there was a projection by the federal court.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What proportion of the Australian landmass is currently under finalised native title?

So 40.5% are covered by a determination and 6.3% are covered by a determination that there is no native title or that native title has been extinguished.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. There have been some assessments made by persons including Warren Mundine and Josephine Cashman. Who’s an indigenous lawyer and activist predicting that that finalised native title claims will cover 70 to 80% of the Australian land mass by the 2050s. Is this estimate reasonably correct? If finalise claims as successful?

I’m not sure I could accurately comment on that particular percentage. What I could say is in terms of the indigenous land estate once Al Rowe or Aboriginal land rights act findings are also taken into account. The overall indigenous land estate is larger. Of course it’s, it’s uncertain what the percentage would be that it would be based on individual circumstances of cases that are before the federal court. But we would, I think, expect that the overall percentage would increase, but I couldn’t comment on that exact percentage.

[Malcolm Roberts] Senator, if I can add to that, of course when the court makes a determination of native title it might be exclusive native title. What might be non-exclusive native title. So we could have land that’s subject to native title but that doesn’t mean that it’s subject to exclusive native title. If you understand where I’m going with that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Yep. So it will be, you don’t know whether it’ll be a lot more than the current 46 and a half percent

We would expect it to increase

[Malcolm Roberts] Increase. But you don’t know how much. I’m not not complaining about that. I’m just, just trying to pin it down broadly. So next question, Aboriginal people of Australia currently represent around 3.3% of Australia’s population. Yet native title does not allow individual ownership of land under native title claim, as I understand it. This will effectively lock up a large proportion of Australian land that is no longer available as private freehold property to any individual Australian to purchase. Was this an intended consequence of the introduction of native title to lock up the land?

So the purpose of the native title is to recognise pre-existing interest in land and the court will make that determination based on evidence before it. So if there has been pre-existing laws and customs as the secretary outlined before, it will be it will depend on the individual circumstances as to the extent of those rights. In some instances they may be exclusive but in some instances it may be more limited such as a right to hunt and gather. It could be a right to continue a particular cultural practise. So it will change in every circumstances to the extent of those rights.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. Is it true that Aboriginal people are not able to build or buy and own their home on land under native title? Because that’s what I’ve been told by people in communities.

So native title isn’t free hold title although exclusive native title in some circumstances has been considered similar by the nature of the rights that are given. However, as I mentioned, it really does depend on the finding of those individual rights.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.

The native title act also contains the regime where the native title holding groups can themselves decide whether they wish to permit activities, to take place on land that is subject to native title. So it would be open to a native title group to in fact say that if they wish to that they would allow individual members of that group to, to build housing on that land and to have, for example, 99 year type leasehold arrangement. But that’s a matter for the group themselves as to whether they wish to do that or not.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. It is, it’s much more complex than people think then. Is it true that land under native title cannot be used as security for a loan to assist an Aboriginal person? Or is that following on from what you just said?

So, because if someone was to default on a loan, for example native title land, can’t then be repossessed by a financer financier. So that that’s not to say that financial institutions aren’t capable of devising financial ways of actually lending to, to native title groups based upon assets and revenue streams that a native title holding group might have. I mean, a native title holding group might have revenue streams, if they’ve agreed to mining, for example on the land and things like that. So it, again, it’s more complex than it might seem.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you. Two more questions. What is the relationship between the United nations and the native title act given the extensive reference to the UN in the acts preamble?

Are you referring to a particular treaty or?

[Malcolm Roberts] No, just a, just a broad understanding of the relationship between the UN and the native title act.

I guess broadly the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people. I, I’m not sure of the particular reference

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.

The declaration on the rights of indigenous people postdates the, the native native title act that was passed before that, that declaration. So like my, my colleague, Ms. Stanley, I’m not sure about the references to the UN in the preamble. The native title act is an act passed by this parliament. So it’s, it’s a piece of domestic legislation in that sense.

[Malcolm Roberts] So who would be the best person or agency to do find out more on that?

Look, we, we can take on, on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts] No, could we come and see you? No need to take it on notice.

You actually want a meeting?

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. Just a briefing on it. Yeah. Better understanding. Yeah. Thank you. Oh, we intend to, we have been. Has native title improved the living circumstances of the majority of Aboriginal persons in Australia.

Are you asking me for a personal opinion? I’m not sure I can give that sense.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s probably not

With all due respect to the official, that’s exactly right.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s fine.

But a briefing will be facilitated for you Senator Robert.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much.

Thank you very much Senator Robert.

Thank you.

If I could just interject for a minute to going back to the previous witness I appreciate the answers being direct and concise. It’s very helpful.

/by

Audit the election software

, ,

I asked the AEC about the new software they used for counting votes. Concerns have been raised about previous AEC software by cryptologists and the National Audit Office.

The AEC claims to have written new software that fixes all of these problems, but they won’t tell us who audited it and what the results were. An open and transparent audit is absolutely necessary to ensure there is 100% confidence in our elections.

Transcript

Thank you, Miss Jay.

Thanks Senator Sullivan, Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. And thank you for appearing today. My questions apart from the first and third, fairly brief. So the first one, in reference to testimony at the last estimates, and I’ve I’ve got copies of your questions on that, responses to your questions and that is. The AEC bought but did not use the Scytl software. Rather you write your own. To write your own election software is a really impressive feat. We’ve been talking to people, they’re very impressed. May I ask how many staff are on the development team please?

I’d have to take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. What was the total cost of doing that?

I’d have to take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. What testing did you use before deployment now I’d imagine some kind of parallel running or some form of a dry run.

Well, in fact, we did multiple forms of testing and assurance Senator, as I’m sure you would as I’m sure you’d be aware. And look Senator, to be abundantly helpful here, we’re happy to provide you a more detailed personal briefing on this. I’m happy to talk to you about it. It is a complex process. As you’re aware, we’ve been using our audit, our checked software, easy CAAT for a number of years and we’ve redeveloped that that’s effectively what we deployed as part of the 2016 solution. As I think we said last time, the Siedel solution, we got Seidel on board as really as a business assurance process to make sure that we had software that was going to work at 12 week period to deliver it. The software we’re using has been checked, double-checked and assured. And not only that, the important point to note it’s totally in line with the existing legislation and all of the data that we then generate from that software is put online and the results are then replicated by a number of psephologists and political science departments who use that data to replicate the count. And it exactly matches the outcome of their own. So there’s a range of different ways of assuring that this software is fit for purpose.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. Still part of the first question. Were any of the staff involved doctorate or masters degree qualified in a suitable discipline such as mathematics or cryptology?

Senator I’d have to take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts] Could we get their names please? When you provide it a notice?

No.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. And how long did it take?

We had for the 2016 process we had that 12 week periods in Israel, as I’ve said previously.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. And can you provide their qualifications?

Senator again, if you can help me here on letting me know where you’re trying to head, maybe I can provide some more fulsome answers.

[Malcolm Roberts] Perhaps we can, we can go into that in the briefing. I’d love to take you up on that. So did your bespoke solution use any code from Scytl and if so, what percentage?

It did not.

[Malcolm Roberts] None at all. Great. Your software, you intimated has been audited in accordance with standards published by the National Association of Testing Authorities, NADA. That certification does not specify a standard for the auditing of election software. It’s more of a general process for an audit to follow, as I understand it. Having the audit is not a guarantee that your software works within acceptable accuracy levels. Although these issues may come out in an audit who conducted the audit and how much did it cost and what was the result?

Senator as I’ve just said, if you can help me here by telling me where you’re trying to head with this process I would get some of these questions. If somehow the results of this were somehow secret or behind closed doors. We use a piece of software that’s been tested and assured on multiple occasions. The same time, all of the data that this software produces is then publicly published on our virtual teller even on our website, which on election day, as one of the most used pages in Australia, that data is then used by a variety of psephologists and computer and political science experts to replicate those results. It’s intensely public. If you’re trying to indicate that there’s some sort of issue, I just don’t understand why you’d be doing that when there’s been no evidence of that at all.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, we were just concerned about the auditing. That’s all. Because we got some answers from the, I think it was a Nao that didn’t give us the assurance. So let’s go onto some of the physical things then of the 511 polling places in the last election. How many of those had computers or other devices that communicated with the AEC computer system or were capable of doing so?

Senator I’m Jeff Pope, deputy electoral commissioner. I’m not sure what you’re referring to with 511 polling places we had nearly 8,000.

[Malcolm Roberts] Could that be state?

Perhaps you might be referring to–

[Malcolm Roberts] While it is not a mandatory requirement for pre-poll voting centres at the 2019 federal election. 115 of the 511 people voting centres. So pre-poll, sorry, pre-poll. My mistake.

[Man] Right.

[Malcolm Roberts] Had me worried there.

You had me worried.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, just how many have got a physical connection? How many had a physical connection?

For what purpose, Senator?

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, I’m going to go into that in the next few questions.

Many in terms of the role. And–

There are, we have electronic certified lists in every I think in every one of those pre-poll centres last event where citizens names and marked off the roll.

[Malcolm Roberts] No, it’s beyond that. I note from your answer on questions on notice F-O six five on polling place security, that those electronic devices were protected by monitored back to base alarm in only 115 of the 511 polling places. Were any other measures in place to protect the cyber integrity of those devices during the election period? For example were they air gaped, were they turned off at night, was there IP traffic monitoring for the period when they should have been none because they were turned off? That’s what we’re after.

I think all of your thoughts–

[Malcolm Roberts] You think?–

So we’ll take it on notice. But again, we’ve had no issue with any breach of our software or our hardware, with respect to delivery of the election–

At all, and no indicator of any breach and our handling of all of that data. And the physical equipment was in line with relevant Commonwealth guidelines and regulations and the risk assessment that we undertook.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. I’m just doing my job on behalf of my constituents.

I get it Senator. And I’m doing my job.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.

On also defending one of the world’s best and most transparent electoral systems.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well I’m not attacking it. I’m just making sure that–

Fantastic. And so we’re both doing our jobs in terms of making sure that citizens have the information they need to form their judgements.

[Malcolm Roberts] Correct. I’ve only got three questions to go. In your response to questions on notice F-0 six eight, you make the comment, ” All preferences and all Senate ballot papers are reviewed by at least one person at the scanning side.” Does that mean that they compare the scanned ballot with the paper ballot to ensure accuracy? Because that’s the impression your answer gives. Do they compare the actual scanned ballot with the paper ballot?

Senator the process is that a data is both manually entered and scanned and then that’s matched with the automated process–

[Malcolm Roberts] All the ballot papers are manually entered?

Manually entered but all paper is scanned when it first arrives. Then from that image which is an image that data is then entered. And then the scan, the data from the scan is then compared with that to make sure that they match. Where they don’t match, we undertake further processes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Could you explain that in terms of, we have a physical paper ballot that is scanned in–

[Man] Correct.

[Malcolm Roberts] And then–

And then it captures an image.

[Malcolm Roberts] Right. And then what is compared with that image?

That image is then presented to the Data Entry Operator who enters the data from that image–

[Malcolm Roberts] From the image–

Right.

[Malcolm Roberts] So he or she enters it physically.

Correct.

[Malcolm Roberts] So that’s the manual part.

That’s the manual part, then at the same time the data capture process as part of capturing the image is then compared with that manual process. Where that matches, that’s taken to be an accurate match. And that’s included in the count. Where it doesn’t match, we undertake further processes.

[Malcolm Roberts] So that last estimates in October, I asked what percentage of computer records that checked back against the paper record. And you took that on notice, your lengthy answer failed to provide a figure. Is that because it’s a hundred percent?

Which was the question Senator?

[Malcolm Roberts] I asked what percentage of computer records are checked back against the paper record? And you took that a notice, your lengthy answer, which is I think F-068. Hang on, it might be zero eight four. Sorry, zero eight, four. So, as I was saying your lengthy answer failed to provide a figure. Counting ballots is a quantitative exercise. So everything comes down to figures. What percentage of electronic voting cards are compared back to the ballot paper and what is the variance?

I wonder whether we’re talking about different things here, Senator. The process that I’ve just been through demonstrates that every single paper.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.

Yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] Last question . On this topic, anyway. Has the AEC ever run a test batch of a few thousand ballot papers through your system then run those same ballots through a second time and compared the result? Surely any variance between these two runs would give you a figure for system accuracy.

Again, Senator I’d rely on what I’ve just said before that the process that we’re running involves a full manual entry of every single ballot paper compared then to the scanning, capture of the scanned data. So we’re doing that in any case.

[Malcolm Roberts] That that’s what I thought. Okay. Just a final question. Just to lose question. I was thinking as, the senators were asking questions. Voters tell us quite often that they’re then not in favour of being assaulted by a number of how to vote cards distributors being volunteers, distributing how to vote cards when they’re entering a polling booth and some of the premises managers getting to have a bit of strife with it too. I don’t know. I haven’t read the act that covers this, but would there be any possibility or any consideration given to putting the, how to vote cards in the booth or is that fundamentally flawed?

Absolutely not Senator yet. I know what you’re saying that occasionally people do so that. What I’d say in defensive 99.9% of all of the party workers is most people strive to do the right thing.

[Man] Yeah.

We have a few over-excited individuals that really like to get those how to vote cards in the hands of voters. And that can cause some offence but most people do the right thing. We would never put a how to votes in the polling place, because then get confused and think we’re endorsing a particular process and it creates grief.

[Malcolm Roberts] What about if everyone was in there? Every party.

Same thing people then get confused and I’d be absolutely–

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s a fair comment. So if someone’s handing it they can stop them and ask questions about it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Senator Roberts.

/by

Integrity Commission needs to include judicial conduct

, ,

Last year the government unveiled their totally lacking plan for a toothless Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Important powers and jurisdictions were completely missing from their proposal, including oversight of the conduct of judges.

When there are complaints about the judges, it is essentially up to the judiciary to investigate itself.

This type of self-regulation does not work, it always fails. That’s why a well-resourced, powerful, independent external agency is needed and would only increase confidence in the judiciary.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] And today. My question’s too are in regard to establishing Federal Integrity Commission. First question. Is it the intention of the government to consider adding to the duties of such a Federal Integrity Commission, the overview of the judiciary and other officers of the court?

I think the former Attorney General had indicated that the coverage of the judiciary was an issue under consideration, but not necessarily within the integrity commission, because of constitutional complexities, but also looking at the possibility of a separate judicial commission.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s true, isn’t it, that there is currently virtually no authority with jurisdiction to overview the conduct and actions of the judiciary, many of whom are appointed for life?

So the federal judges are appointed to the age of 70 and then they have to retire. The current process is that if someone has a concern about a serving judge, they raise that with the Chief Justice or chief judge of that jurisdiction. The Chief Justice or Chief Judge is empowered to either appoint a conduct committee to investigate allegations made against a sitting judge or, alternatively, the Chief Justice or Chief Judge can refer the matter directly to the Attorney General, and there’s a process of where both houses of parliament can be asked whether they wish to make an address to the government general seeking to have the removal of a sitting judge on grounds of, for example, misbehaviour. So there is that process, but the conduct committee, appointed by the Chief Justice or chief judge is the first step.

[Malcolm Roberts] So there is… thank you. There is wide support for a commission with the jurisdiction to overview the conduct of the judiciary, coming out of the recent inquiry into family law, from retired judges, from academics, from constituents, and from the legal profession itself. So at the moment the errant judge’s conduct is not addressed under an independent system. Correct? You’ve just outlined that system.

That’s correct. Well, it’s an independent conduct committee, so it’s appointed by a Chief Justice or chief judge. It’s not composed of people from that court, so it’s independent to that extent, but they make a report to the Chief Justice of that court. So, no, it’s not a standing independent commission at the moment.

[Malcolm Roberts] And to trigger it requires someone from within the system?

It requires a person to make a complaint. So that might be a litigant, who has been disappointed with how a sitting judge has behaved. It could be someone who is a staff member, an observer, it could be anyone. Anyone who has a concern about a sitting judge can make a complaint.

[Malcolm Roberts] They can make a complaint, but whether or not it goes anywhere, it still depends on someone within the system?

It will then depend upon the relevant Chief Justice and what they wish to do with that complaint.

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, who heads up that independent conduct committee?

So it’s a matter for the respective chief general Chief Justice.

[Malcolm Roberts] So there’s one for each court?

They can appoint one per court. So for example, if it was a complaint, Senator Roberts mentioned a family law. For example, if there was a complaint about a sitting family court or federal circuit court judge practising in family law that’d be a matter for the Chief Justice of that family court or the chief judge of the federal circuit court to appoint a conduct committee to look into that particular allegation.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I just listed some of the areas we’ve had complaints from. So given the increasing number of complaints being level of judges based on their conduct, is it not time to ensure such complaints can be examined and addressed in a timely, reasonably costed way ensuring that there are real consequences if necessary?

So wait, my colleague, Ms. noted before that the previous attorney acknowledged there is certainly a question there about whether there should be a body, an integrity body that is able to look at complaints against sitting judges. That is something that the department is continuing to work on, but there are a range of complex constitutional and other legal issues that we’re working through. Attorney General Porter had said it’s perhaps a second order issue in terms of looking at integrity commission first, and then simply look at a judicial integrity type commission but it’s something we’re continuing to work on.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. So let’s change tact just for a minute for two short questions. What is being done in the way of suicide prevention for judges as well as for the victims of poor judicial behaviour?

So suicide prevention for judges is particularly a matter to address to the courts themselves in terms of what what measures they’re actually taking to looking after the wellbeing of judges sitting in the courts because things such as the allocation of work to judges and the allocation of support mechanisms are within the control of the chief judge or chief judge of each jurisdiction.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I imagine being a judge in certain circumstances would be very taxing emotionally. So it’s recognised that the stresses on judges may lead to a need for professional help for these judges. Is this assistance being provided at the moment at an adequate level?

So that would be a question better directed to to the federal courts. And I note that the family court and circuit court are appearing tomorrow, tomorrow at five o’clock.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much. And thank you chair. That’s all I have.

[Chair] Thank you very much Senator Roberts. Just as a followup question, in relation to where an independent conduct committee is appointed by Chief Justice about a complaint, a serious complaint in relation to a judge’s conduct what sanctions are available to that committee and ultimately to the Chief Justice?

It’s an excellent question To some extent there are measures that can be put into place by the head of a jurisdiction in terms of for example, does a judge require retraining or should a judge be moved from a particular court and practise in a different court. Things like that, are steps that are available to a judge. But if the concern of the head of that jurisdiction is that that judge should in fact no longer be a judge then they need to refer that to the Attorney General, who would then consider whether the matter should be brought to parliament again, for consideration of whether they should have been addressed by both houses of parliament and to seeking the removal of that sitting judge.

[Chair] Ultimately the power to remove a judge is in the hands of the parliament and the people…

In the hands of Governor General, ultimately

[Chair] Yes, but that’s obviously a very serious matter,

Extremely serious.

/by

Clean Energy Finance Corporation is going backwards – Senate Estimates

, , ,

The CEFC holds $10 billion of taxpayer money to be used on wasteful green projects. They are meant to get a healthy return for splashing your cash at renewable pipe dreams, but their profit has gone down by 30% in a year.

All of this is to supposedly cut down on harmless CO2, which you and I breathe in and out all day. The fact that the CEFC exists is just another example of how green-left this apparently conservative government has gone.

Transcript

Senator Roberts.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you chair. Could you tell me what is clean energy? Just a quick preliminary question before we get into it.

Well, ideally Senator clean energy is one that is doesn’t produce emissions.

[Senator Roberts] Emissions of what?

Emissions of carbon dioxide or their equivalent is how we would, I guess broadly considered clinically. I mean, it’s not a technical term, but in the, in the general parlance.

[Senator Roberts] So, what’s dirty about carbon dioxide?

Well.

[Senator Roberts] ‘Cause you’re exhaling it right now.

Yeah. I mean, it’s omnipresent around us. I appreciate that, Senator. But what we’re about is is trying to decarbonize the Australian economy in the electricity sector and the ag sector and infrastructure and property and so on. So that’s, that’s what we’re about. And part of that is investing in renewables which are of course, clean energy.

[Senator Roberts] So there are a few leaps there we’ll, we’ll ignore the leaps. But if we look around inside this building and outside. Everything that we see in here has come from the use of energy and human progress over the last 170 years has been due entirely to the ever decreasing cost in real terms of energy except for the last 25 years, since 1996 where the costs have doubled and in fact more than doubled. So we’re reversing human progress on the basis that carbon dioxide is a dirty gas, correct?

In fact, power prices during the day in many states of Australia are extremely low today, and in some cases have been negative. So I don’t know if that is always the case.

[Senator Roberts] Wholesale prices and consumer prices, especially for families have increased dramatically in the last 25 years. So let’s get onto the clean energy finances claim. This is quote, we invest to lead the market operating with commercial rigor to address some of Australia’s toughest emissions challenges in agriculture, energy generation and storage infrastructure, property, transport and waste with $10 billion to invest on behalf of the Australian government. We work to hope that’s the people we work to deliver a positive return for taxpayers across our portfolio. So the clean energy finance corporation is normalised surplus. What some people might argue is a kin to a profit from operations. Excluding extenuating circumstances in 2019-20 was $100.5 million compared with 143.6 million the year before. Isn’t that a disappointing decline? And do you expect a recovery?

We’re very proud of our economic record, Senator and the you know, the operating surplus that we produced last year we think is, we think is a significant achievement. In fact, when you take away from that operating surplus net operating circles the cost of government funding we still produce a profit for the Australian taxpayers. So we, you know I think what we’ve done investing successfully across all those sectors that you mentioned it has been a terrific achievement.

[Senator Roberts] So what does it return? I would calculate it as about 1%.

Well, it depends how you, how you look at it. Senator we, we’ve directed by the government to try and achieve a portfolio benchmark return across across the whole portfolio. And if you look at our sort of cumulative return through to 31 March of this year our return is approximately 4.63%. So I, you know, I think that’s a that’s a very positive return.

[Senator Roberts] Okay. Secondly, the clean energy finance corporation impairment provision at 30th of June, 2020 was $121.1 million compared with 59.7 million in the previous year. So that’s a 100% increase and it represented 5.1% of loans and advances at amotised cost compared with 2.3% in 2018, 19. So it’s more than doubled.

Remember it’s a provision, senators. It’s no, it’s not a loss or right off of any of our assets. And we’re pleased to say that we have negligible losses in our portfolio across the course of the eight years that we have been, we’ve been investing. The increase is a reflection of some of the, you know, some of the challenges that we have taken into account in relation to wind and solar projects and the challenges with grid and marginal loss factors and curtailment. So to be prudent and conservative, we did increase in payment provision substantially last year. I’ll maybe get my CFO.

Senator, I might also just add that one of the factors that we were considering back in August when we were wrapping up the June financial year end was that everybody was projecting at that point that we were headed into a recession. And if you’re headed into a recession, your probability of default on loans will increase. So we prudently put extra money aside to provision for that event. Fortunately, with hindsight now we did not head into a recession. We were back on the way out and we’re, we’re experiencing growth now. So that prudent provision that stood there at that point in time was not needed because we did not suffer actual losses. That was just a provision —

[Senator Roberts] So the 5.1% includes the provision?

That was all provision. So it was purely a statistical calculation on the probability of default. If we had low electricity prices. We were headed into a recession and really the property market as well. People are looking at that and saying, we’re not quite sure what’s going to happen with valuations in property. And so we had to prudently provide for those things fortunately, not required in hindsight.

[Senator Roberts] Okay. Thank you. What are your projections for impairment over the next five years?

Over the next five years, it’s actually spelled out in the budget papers and I can give you that exact number but effectively we’re not projecting an increase dramatically in the provision. So if we look at, I’m on page 166. The budget papers, and we provide in there on about halfway down the page, write down an impairment of assets. There’s in the budget year, 45 million. Now that’s a combination of two things. There’s about 20 odd million dollars of true impairment provision that we allow for. And about 25 million that we’re providing in the event that we have to invest at suboptimal rates to provide some stability in the grid. One of the things that’s factored in here is the grid reliability fund. We expect that we will have to invest equity. In some cases that equity may be at less than market rates. So instead of a concessional charge, it ends up as an impairment charge. You write it down to the fair value. Now that’s to make sure that the grid can cope with the, the ongoing changes to the generation nature.

[Senator Roberts] So how much have you on another question, how much have you written off in terms of lost capital and foregone interest?

Over the entire life of the corporation? I think from memory it’s like, it may be as high as 800,000. We can take it on —

[Senator Roberts] No, it’s, it’s a bit immaterial in the scheme of the scale of the CFC.

It’s lifting the signal. I’m going to give the call to send it to McAlester.

Okay.

[Senator Roberts] Everything that you’re putting money into has a subsidy. It can’t stand on its own merits. Aren’t you lending money out and expecting to get it back?

We, I mean, as you know, as we’ve discussed all our capital expected capital has been returned with the expected income. And, and I’m not sure about your statement there that everything that we’ve invested in is is receiving a subsidy. You know, we’ve a very broad investor, right? From large scale projects to, as I say, in property you know, even, you know, things like the build to rent sector and venture capital and clean technologies. And so I, you know, I’m not sure why you think that all all the sectors and all the companies and projects we’ve invested in would be receiving subsidies.

Senator, I’m Simon Avery, head of government stakeholder relations might be of some assistance there under our act. And this goes to the question you asked earlier about a definition of clean energy technology. The three heads of definition are renewable energy technologies energy efficiency, technologies and low emissions technologies. And so while as you point out renewable energy technologies may have some subsidies. For example, through the renewable energy target for most of the energy efficiency technologies there’s no subsidy involved. And in fact, over the life of the CFC, I think we’ve we’ve made about $9.1 billion worth of commitments. And there would only be about $55 million worth of concessional subsidy that CFC has itself offered 55 million odd over 9.1 billion of lifetime commitments is a drop in the bucket.

[Senator Roberts] So last question chair, the energy minister, Mr. Taylor has cited publicly the Bloomberg graph on investment per capita in various countries around the world in solar and wind. And Australia has double the per capita investment of any other country. Number two country, I think is America. It’s with just over double with six times China’s investment in that, even though they make all of our solar most of our solar panels and wind turbines. So other than providing still further assistance wind and solar. How does this funding encourage private investment in Australia’s renewable energy sector when the evidence suggested that we’re already over investing and bringing bringing quite damaging consequences to us as we’ve heard?

Yeah. I mean, there’s a couple of things in there, Senator, I mean, remember of course, Australia is a world leader in rooftop solar. So, you know, they’ve kind of in excess of two gigawatts of rooftop, solar is is installed each year at the moment in this country. So that accounts for some of the, you know the per capita figures that that you cite in terms of, you know, attracting, you know the use of the private sector and why isn’t that investing well, the good thing is that that we have been creating in private sector investment over the course of, of our life at the CFC and for every dollar that we have, in fact invested we have credited in $2.40 of third party capital. So part of what we’re about is, is coming into, you know into projects, you know, supporting companies and we at the same time are trying to attract in the private sector be they Australian banks, international equity, you know large scale infrastructure funds and so on. And so we’re about bringing in the private sector and you know, not creating any more now.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you, chair.

/by

Department of Agriculture Questioned at Estimates on Fire Ant Eradication Program

, , ,

Farmers at Gatton and beyond are petrified of the spread of destructive fire ants. Fire ants ravage crops and if they get into animals, they drive them crazy with pain. Left unchecked, they’ll turn productive areas effectively barren.

I asked the Department of Agriculture about what we are doing to eradicate them. Unfortunately, it looks like there isn’t enough money allocated to eradicate the destructive fire ants.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] How much is it costing Australia in funding the fight against spread and ultimate eradication of fire ants?

[Mr Tongue] Senator, it’s approximately $450 million dollars. I’ll defer to my colleague Ms Laduzko.

[Mr Metcalfe] These are red imported fire ants?

Yeah, red imported fire ants.

[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve got domestic fire ants?

[Mr Metcalfe] No, we’ve also got the yellow crazy ants as well.

[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve got a lot of ants.

[Mr Ludisco] The red imported fire ants particularly which are a particular problem in the Brisbane Valley.

[Malcolm Roberts] 400 million over what period?

[Ms Laduzko] Sorry, Senator Roberts, we have a ten year funding programme currently agreed across all States and Territories in the Commonwealth and the budgeted allocation for that current ten year programme, about which we’re nearly halfway through is 414 million.

[Malcolm Roberts] So about 41 million a year.

[Ms Laduzko] Yeah, roughly speaking.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. How successful is the management and eradication programme?

[Ms Laduzko] We are four years into a sustained effort at eradicating an invasive ant that has got quite a wide spread. I think and I think I might’ve given this evidence last time to the committee which is we have been learning a lot more about the ant. It’s a very large scale eradication so we’ve been making progress but in the meantime, the programme which is actually led by the Queensland government has been trialling different ways of killing the ant through different bait combinations and technology so I’d have to say we’ve seen some positive signs and there are some learnings around eradication but the actual size of the task and whether it’s sufficiently funded are matters for current discussion.

[Malcolm Roberts] So you haven’t got any concrete measures other than that, you’ve just making progress? Not trying to be cheeky, I just would like to have something quantified. How do you assess progress? Because that’s an awful lot of money.

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, assessing progress is an interesting question and partly we go through cycles of eradication and surveillance so we eradicate to a programme and then we go back and do surveillance to see how effective those measures have been. If you want specific information, I’d probably prefer to take it on notice because that would be what I would source from the program-leading Queensland government to make sure I’m accurate.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you.

[Mr Tongue] And Senator, just to describe there is the programme is run by an independent committee chaired by Wendy Crake who is a very distinguished authority in natural resource management matters.

[Malcolm Roberts] Queensland or Australia?

[Mr Tongue] Australia, Australia and as Ms Laduzko said, jointly funded and there is quite a significant amount of detail that we can provide you on notice about the roll out of the programme, how they’re measuring effectiveness, etc. It is just a very big eradication programme, that’s all.

[Malcolm Roberts] That would be useful because I’ve attended a meeting at Gatton, in the heart of the Valley, and the residents there were pretty upset that they don’t trust what the Queensland government is doing so yeah, I’d like to learn more about it, thank you.

[Mr Tongue] Certainly.

[Malcolm Roberts] How effective are similar overseas eradication programmes?

[Ms Laduzko] I think that it’s true to say, Senator, that nowhere has anyone successfully eradicated red imported fire ants. In fact, Australia is the only successful eradication outcomes and they were on smaller incursions that were, we were able to contain to port environments so we have successfully eradicated small outbreaks but it’s not my understanding that any other country has ever managed to eradicate.

[Malcolm Roberts] So is that ominous for the Valley?

[Ms Laduzko] Well, I think it gives us pause for thought around the size of the eradication and the funding commitment and what our long term strategy is but we do have it, you know, it’s, I think, there’s some stats that suggest if we’d done nothing from when we first saw it, it would already have largely covered the entirety of Australia by now and we have managed to keep it to a defined region.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay so in that sense, it’s effective.

[Ms Laduzko] In that sense, it’s effective.

[Malcolm Roberts] Or it may have delayed the overrun of Australia? We don’t really know yet.

[Ms Laduzko] That’s probably a fair call.

[Mr Tongue] Red imported fire ant is viable in 99 per cent of the Australian continent, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s actually being done on this in Australia? Are you just containing it or you’re trying to eradicate it? Sounds like you’re trying to eradicate it.

[Mr Tongue] It is an eradication programme. It has been going under various guises for a number of years now. In fact, this is a ten year programme. Prior to that, I think we’ve done a seven year programme ahead of that so it’s an eradication programme.

[Malcolm Roberts] How far are we into the ten years? Excuse me for interrupting.

[Mr Tongue] We would be between year four and year five.

[Malcolm Roberts] So we’re halfway through.

[Ms Laduzko] A little less than halfway.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, okay. So what’s being done in terms of the actual on the ground, what’s happening? I know the Queensland government is…

[Mr Tongue] Sorry, it’s quite a complex programme and it’s very large. The nuts and bolts part of it is we’ve agreed a programme for how we approach the eradication efforts so we have zoned certain areas and they’ve embedded a sentiment of moving from west to east with rolling eradication efforts and suppressing in those other areas. I haven’t got to so hard eradication, suppression, suppression, rolling forward but we also have to put a lot of investment in the edge to make sure it doesn’t further escape. The west to east model goes from rural land through to urban environments and that changes the nature of how you do eradication and how you engage the community.

[Malcolm Roberts] And it makes it difficult.

[Ms Laduzko] It does make it a bit more difficult, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s hard to tell where are we. At the moment, we seem to be stabilising in your opinion?

[Ms Laduzko] I think at the moment we have certainly, you’d have to say we haven’t allowed it to become worse and we’ve managed, I think, some success in the semi-rural areas. The question will be, as we get closer to those urban environments.

[Malcolm Roberts] What else needs to be done? What more needs to be done?

[Ms Laduzko] I think that’s an open question. You know, the scale of the response is enormous and it often comes down to funding and commitment of participants. Once you’re in an urban environment, everyone needs to be willing and engaged.

[Malcolm Roberts] So are there enough resources to achieve eradication?

[Ms Laduzko] Not something I’d like to comment on right now, Senator, we’re going through a bit of a review. Part of the resourcing question goes to what other strategies we can adopt. Is the technology moving ahead of us? Is the baits, are the baits becoming more effective? A few things like that so I think that’s probably a question perhaps you might like to pose in maybe next session when we’ve done a bit of our own efficiency review.

[Mr Tongue] And I should add, Senator, that it is a science-driven programme so we’re drawing on the best possible science we can. We’re trying to do something, as you’ve alluded to, that hasn’t been done anywhere else in the world. It is success to contain it at some level, it is success to contain it because it is a uniquely adapted little ant that really can move quite swiftly if left uncontained. The challenges around the urban areas, you know, baits, poisons, schools, backyards, you know, those sorts of things are quite difficult. We are also finding, I think in the programme, that the cycle of wet and dry, particularly in that kind of area of Southeast Queensland, can frustrate efforts, you know, lay baits, it rains, all of that work is lost. You go back again. So finding the kind of rhythm, the drum beat that will beat it is something that’s just under constant review. It is an enormous eradication programme and as Ms Laduzko says we’re re-looking at it at the moment and governments will need to make decisions.

[Mr Metcalfe] Not with a view for stopping it.

[Mr Tongue] Not with a view for stopping it.

[Mr Metcalfe] But with a view of how we do it, can we do it better?

[Mr Tongue] Can we do it better? If we up the cash burn rate, would we go faster? If we slowed the cash burn rate, will we do better? Some of those questions, you know. What is the right modality to get rid of it?

[Malcolm Roberts] Before I ask you my next question, it probably is associated with the next question, but just make the comment, not having a go at you but when people use the word ‘science’ around here, I usually start digging because it’s just usually opinion and no science. And in Queensland, farming is being devastated by the Queensland Labour government, citing science but being nowhere near science and they’re destroying whole communities, whole regions and farms so I just make that point. I’d like to see the science rather than believe it.

[Mr Tongue] Sure.

[Malcolm Roberts] So moving on that, on what basis are federal monies provided to the States to assist in these programmes? Because listening to a forum at Gatton, people seem be questioning the Queensland State government’s motives. Is there a different formula, for example, for stabilising and containing versus eradicating?

[Mr Tongue] There is a couple of ways to answer that. In the environment we work in when we do eradication responses, like for things that aren’t yet established, we have agreed deeds where States and Territories and the Commonwealth and industry, where relevant, have an approach they use for eradication and how they cost share that. The Reefer eradication programme we’re talking about started in advance of us having an appropriate deed structure to use so it’s run a little bit differently to other eradication responses but in essence, for us, we have a partnership agreement with the Queensland government that sets out milestones that need to be met in order for us to provide funding to a schedule.

[Malcolm Roberts] So there are conditions attached?

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, yep but consistent with many of these what are largely termed environmental eradication responses, the Commonwealth is contributing 50 per cent of the cost.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. So is this in any way an enduring money spinner for the States?

[Ms Laduzko] A money spinner? No, I wouldn’t characterise it that way.

[Malcolm Roberts] Could they manipulate it by taking various strategies, for example containment versus eradication, just to prolong it? That was a concern of constituents in Gatton area.

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, you can see how that comes ’cause it gets to a point where in all eradications, this applies in small ones, large ones, you have to make a concluded position about whether you think eradication remains feasible and cost-effective. At the moment, we are signed up to an eradication programme.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.

[Mr Tongue] And because of the structure of it, I would argue, Senator, how would I put this? All the jurisdictions involved, other than Queensland, have a huge interest in ensuring that the programme is running well because they’re all on the hook to fund it and so it would be very difficult for Queensland to manipulate a circumstance with the gaze of all the other jurisdictions upon it as well as the community where, if you like, they were turning this into some sort of money spinner.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s different about Queensland?

[Mr Metcalfe] That’s a very open question, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] Apart from the fact that we win State of Origin very often.

[Mr Metcalfe] Well, that’s right, yeah. You’re talking to a Queenslander here, of course.

[Mr Tongue] So this eradication is just, is different because of scale and it’s different because it’s outside what we know as the deed structure. So what we have is risk sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth, the States and Territories and industry, in the agricultural industries, they’re known as the plant deed and the animal deed, and they set up arrangements where we share risk and depending on the nature of the effort that needs to go into deal with a response to some pest or disease or weed, the scale of Commonwealth investment changes and those arrangements are managed by Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia and they’re bodies that, if you like, sit outside government and outside industry but they work across to manage those deeds. In this instance, we don’t have that arrangement so we’ve set up this independent style committee.

[Ms Laduzko] Just a slight qualification, we do but that arrangement came into place after we started.

[Mr Tongue] After we started this. This one’s slightly unusual and also scale, it’s vastly different.

[Ms Laduzko] And sorry, Senator, can I just correct something? I said 414 million, it’s 411.4. I think I was just truncating numbers.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, I appreciate the accuracy. And you’re going to send us some details on how you’re assessing progress? In a quantified way.

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, if you’d like to put them through on notice and we’ll answer to that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Quantified.

[Mr Tongue] Yep.

[Ms Laduzko] Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

[Chair] Oh, right on time, Senator Roberts.

/by

Unreliable renewables killing our power grid – Australian Renewable Energy Agency Estimates

, ,

Even the energy minister has admitted he is scared for the future security and stability of our grid because of the rapid influx of renewables. Climate activists continue to falsely claim that wind and solar is the cheapest form of energy.

It’s a lie. When you take away the billions of dollars in subsidies coal is still the cheapest form of energy.

Transcript

[Senator Fawcett] Senator Roberts.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you, Chair. Thank you all for attending today. I’d like to ask questions on three topics. Firstly, prices, reliability and stability of the electricity network and supply. Secondly, hydrogen. And thirdly carbon dioxide storage. So firstly on prices, reliability, and stability. In your recent report on 14 large scale wind and solar projects in which ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation invested, it says that you “Played an important role in accelerating the early development of the large scale solar industry in Australia and the integration of utility scale renewable energy generation in the national electricity market.” Could you please confirm or correct these specific findings amongst others? Firstly, negative pricing impacts increased significantly in 2020, particularly for Queensland projects.

Senator, I’m not paying attention to the energy markets closely enough to answer that question.

[Senator Roberts] Okay. Secondly, initial project forecasts consistently underestimated curtailment and residual losses, while capacity factors were generally overestimated.

Again, Senator, that’s a report I’d have to go back and have a look at to answer that question.

[Senator Roberts] Third one, incorrectly assumed adequate transmission. And fourthly, the regulator says power cannot be fed into the grid because of instability.

Sorry, what’s the question there?

[Senator Roberts] The regulator, could you confirm or correct whether the regulator says that power cannot be fed into the grid because of instability problems in the grid?

Senator, what’s the context for that?

[Senator Roberts] Well, these are the reports. This is a report in which ARENA and Clean Energy Finance produced on 14 large scale wind and solar projects.

I would need to refresh myself in the report to answer the question.

[Senator Roberts] I’ll just make the statements and maybe you could comment. The fifth point: Frequency Control Ancillary Services costs were both a significant expense and a major operational challenge for several projects. Although this reduced from 2019 to 2020, as Frequency Control Ancillary Services prices have fallen and several projects implemented sales forecasting. And the last point: the failure of critical equipment, especially failure of inverted power stack and the lack of market readily available spares were a major operational challenge for asset managers. Have these, and similar projects, contributed to the instability of electricity market over recent years?

Senator, I don’t believe so.

[Senator Roberts] Snowy Hydro seems to agree. They’re warning us that the transition from a stable base load power from coal is a fact and it’s going to be fraught with risk.

Well, Senator, as the penetration of renewables increases, those issues need to be addressed. The storage and the reliability of the system. You’re asking about the past, have they in the past, and I’m not sure that those projects have caused any instability, as you suggest.

[Senator Roberts] The estimated costs of Frequency Control Ancillary Services, lot of acronyms here isn’t there, for unreliables was initially estimated, about 20 years ago, at just 1% of the cost of electricity. This is before we got onto this transition. It’s not significant cost in coal gas, nuclear and hydro, yet with the unreliables, the wind and solar, it’s now around 8 to 9%. Is that a factor in your plans?

Senator, what’s unreliable?

[Senator Roberts] Wind and solar.

Variable renewables?

[Senator Roberts] Yes.

Right.

[Senator Roberts] So the cost Frequency Control Ancillary Services is now around 8 to 9%.

Senator, I’d have to go and check the market for you and get back to you. I’m not close to those numbers on a daily basis.

[Senator Roberts] Okay, so if you could take it on notice then, the cost of Frequency Control Ancillary Services in aggregate, across electricity sector, and also for wind and for solar, typically, are you aware that the Minister for Energy himself recently admitted, quite publicly and strongly, his fears about future prices, his fears about unreliability, and his fears about grid instability?

Yes.

[Senator Roberts] Aren’t these inherent flaws in unreliable wind and solar, that are not present, or are negligible, in coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear?

Senator, it’s very possible, technically and economically, to build a system with renewable energy that is reliable, safe, secure, low emissions, and low cost.

[Senator Roberts] But not base load power.

Ultimately, all of that combined gives you base load power because if you balance your wind and solar effectively, with pumped hydro, with batteries, gas generators, as the case may be, you can create base load power.

[Senator Roberts] Has anyone done it anywhere in the world, as a nation?

Senator, we’re well on our way to doing it in Australia.

[Senator Roberts] Okay. Coal, gas, hydro, nuclear in other countries, and formerly in our country, were they reliable base load power sources because they provided stability, reliability, and high energy density. Now, as I see it, and from what I’ve read, unreliables like wind and solar have very low energy density. That’s what makes them inefficient. That’s fundamental basic physics. They’re inherently high cost of making solar panels and wind turbines because of the high resource consumption. It takes for a kilowatt hour of coal, it takes about 35 tonnes of steel. For the same in wind, it takes about 543 tonnes of steel. So inherently higher cost, higher energy used in making them, and much more land needed for solar, and higher energy intensity in manufacturing. So to me, it just seems that the basics are not sound. I’d like your views

Senator, I’ll take solar for example. The technology I know a little bit better than wind. ARENA hasn’t funded any wind technology in our history. Solar has an energy payback of between 12 and 18 months, and the panels last for 20 to 30 years in the field. And the International Energy Agency has come out and said that solar PV is the cheapest form of energy ever, in the history of the world. So those themes from the International Energy Agency, and the things that we’re seeing, are aligned. We think that wind and solar combined with those other technologies to balance the system will give us a very cheap, stable, low emissions energy system, contrary to your perspective.

[Senator Roberts] So if for a given amount of energy needed from a solar panel, we need about three of them to take care of feeding a battery for taking us through the night, and also for days of poor weather. So is that factored in, or just the single solar panel? Because they’re the figures I’ve seen.

It’s the whole system, Senator.

[Senator Roberts] Yeah, I’d like, could you give me a breakdown of those, please? Because I don’t believe them. The breakdown of those costs.

Of what costs?

[Senator Roberts] Solar.

What would you like to know?

[Senator Roberts] I’d like you to compare a solar to a coal-fired power station, base load power. Battery, the number of cells you need.

Well, I’ll take it one question at a time. A solar farm built today can cost in the range of $40 to $50 a megawatt hour as its output. A coal station that you would build today would be at least double that, if it was a HELE coal station. And you’ve seen the prices for gas. We know that gas generators need at least $100 a megawatt hour, and an open cycle, and open cycle gas station to produce profit. So, solar at 40 to 50, and wind at about the same range, is cheaper than other forms of electricity generation today.

[Senator Roberts] So why is it that everywhere in the world, as the as the proportion of solar and wind increases, the cost of electricity in that nation increases dramatically.

Senator, I haven’t seen the figures that you’re talking about. You say every country in the world that’s done it, I’ve not heard-

[Senator Roberts] I’ve seen several graphs from independent sources showing, looking at it from your view, the more solar and wind increase, the higher the cost of electricity.

You’re welcome to share that with me. I can have a look at it.

[Senator Roberts] So One Nation commissioned Dr. Alan Moran, who was a First Assistant Secretary of the Industry Department, a First Assistant Commissioner of the Productivity Commission, and Deputy Secretary of Energy in the Victorian government, to report on the cost of climate and unreliables. Apparently, those figures used to be consolidated once but they’re no longer consolidated. Excluding the costs of transmission, expenditures on Snowy 2.0, and cost of market operator interventions, Dr. Moran has estimated the annual cost in 2018-19 over renewable energy subsidies and support at $6.9 billion. This estimate was made from publicly available information in state and federal budget papers and from regulatory authorities. So all from the governments. It comprises Commonwealth expenditures, the cost of Commonwealth subsidy schemes, and state expenditures and subsidy schemes. Do you agree with Alan Moran’s estimate of 6.9 billion?

Senator, I’m not aware of his work.

[Senator Roberts] Do you have any idea of the extra cost of solar and wind on top of the additional, on top of ordinary electricity costs?

Senator, those figures are readily available. And I think one of the things that gets missed when looking at that figure, for example, the subsidy figure, as you call it, is the benefit that the renewables have provided the system in terms of lower costs, as you’ve pointed out, you know, it has been pointed out that the effect of having wind and solar in the market is to suppress prices. And I think we can see that in today’s market. So I think you have to be fair and look at the benefits or the impact of renewables on a holistic basis, rather than just looking at the subsidies, which were necessary to get solar and wind, for example, to the point where they are the cheapest form of energy generation. And I think we’re seeing the benefit of that in today’s electricity prices, which are at record low levels, I think.

[Senator Roberts] Are you aware of the study in Spain that says for every so-called green job created there are 2.2 jobs that could have been created had they stayed with coal-fired power station?

Senator, I’m not aware of that study.

[Senator Fawcett] Senator Roberts, you’ve had a pretty good run. How much more do you have?

[Senator Roberts] I’ll ask one more question on this topic, and perhaps we can come back if there’s, if I’ve got time afterwards.

[Senator Fawcett] We’re already well over, in terms of our schedule. I’m keen to move on to Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

[Senator Roberts] What is the effect of these unreliables, wind and solar, compared with the Prime Minister Gillard’s Labor carbon dioxide tax? Do you have any idea?

Sorry Senator, I’m not quite clear how to even answer that question.

[Senator Roberts] Well, I’ve been told that an estimate is that the cost of the Gillard carbon dioxide tax is about half the cost of these extra wind and solar costs on our energy sector.

Senator, I’m just not sure. I can’t answer that question as you’ve put it.

[Senator Roberts] I’ll put the questions on hydrogen and carbon dioxide sequestration on notice.

Thank you.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you, Chair.

/by

Senate Estimates – Is the Government looking at the Iron Boomerang?

, ,

One Nation has their eye on important infrastructure projects across the country.

Projects like the Iron Boomerang, connecting the West Australian iron ore fields with the Queensland coalfields so we can make steel in the country, could set our country up for decades.

Transcript

[Woman] Senator Roberts.

[Man] Thank you, Chair, thank you Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts] My questions are designed to see where the department is up to, if at all, on some major infrastructure projects that have been brought to my attention on recent listening and fact finding tours to Northern Australia. First one is the Iron Boomerang to connect the Pilbara iron ore with Bowen Basin coal to create a new Australian steel capability with more than $50 billion a year.

Thanks Senator. Shona Rosengren, Assistant Secretary in Queensland, Northern Territory and WA. So obviously we’re, we’re aware of the discussions around Project Boomerang. What, there is no current Australian government commitment to the project. However, we have already got commitments of $330 million on the Outback Way. Over $700 million in NAP and beef projects in Northern Australia.

[Malcolm Roberts] Excuse me, the Outback Way being the highway.

Being a highway, yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] not the railway.

And also $8.4 billion in roads of strategic importance projects across Northern Australia as well.

[Malcolm Roberts] But nothing on the railway line.

[Rosengren] But noting on the railway line.

[Malcolm Roberts] Is it seen, the Iron Boomerang, is it seen as really a very, very important security issue for us because it’ll give us independence and sovereignty over our steel industry and steel imports? And also make Australia a significant global player in steel?

I understand the dynamics of the project, but it’s not one that currently has Australian government commitment to it.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you. Secondly, is the department working on any proposal to extend inland rail north to Gladstone or Townsville?

Not at this stage no, Senator. I think we’ve looked at business cases on that front I think twice in the last–

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, what was that?

There’ve been business cases considering a Northern connection to Gladstone, I think twice in the last five years or so. But I’ll confirm with my colleagues through the afternoon.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you. Thirdly, is the department working on any project to connect the Adelaide to Darwin rail line with the Northern Rail System via Longreach or Mount Isa? Again, another national security issue. Enabling competition between ports, and also security if one of the ports goes out, or if the rail line goes out. Because the current rail line is… No?

[Man] No sir.

[Rosengren] I’m not aware of anything.

[Malcolm Roberts] It would mean easily moving troops from Townsville to Darwin. Okay, the fourth question. The Tully Millstream hydro project, power project, to provide 600 megawatts of clean baseload power into the national grid. Anything on that?

Not under the, I’m only responsible for road and rail projects. I’m not aware of the, the water grid.

Is anyone in Infrastructure Australia available to comment on that?

[Rosengren] It would be under the water .

Yeah, Infrastructure Australia is on tomorrow morning. That might be a Water question, or potentially an Industry question.

[Malcolm Roberts] So you probably won’t know this one either. Is the department working on any hydro projects in what is loosely called the Bradfield Catchment from Charters Towers to Cairns?

[Rosengren] I’m not aware in my responsibilities.

Yeah, I think potentially a question for the Water Grid Authority on Friday?

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, sixth. A space launch facility currently proposed for Abbot Point in North Queensland?

[Rosengren] Again, beyond my responsibility centres.

[Malcolm Roberts] So your departments are, your agency’s responsible for expenditure on projects more than $1 billion?

No, road and rail.

[Malcolm Roberts] Just road and rail.

So land transport.

[Man] Mostly deal with land transport.

[Malcolm Roberts] Mostly, what else?

Well, it’s land transport. We’ve got regional projects. We’ve got city deals.

[Malcolm Roberts] Regional projects, that’s brings up the seventh one which is the copper string to high voltage power transmission line, to bring Mount Isa into the national electricity grid.

I think the electricity projects are probably a matter for Department of Industry. So, DISER.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thanks Chair.

/by

Senate Estimates – Why is the Government still using Gender Neutral Language?

, ,

My motion last month calling on the government to ditch Gender neutral language passed the Senate. Despite this, the government style guide still includes these gender neutral terms. The Digital Transformation Agency creates the style guide, I asked them why they were defying the will of the Senate.

Original Motion: https://web.archive.org/web/20210331123928/https://7news.com.au/news/social/one-nation-pushes-motion-through-senate-banning-use-of-distorted-gender-inclusive-language-c-2379125

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] I’d like to ask questions about the style Manual, which is produced under the auspices of, the digital transformation agency. It’s something very dear to the chair’s heart. I don’t know, she’s stated this in public, language is crucial as a very powerful driver of behaviour and it’s been shown to be influential, for many hundreds of years now. So our office recently investigated the origin of the style manual and we got this advice. These quote, “The Australian government style manual was produced under authority from the Australian government. It is a government publication, but there does not appear to be, any specific regulatory or legislative framework under which it was produced,” Is that correct?

I would need to take that on notice, Senator I’m sorry.

[Malcolm Roberts] So, my understanding is, there’s no specific regulatory or legislative framework. So I noticed that this seventh edition, was compiled by working group with 167 different agencies. There you go Senator Gallagher, you’re always helpful, 167 different agencies, some of whom are organisations, some of whom are individuals, some are voluntary, some are paid part time. How much did edition seven of the Star Manual cost? And what is the annual budget of the style manual unit?

So I will need to look behind me to see, if we have anybody with the numbers, for the the cost of producing the style manual.

So just, we’ll get the numbers for you as soon as we can Senator, but the the actual style manual team is very small. It is purely on a sustainment footing right now, which means the sustainment is just minimum support. So we have a digital edition, which we have produced, which you would be well aware of. Some are very keen still to get paper copies, as you would expect and lots of very enthusiastic participants, but the the investment in the style manual has largely ceased.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, someone has got to keep going with this, because there’s a document on the website, that says help us improve the style manual. So someone collects this feedback and then actions it, So there is an ongoing cost. So have you worked at how much it is going to cost to go through all the federal government business and implement the changes called in this style manual?

Yes Senator we have released the latest edition and beyond that, the feedback that we take, will potentially make incremental improvements. The benefit we have though, with the style manual being digital is that, it is much simpler for us to make minor refinements than it is where you have a physical document. So it is, as I said, a very small team, it’s one or two people, and they respond to feedback and ensure that the product is maintained with very small sets of changes.

[Malcolm Roberts] So if it’s not a referable document that can be referenced, how do you maintain the integrity of the document? How do we make sure that no one can just walk in and change it when they so want to?

And so we put controls around changes to the document. If it’s helpful, we’ll provide on notice a summary of the team, the level of change, and then how we’re ensuring that the actual product is change controlled in the way that you would expect it to be.

[Malcolm Roberts] So correct me if I’m wrong, the document only exists on a web page at the moment, there’s no printed copy authorised?

So other than the copies that we have produced for editing and so on, there are no hard copies.

[Malcolm Roberts] But there’s not a copy that the minister authorises or anyone has authorised or anybody has authorised?

Sir we had, as you demonstrated many stakeholders who were participating in the refinement of the style manual in the latest edition, I’ll come back to you with the details as to how that process was undertaken to the point at which this is the specific person who authorised the final copy and the how do we manage it.

[Malcolm Roberts] And who is the guardian of changes in future. And what about, has anyone in the government done the costing of what it would cost to change thousands of web pages to make sure that language is complied with, thousands of forms? Has anyone done the costing of that? The implementation cost of this?

I wouldn’t have thought so, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. At the end of the development process did the minister approve the final format?

Also I’ll come back to you on notice on that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. I note that the style manual prevents the use of the word junior to describe an adolescent. Have you told all the foot junior footy clubs around Australia that they have to change their name to adolescents?

I don’t believe we have said adolescent footy clubs.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I’m even told that the word youth, let me better get this right. The word youth is okay. The word young people is okay, but the word junior or juniors or youths is not okay. So I noticed the style manual also requires federal government employees to find out the user’s preferred pronoun. Now you didn’t follow your own manual, because nobody asked me what my preferred pronoun was. So, is it more than a recommendation or is that all it is?

Senator it’s a reference for good writing. And in order for us to provide that advice, there is a level of discretion that can still be applied at the individual author level. This is good practice guidance that has been updated to be more contemporary than the last edition.

[Malcolm Roberts] Based upon what a lot of people have inputted but no reference to the English language or dictionaries or custom and practice of what our language means. Just a lot of opinions going in. You don’t look familiar with the process, okay. My Senate motion number 1055 sought to remove use of gender neutral language from federal government business. I asked the office of digital transformation to update the style manual accordingly and they advised it wasn’t necessary as the specific language expressions in my motion were not contained in the style manual, is that still your position?

I will come back to you Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, now your web pages are not numbered for reference in the section on language, your web page advises use gender language, to use gender neutral language. Now federal programmes are being changed to gender neutral language and your style manual has given us the reason, but apparently the department refuses to remove or qualify this gender neutral requirement, is that correct?

Senator, I’m going to need to come back to you with.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I’ve got a few final terms chair, that I’d just like to check, which is recommended by the office of digital transformation for these common terms, breastfeeding or chest feeding.

Senator, I have not.

[Malcolm Roberts] Breast milk or chest milk? Father or non birthing parent? Mother or gestational parent? My motion has the effect of about preventing this language, and now your proposing use of this language. Does that mean you defying the will of the Senate? It did pass.

I think it did.

/by