Senate Estimates Archives - Page 28 of 31

Senate Estimates – How much GST are we losing at the border on imports?

May/June 2021, National, Senate Estimates

Millions upon millions of parcels flow into Australia every month. Some dodgy operators avoid paying GST on imports by understating the value of the goods being posted. This is a huge disadvantage to our Aussie shops and we need to be doing more to enforce the rules on GST for foreign imports.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] I have some brief questions on border force. How many parcels come through Australian border force each financial year?

So Senator just give me one second. I’ll just get, I might just ask deputy commissioner Saunders to join me at the, the front table as well. In terms of parcels, probably I might describe it slightly differently if I could. So air cargo consignments, if I could start there cause Senator the goods coming into Australia, primarily from a border screening point of view is either sea cargo, stuff that comes in containers, air cargo, stuff that comes in crates in the belly of aeroplanes and international mail. So in terms of air cargo consignments between the 1st of July, 2020 and the 31st of March, 2021 there were 54,340,909 consignments in relation to sea cargo, there’s been a significant uptake. So I’ll give you the numbers for 19 and 20 first of all. So between the 1st of July, 2019, 31st of March, 2020 there were 2,472,286 consignments. Between the 1st of July, 2020 31st of March, 2021, 7,449,539 consignments. The reason for that is because of COVID-19 because of changes in logistics, supply chains, etc, a lot of people shopping from home, smaller consignments and the the freight forwarders need to get it here somehow. And there just isn’t a number of aeroplanes coming to Australia to support all of that coming through air cargo. So a lot of, a lot of the smaller consignments are now coming in containers and that’s led to a significant increase. In terms of international mail you see that data is actually commercially confidential because obviously Australia posts are in competition with you know, freight forwarders and other sort of international supply chain sort of companies. And, we don’t put those numbers out there Senator in terms of Australian international mail.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. But the total number of consignments for the nine months, July 20 to March 21 was 54 million, including air, mail and sea.

Well not including mail, I can’t give you that number because that’s commercially sensitive because Australian posts are sort of a, you know there’s a single commercial entity and they’re in competition with other people in the market. We don’t put that number out there. So what I’ve given you is in terms, sorry, air cargo consignments 54,340,909

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s just for air.

That’s for air, cargo. And for sea cargo an additional almost seven and a half million, 7.449 million.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you very much for that. How many of these parcels are checked for value and whether or not GST is applied?

I might just call

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry commissioner, just on that number, the sea cargo is that, how are you quantifying that number?

Consignment, so a consignment is obviously

[Malcolm Roberts] Do you define that as per container or how

No consignment is if you import a good into Australia, that’s a consignment, so that could be an entire container load that you have or if you’ve got lots of lines of goods in a container, so let’s say a freight forwarding company wants to get a lot of consignments to Australia, previously they might put them in a crate in the belly of an aeroplane, whereas now they’re putting them in containers. So we’re getting containers with lots and lots of consignments in them.

[Malcolm Roberts] I see, thanks for clarifying.

Does that make sense?

So it’s an individual entry for an importer of a good and that can be a private person or a commercial entity.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Thanks.

Thanks Senator Roberts. I might just ask Vanessa Holben here in terms of the, the GST question. If I could, it goes to matters of customs policy.

Vanessa Holburn group manager, customs group, Australian Border force. So your question is related to GST?

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. How many of the parcels that come in, consignments, are checked for value and have GST applied?

So I’ll need to take on notice the number of consignments that are checked. What I can give you though, is the dollar value of the undetected, undecided GST detected?

[Malcolm Roberts] The under?

The undecided GST detected. So that’s, that’s where they haven’t obviously claimed GST. So the dollar value, would you like it in the financial years?

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes, please.

So 2019-20, 25,827,753. I can go previous years if you’d like to as well.

[Malcolm Roberts] No it’s fine.

Year to date, so 31st of March, 2021, 411,719.

[Malcolm Roberts] So that’s the, could you say that again? What is that 25 million?

So we determine it, we determine it as understated, GST detected.

[Malcolm Roberts] Understated, GST detected.

Correct.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what does that mean? Understated? So that means only the only the parcels that have been where the GST has been understated and where it’s detected.

Correct.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what proportion of parcels are waved through without checking to see if GST should be paid.

That’s what I need to check on notice for you.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you. Is there any estimation of how much GST has not been paid per year? It’s a massive task as, as Mr. Adam just told us.

Again, I’ll need to check that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. How many notices are sent out to call in GST prior to the parcel being released?

I’ll need to check that on notice Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] What is the estimated loss to Australia per year for the lost or forgone GST?

I’ll need to take that on notice

And senator, we’ll take that on notice, but also we do obviously with GST, recognise other departments have a stake in the GST question, the ATO and treasury. So we will take it on notice, but we’ll, we’ll also link in with our other departments who have an interest in the GST policy.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What has been done to assist the cost of this forfeit and to implement a remedy. We’ve got to define the problem before we can solve it. With 54 million consignments, I’m sorry, 61 million consignment, it’s a pretty massive opportunity.

Can you repeat the question again Senator?

[Malcolm Roberts] What’s been done to assess the, the loss of revenue the forgone revenue, and to implement a remedy.

We can talk about our audit inspection control programme.

So, so the compliance, we have a compliance programme obviously to detect non-compliance through those avenues.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s sampling is it?

Correct, yes so there’s targets and there’s profiling. Also we do business engagements, that’s around educating those that are importing to ensure that they are quickly classifying the goods and obviously paying those duties attached to those goods.

[Malcolm Roberts] So there’d be hidden costs, is the government, I don’t know who to ask this question of, perhaps a minister, perhaps Mr. Adam, is the government aware of the hidden cost to Australian manufacturers and retailers who must add GST to their goods, whereas imports bypassing customs do not?

Probably a matter of policy I suggest, and maybe a different department would be best placed to answer that.

I’ll say, we are aware in the general sense of the matters you raise, but I’d need to take on notice the quantum of that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, so depends on the size of the problem, I understand that. So is it possible to consider another solution being tax reform? Another way of levying the tax?

Those options are always available to be considered by policymakers.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, Thank you very much.

May 27, 2021/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Government has no idea how much renewables cost – Clean Energy Regulator

Climate Change, May/June 2021, Senate Estimates

This government already funnels billions of dollars into renewable energy projects. As huge as that cost is, there is an even bigger silent one: the cost of complying with green regulation.

I was shocked that the Clean Energy Regulator, with a $75 million budget, has never made an estimate of just how much that cost is to business and Australians.

Transcript

Senator. So Senator Roberts, you have the call.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair. And thank you for attending tonight. First of all, what’s clean energy?

[David Parker] Senator, as the Clean Energy Regulator, we have a range of legislation that we’re entrusted to administer and the relevant bits of clean energy are defined in that legislation.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what are they?

[David Parker] Oh, there’s a range. Charlene, would you like to have a go at that?

[Charlene Thompson] Charlene Thompson, Executive General Manager, Scheme Operations Division. So Senator, as part of our administration of various legislative schemes, we are entrusted with looking after the two aspects of the renewable energy target. Which includes the large scale renewable energy target and the smaller scale target. And I believe the eligible technologies under that Act include solar, PV, wind power, I think there’s some bio methane in there as well. So, those things are essentially eligible activities or technologies that attract the incentive provided by the renewable energy target.

[David Parker] So there’s one other, which is heat pump hot water.

[Charlene Thompson] That’s right, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, what was that?

[David Parker] Heat pump hot water. So, it’s the new hot water systems. Rather than having, you know, electricity go through a resistive heater or a gas heater. You have a heat pump on like a reverse air conditioner, which puts heat into the water. They’re more efficient, use less electricity.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s defined as clean, is defined in the regulations, which you have to enforce?

[David Parker] Well, for our purposes, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. The purpose of the agency is listed as being accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. I think that means carbon dioxide. Any such goal must be tempered by the costs this entails. The Regulator administers a range of programmes, including the Emissions Reduction Fund, the Renewable Energy Target, and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. The Regulator has a budget of about $75 million. Is that about right?

[David Parker] That’s about right, yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s generally recognised that the costs imposed on business by regulations is considerably in excess of the direct costs of the Regulator itself. So, more than your $75 million. Have you estimated the cost of compliance by businesses as required by the government’s regulation review guidelines?

[David Parker] Well, in terms of our existing regular regulation, no, we haven’t done a survey, but let me say, as a matter of culture, we take it as one of our duties to reduce the cost impact of the legislation that we administer. And I think it would be fair to say that we have a good record in that.

[Malcolm Roberts] How do you do that? And what kind of examples can you give me?

[David Parker] Yeah, Okay. So I can give you a range of examples. So, let me take one in the small scale renewable energy space.

[Malcolm Roberts] Small scale?

[David Parker] Small scale. So, this is solar panels on roofs, for example. When that scheme was originally conceived it involved people filling out lots of forms. The forms were shooting out all over the place and eventually winding up at the Regulator. Then we’d have people look at the forms, that would take some time, obviously filling in forms and moving information around the various parties in the industry would have a cost. As one of the innovations that was co-developed with industry, we now have a process called the Solar Panel Validation Arrangements. I won’t go into all of the details, because that will take some time, but broad broadly speaking, what it means is that the installer takes out their telephone. There’s an app on that telephone. They take a photo of the panels, where they’ve been installed. Before and after, so that you can see that it’s been done. That’s an Andy Ford measure. Takes a photograph of the relevant barcodes on the panel. So we know what panels are there. And then, you know, essentially you press submit information. So, it goes through the network, the web, to the various people involved, and it quickly ends up in our shop, for the purposes of validating the install and providing the Renewable Energy Certificates. That data essentially just goes directly into our systems and doesn’t require very much human intervention at all. And so that reduces the time taken to do this. And I could give you a range of other suggestions, like that.

[Malcolm Roberts] So a new scheme is coming in, the Corporate Emissions Reduction Transparency Report.

[David Parker] Yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] And it seeks to gather and codify information from all companies rather than the 2,500 presently covered in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. The scheme was open to public comment until 19th of March, 2021 in a government media release of 19 February. At 28 days, seems a bit short. Was this part of the regulation impact statement procedure required by the government? And have you estimated the paper burden costs of the scheme?

[David Parker] Well, let me just correct some of the facts that you stated. It’s not a requirement to all companies. It’s a requirement for us to set up a framework, which we’ve done. It’s a voluntary arrangement.

[Malcolm Roberts] It’s an opt-in.

[David Parker] It’s an opt-in.

[Malcolm Roberts] Strictly speaking, it’s an opt-in.

[David Parker] Well, whether you call it strictly speaking or want to go to the issues about companies who’d want to opt in and why, it’s formally an opt in arrangement.

[Malcolm Roberts] So is this scheme proceeding?

[David Parker]A scheme is still in the process of development. You told quickly the story of the proposal being put out for consultation, we’ve got quite a substantial amount of feedback from industry about that. In essence, if you like, the scheme is about moving reporting from and this is itself, a simplification, moving reporting under the search process to the extent that companies opt in, moving that from gross emissions. Which is the arrangement under the so-called NGERS Reporting, National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System over to a net story, if companies wish to opt in. And companies, as part of that, will be able to tell their story about how they’re proposing to reduce their net emissions position.

[Malcolm Roberts] So when you talk about emissions, you’re talking about carbon dioxide?

[David Parker] Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.

[David Parker] Or equivalent.

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry?

[David Parker] Or equivalent.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, methane. You’re not talking about nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, particulate or any of the real pollutants.

[David Parker] Well, nitrous oxide is a relevant gas that’s covered. So, anything that anything that’s covered, yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it covers real pollutants too? Now it is an opt in programme, as you said. Yet it’s likely, it seems, that green activist organisations will use it to target those companies that initially choose to opt out. To not opt in.

[David Parker] Well, look, I think that remains to be seen. I wouldn’t speculate on how we will use, who might opt in at this stage. I mean, it’s very early in the process. I mean, it’s quite clear that the way climate change issues are being thought about has moved quite clearly into the net space as opposed to the grey space. And so, what this report does is intended to align with that shift.

[Chair] Roberts again, I’d like to hand the court over to Senator Davidson. You can ask two more questions, if you’d like. Then we’ll pass it over.

[Malcolm Roberts] Can you offer information regarding the compliance costs for business?

[David Parker] Look, it’s difficult to say. It will depend on how a company chooses to opt in, on what basis. Whether that’s an equity basis or a basis that comes directly out of the NGERS arrangement. So it’s one of these things, which is quite difficult to say at this point in time.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, last question, if the large scale renewable energy target has been achieved, and I’m told that we have achieved it, why is there a positive price to the renewable energy target subsidy target itself? When any such price is possible only if the regulatory measures are in place requiring retailers to incorporate this energy in their supplies. So if we’ve already achieved it, why are we driving more subsidies to achieve even more?

[David Parker] Well, the price of Large Scale Generation Certificate, so let’s just focus on that, for the purposes of discussing the question. So, the legislation sets a statutory target of 33,000 gigawatt hours. And a couple of things to observe. So there was a statutory target through time, but also a mechanism embedded in the legislation to permit, in technical terms, arbitration. Not arbitration, but arbitrage between the years, pardon me. And there is still some obligation that remains to be met, should a company wish to, right? They’ve taken so-called default arrangement out of that. They could redeem those payments for a certificate. So there’s some sort of old demand. And the other point is that that target is not the only demand that’s there in the market. So, it’s possible for people to voluntarily surrender certificates if they wish. And there are some schemes which also connect into the scheme, such as Green Power. Where, if people wish, they can sort of tick the box, I’m using term somewhat pejorative, but choose to purchase low emissions energy from the energy retailers. And I won’t go into all the details, but that also flows through into an LGC demand on top of the statutory target. So prices are hitting down. We expect them to hit down further, but in terms of where they go over time, as some of those things that I’ve explained with them work themselves out. Where the price heads over time, there there’s a range of views about that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.

May 26, 2021/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

People don’t want wind turbines in their backyard – Senate Estimates

Climate Change, May/June 2021, Senate Estimates

I questioned the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner at Senate Estimates. This is one the dozens of climate related agencies that the government pays for in their never-ending pursuit of renewables.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you chair. Thank you, Mr. Dyer, for being here with us.

[Mr. Dyer] My pleasure.

[Malcolm Roberts] The data shows the large project subsidy is around $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide and that’s close to $40 per megawatt hour. If the large scale renewable energy target has been achieved, which is what we’re told why is there a positive price to the renewable energy targets, certificates effectively subsidy when any such price is possible only if the regulatory measures are in place requiring retailers incorporate this energy in their supplies. So if we’ve achieved the target, why is it still there?

[Mr. Dyer] It’s a fantastic good question, but it’s not my area of expertise overall or roles I’m the ombudsman effectively for renewable energy and transmission. So it’s not, one I can comment on

[Malcolm Roberts] Are you the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner?

[Mr. Dyer] It’s formerly the National Wind Farm Commissioner.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah the National Wind Farm Commissioner, okay. So the history of manufacturing, the history of farming, the history of just about any service if it’s dealt with closely and evaluated closely then managing a process is most productive and efficient when variation is minimised. So what we’ve got now is an increase in variation of supply from electricity, and that’s the most crucial sector. So the sector that determines our manufacturing success, our agricultural success, our processing success, the quality of life, the affordability of energy is now being driven by increasing variability through wind and solar which have notoriously variable, energy supplies. Is there any thought been given to that? That’s inherently more expensive.

[Mr. Dyer] Senator, my role is to help work with communities and proponents and governments to help the rolled out of projects to occur in the country around the country. I don’t set the policy about what should be put out there on a pathway to help resolve concerns.

[Malcolm Roberts] Do you have any concerns from citizens as I do from our constituents that we’re supposed to be doing all of this stuff, transitioning to unreliable energy because of climate yet, we’re transitioning to the two things that are make us even more dependent on weather and climate variability, seems insane to me. Do you have any constituents as I do who are complaining about that?

[Mr. Dyer] Most constituents, the complaint to us, very supportive of renewable energy, but just don’t want one in their backyard.

[Malcolm Roberts] Why is that?

[Mr. Dyer] Because of the perceived impacts of the visual amenity noise, property values, of fire risk and a whole range of things that might to be tabled to our attention.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s low vibes, low frequency vibrations in particular?

[Mr. Dyer] Yes. There have been a body of complaints about what’s called infrasound.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. Yeah. I’ve heard them of people in severe pain, trauma almost due to it. Has any study being done on the impact of wind turbines on energy and Earth’s atmosphere and the effects of that wind turbines taking energy out of the atmosphere.

[Mr. Dyer] Not to my knowledge.

[Malcolm Roberts] It might seem very minuscule but then you see labor’s carbon dioxide tax was introduced to cut the number of carbon dioxide molecules in air from one in 5.7 million produced by humans to one in 6 million. So that seems very minuscule too but we’ve got a whole industry and the decimation of other industries based on a theory that when in reality nature is shown to control the level of carbon dioxide in the air. So no studies have been done looking at the effect of taking energy out of earth’s atmosphere and out of the earth’s winds that you’re aware of. I’m not aware of any either.

[Mr. Dyer] No, there’s been theories around that. Wind turbines might cause frost because they take the wind out of the sail, so to speak. And the top here that might protect vineyard from causing frost could be at risk. But when we’ve dug into those research matters there hasn’t been any substance to them.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. So wind sources of power are not reliable. They’re unreliable, they’re costly inherently so because they’re very low density energy they’re unstable in terms of they’re being asynchronous. When they’re added to the grid, they increase instability. They’re scattered, which increases transmission costs. They have limited life sometimes as short as 10 to 15 years then I have an environmental legacy with massive burials in Wyoming for example. I don’t know what’s going to happen in Australia. Is anyone talking about those issues?

[Mr. Dyer] Decommissioning is certainly a big topic at the moment as we come to end of life of many wind farms around the country and who pays, who is accountable, what is the disposal, disposal mechanism for things their blades is a hot topic. Thank you very much Mr. Dyer.

May 26, 2021/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Here’s one for the Farmers: Restoration or Compensation (Climate Change Authority)

May/June 2021, Property Rights, Senate Estimates

The government has been able to cut down emissions mostly on the back of locking up land and stopping farmers from using it. This huge infringement on property rights by the states has been done without compensation. It is disgusting that governments have locked up farmer’s land to meet United Nations emissions targets. Every farmer deserves either restoration of their rights to use the land how they need or compensation for the rights they have lost.

Transcript

Hanson-Young, Senator Roberts. You have the call.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you Chair. Thank you for being here. Minister, I’d like to ask you a question. Several questions, in fact. In order to comply with the UN’s Kyoto climate protocol in 1996, the then Howard Anderson Liberal National’s Government appropriated farmers’ property, specifically land property rights. But section 51 clause 31 of our country’s Federal Constitution requiring the payment of just terms compensation. So what the Howard Anderson government did was a deal with firstly the Borbidge National Party Government in Queensland state government. And later, that was in 1996, and then a Memorandum of Understanding. And then in 1998, the Howard Anderson Government did a deal with the Beattie Labour Government. Again, a state government. So these state governments initially signed a Memorandum of Understanding and later passed state laws forbidding the clearing of land under various guises such as native vegetation protection. So they appropriated farmers’ property rights for the Howard Anderson Government to comply with the UN’s Kyoto protocol. And that’s in writing from Premier Beattie. And it’s, it’s quite clear from what the Premier’s have said in Queensland and New South Wales. Minister, is this fair? To go around the Constitution to appropriate someone’s property rights? As citizens, Australian citizens, property right?

Well look–

[Chair] All right, that’s asking a matter of opinion.

[Malcolm Roberts] But the Minister, I’m not asking it of the public service.

Well, you can ask the Minister about government–

[Malcolm Roberts] Is that a fair policy?

[Chair] Well Minister, if you wish to answer that you can.

I mean, you’re asking me to comment on policies going back to, you know, well before my time in politics, in the first instance. In the, in the 1990s. So I might, I might sort of take it as a comment. I understand the concerns you’re raising. There’s obviously a lot of, would’ve been a lot of factors being debated there. And in terms of the constitutional issues you raise, well of course those issues are always a matter for the high court.

[Malcolm Roberts] Given that a few tens of thousands of farmers carried the burden for a whole nation just to comply with arbitrary UN dictates without compensation. And it was done deceptively to get around their constitutional rights as Australian citizens. Is it reasonable–

Senator Roberts, imputation of improper motives is not in line with the standing of this. You should withdraw that and–

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, I’ll withdraw that

and rephrase your question.

[Malcolm Roberts] But it was clearly stated by the Queensland Premier that it was done to enable compliance with the Howard Anderson Government with UN Kyoto Protocol. That was clearly stated. Minister, are you aware that seven years after Prime Minister Howard was removed from office in 2014, in a major address to a global warming policy think tank that opposes the UN’s de industrialization of Western civilization. Prime Minister Howard admitted that on the matter of climate science, he was agnostic. Yet he put in place their renewable energy target. He had the first major party policy on emissions trading schemes or carbon tax. He was the first to introduce that as a policy and he also appropriated or caused the appropriation of farmers’ property rights. And yet he was agnostic on climate science.

I’m not aware of those comments.

[Malcolm Roberts] So he appropriated property from tens of thousands of farmers to achieve our goals under UN dictates. And yet himself was agnostic on the climate science. So what will your government do to restore or compensate farmers for property stolen from them?

Well, look, you’ve made a number of assertions there. It’s difficult for me to– It’s difficult for me to give a, perhaps a useful answer to you without dealing with all of the assertions. And it’s difficult for me to deal with them. So–

[Malcolm Roberts] Happy to have a conversation later.

It, well, indeed, I’m very happy to. But I might, I might take, I think it’s very difficult for me to answer as you’ve made a number of assertions. We could probably spend a lot of time on those. I don’t know how useful it would be. But, I’d probably perhaps take it as a comment.

[Chair] And Senator Roberts I would just say you do have the offer there from the Minister there to engage some other time. You have the Climate Change Authority here before you. So can I encourage you if you have question of them, to put questions to them.

[Malcolm Roberts] Certainly, I will just make the point though that farmers are wanting either restoration of their lawful rights, their constitutional rights, or compensation for that. Thousands of farmers deserve it. Now to the clean energy, to the Climate Change Authority. Your authority’s Toolkit for 2030 rehearsed all the familiar factoids. It shows a graph. I don’t know the title of the graph. But it shows the various– costs of various reductions of emissions and production of carbon dioxide and the costs. And the most prominent, and the entire load is carried by this. The only one that declined significantly is land use, reflecting what I was just talking about with the minister. So. Are you willing to talk about your views on solar energy? Because, let me see, I think it was Arena said that solar energy is now the cheapest form of energy. My understanding is that in Saudi Arabia, that is correct. But when we factor in the fact that we need a certain area of land covered in solar panels. Then you factor in the cloudy days that doubles that area. So it’s now double that cost. When you factor in the nighttime, no sun shines. Not even in Saudi Arabia. That’s triple the area. Then we need the cost of the battery. Solar becomes prohibitively and impossibly expensive. Can you make any comments on that?

Certainly. So Brad Archer, Chief Executive Officer of the Climate Change Authority. Senator, I’m not sure I have a lot to add to the advice that colleagues from other agencies have provided here this evening on that question. We looked to the same reports, analysis and evidence that they do including the International Energy Agency and authorities such as the Australian Energy Market Operator here in Australia. And the analysis and modelling that they put forward clearly shows that renewable energy and in particular, solar is highly cost competitive compared against other new build technologies into the future. And that, that advice looks reasonably compelling.

[Malcolm Roberts] It does look compelling on a per unit basis until we factor in the need for additional solar panels to cover for cloudy days and nighttime and batteries. Then it becomes prohibitively expensive. It becomes a parasitic mal investment.

Senator, the analysis that I’m referring to that I’m aware of includes the costs of firming technologies that are required to ensure that we have a reliable electricity supply while relying predominantly on variable renewable energy technologies.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, the claims of climate change and especially climate alarm are driving this. But we’ve heard of worries tonight from several agencies. Snowy Hydro in particular. But also Minister Taylor was forthright enough to come out a couple of weeks ago and say that he’s very concerned about future prices. He’s very concerned about grid stability, and he’s very concerned about the loss of reliability from our energy sector. And what I’ve seen in the thread going through all these presentations is the use of terms. Firming for example, instead of unreliability or insecurity. The term is firming, sounds lovely. Instead of high price, the term is subsidy or enhancement. Instead of instability, the term is frequency control auxiliary service. A service, an additional cost that doesn’t come with base load power from coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear or hydro. It’s an addition. Instead of blackout, the term is system integrity protection system. Instead of power cuts, the demand, the term is demand management. Sounds wonderful. Instead of unreliables, the term is clean energy. What exactly do you do.

Senator, I’m just not quite sure what your, what your question is that you’d like me to address.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, I’ll take a quote from your authority’s report. Or Toolkit for 2030. Australia’s electricity sector is undergoing a transformation. From all of the things that we took for granted walking in and flipping a switch. Reliability, cheap, the cheapest power in the world. To now amongst the most expensive. We’re undergoing a transformation. Government Australia’s electricity sector is undergoing a transformation. Government support for renewable energy, the emergence of new clean energy technologies. Declining technology costs, and the need to replace an ageing coal fired generation fleet are all playing a part. Then you continue. Currently markets fail to adequately recognise and price climate related risk because of a lack of information and short-termism in investment decision making. However, this is changing quickly as relevant tools become available and financial regulators divert more attention to the issue. What are you doing? What do you do?

Well sir, I think in large part you’ve provided the answer by reading the material that’s in the authority’s report. There are a range of factors that are driving a transformation in electricity sector. Some of those are related to the response to climate change impacts and risks, and others are a result of what’s happening in the market itself and the need to replace ageing generation assets. And I think both the market and the market authorities are recognising that the cheapest way to do that and build the electricity system that we need in the future is with the low cost technologies. And which also have the benefit of being low emissions. So we have a range of institutions that are spending a lot of time working out how to ensure that the electricity system of the future is stable and reliable and affordable. For example, the energy security board is leading work on future market arrangements for the electricity sector. That’s a major piece of work. And there are other institutions in the electricity sector which are also turning their mind to these issues. So, and I think there’s a broad consensus that we have the technologies, and we have the means of achieving an electricity system which does meet those goals.

[Malcolm Roberts] Did you respond to my requests put on notice for the evidence upon which this is all based? The climate evidence?

[Brad Archer] Senator–

[Malcolm Roberts] The reason I ask is I’m not trying to be cheeky or smart. I don’t know because we were flooded with responses late last week, just a few days before Senate estimates. And I don’t know which ones have replied and which ones haven’t, but we asked you for that. Where’s your empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. We wanted the specific location of the evidence the data and the framework for proving that. And we also wanted the specific relationship between carbon dioxide quantities that affect climate temperature, wind, rainfall, etc. So you just mentioned, could you put it on, get me on notice, please. You just mentioned the effects of climate change that are already present and the risks that you foresee. Could you give me that on notice?

Well, I could give you that on notice and I can also attempt to answer that briefly today.

[Chair] Sure, on notice would be fine.

[Malcolm Roberts] Certainly, sure.

[Chair] All right, thank you.

May 26, 2021/2 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

What do we get for the $5.1B on Snowy Hydro?

Energy, May/June 2021, Senate Estimates

Before the government started splashing billions of dollars on renewables, the price of energy was around $40/MWHr. That price has increased more and more since 2015.

Transcript

[Chair] Senator Roberts, you have the call.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you Chair, and thank you all for being here. What is the true costs of Snowy 2.0, including associated transmission linkages and all associated costs required to make it operational and productive?

[Paul Broad] Well, the transmission, as I’ve said many times here, is not part of 2.0. The transmission is to enable the transition to renewables. And the cost of all that transmission is in the hands of others, not in our hands. So I can’t comment on transmission. But Snowy 2.0., as I’ve just said here many times, in nominal dollars, it’s a 5.1. And then attached to that we have a contingency factor of $400 million. And we now can confirm that the environmental costs, the offsets costs are about roughly $100 million.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What is the average annual saving that Snowy 2.0 will enable in the marketplace?

[Paul Broad] Sir, I don’t understand.

[Malcolm Roberts] What was the saving? The economic modelling has found that Snowy 2.0 will provide savings of market benefits of between $4.4 and $6.8 billion and reduced spot prices, leading to lower costs for consumers.

[Paul Broad] Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] What will be the benefit?

[Paul Broad] So, as I said, I think he said it four years ago, what it does is firm up renewables and allows it to compete. And we do so at a price point, at that time I said, some senators were here at the time, we said that we can compete with base load power. And that’s been proven to be true, even with existing Snowy. So the benefits will come is to renewables, lower prices, etc, etc, that stem from 2.0. I emphasise again, you can’t go down the renewables track without significant amounts of deep storage.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s an added cost to renewables.

[Paul Broad] You can’t have renewables without it.

[Malcolm Roberts] Right, so that’s an added cost to renewables.

[Paul Broad] Yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] Do the projected savings take us back to a sustained $40 per megawatt hour price, that prevailed prior to government interventions favouring renewable energy that brought the post-2015 price increases?

[Paul Broad] I can’t comment on that. I can comment that the renewal penetration is significantly pushing downward on prices. Wholesale prices are significantly down, the forward curve is down. But you gotta be able to balance that out. That’s been helped a lot by existing baseline plants being flexed up and down to keep the lights on. So I can’t comment on going back to those days. Those days, where driven by cheap baseline.

[Malcolm Roberts] Driven by cheap baseline? So that’s correct. That’s my understanding too.

[Paul Broad] Mm-hmm.

[Malcolm Roberts] So coming to the Curry Curry project, do you think that private sector participants perceive the risks of such a new plant? My understanding is that the Minister was really keen for private and private sector to take on Curry Plant or provide that what the Curry Plant will be providing. But instead that’s not happening, so the government’s jumping in. So do you think that private sector participants perceive the risk of such a new plant to be excessive, in light of government subsidies, present and planned, to intermittent wind and solar?

[Paul Broad] So EA didn’t. So they’re building. Energy Australia didn’t, so they’re building a plant tolerably. Can I just say, the other one was AGL. They’d be talking about building a plant at Tomago since, I think, 2012. And I don’t believe the – in their interest to build and enable competitors to offer up more competitive products than what they currently supply from their base load power stations. So, I suspect there are wider considerations than just gas plants for AGL. But I can’t, you know, I’m speculating.

[Malcolm Roberts] So, there are many –

[Paul Broad] And for us sorry?

[Malcolm Roberts] So, many complicating factors.

[Paul Broad] Yeah, many. But, for us that, you know, we look on the other side. I mean, when the bush fires happened here, 18 months ago, the tragedy of those fires, only for Colongra – Only for Colongra the lights were a struggle to stay on in New South Wales. And we faced, because of the contract market that Roger was describing, we looked at losing somewhere in the order of $150 million because we were on the wrong side of the contracts. Colongra came on, we lost, I think, $30 odd million in an hour and a half, which is the risk to business. We are in a risky business, eh? So you gotta take the losses at times. So, you gotta be able to have faster firming generation to enable this transition to happen. That’s just what’s happening now, it’s happening in Queensland right now. Queensland have 400,000 properties without power. There’s a hospital in Queensland on emergency diesel. Right now. This is real. And they’re firing up gas plants. Please, this is serious. This is deadly serious. These are people who are in serious predicaments. And we sit here today. Let me tell you, I spend my life thinking about this. That’s what I do every day. I think about what we can do, to not let that happen.

[Malcolm Roberts] And Mr. Broad, I’ve been thinking about it for decade. I don’t have your level of expertise in the electricity sector, but we knew this time was coming. Based upon policies that Labor and Liberal governments have pushed. Does the decision of Snowy Hydro Limited, to undertake such an investment at Curry Curry, indicate it has a lesser risk aversion than its private sector rivals?

[Paul Broad] No, I don’t think that’s true at all. I think EA has obviously seen that they need to go. I think that as I say, energy has, AGL had other considerations to think about. I can’t comment on origin. I can’t work that out, because they have a wonderful hydro plant just on the edge of the Sydney Basin and the Victoria Falls Hydro Plant. It’s a fabulous plant. So I can’t really look into that, but I don’t think a difference on risk. We manage risk to the enth degree.

[Malcolm Roberts] So, is it because private firms just cannot justify the risk and investment because government has favoured high cost renewables? Or unreliables, as I call them?

[Paul Broad] I don’t think so. No.

[Malcolm Roberts] You don’t think so?

[Paul Broad] I think Energy Australia has proven that –

[Man] Energy Australia has proved positive of that effectively.

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry?

[Man] Energy Australia has proved positive of that effectively.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. So isn’t Snowy 2.0, coming back to Snowy 2.0.. Oh well, let’s just ask another question on Curry. Isn’t the private sector effectively competing with government subsidised unreliables, especially after Matt Kean in New South Wales, and Lily D’Ambrosio in Victoria recently declared further fostering of unreliables and with transmission lines and guaranteed payments and controls, favouring and protecting unreliables?

[Paul Broad] So, I think the subsidies are flung to the private sector as much as anyone else. I note that Energy Australia got $80 million, I think or there abouts. So I think 50 from New South Wales and some from the Feds. I noticed Twiggy Forrest got $30 million for his proposed LNG plant. I’m sure he needs the $30 million. He got his – He got his $30 million for that. So there was a lot, you know, I don’t think you’ve singled out any one groups in the industry. But the transition is happening. Let’s be clear. The transition is happening. Once the renewables gets and transmission can deliver to market, the firming that needs to be built is massive. It is on a scale that it’s hard to even comprehend.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, we have the Minister himself, the last question, Chair. The Minister himself, Mr. Taylor, has cited Bloomberg’s graph on support of clean energy or unreliable energy, as I’d call it. And Australian, per capita, is investing more. Twice as much as the next major country investing in this unreliables energy. We’re investing double the United States, six times what China is doing. And we’ve already heard from you and Mr. Whitby, what’s happening as this transition occurs, this forced transition, and it’s bringing considerable risk to our whole Electricity Sector. So, I would see Snowy 2.0 itself as an admission of failure because it relies on high peak power rates. It wouldn’t work without that.

[Paul Broad] I think that’s a comment, not a question, sir.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. Thank you, Chair.

May 25, 2021/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Is the Inland Rail a $24 Billion White Elephant? Australian Rail Track Corporation

May/June 2021, National, Senate Estimates

The Inland Rail is a huge project. It is riddled with uncertainty and secrecy. The ARTC won’t release the business case for the project, even though we have evidence that many of the assumptions used for it are completely flawed. The Inland Rail started as costing less than $3 Billion, it is now estimated at nearly $24 Billion. While the head of the ARTC is on $1 million+ of taxpayer money a year, all of the detail should be publicly available.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] First question is, can you list Inland Rail Social Media Accounts, and how much we spend on social media including Instagram in the last financial year. Please

[Witness] Sure, we’ll probably have to take it on notice, so we can give you some idea of quickly, but we found social media to be extremely effective and greatly improve, some of our engagements that was asked about earlier, we find that we have interactive dialogues on a real-time basis with people they don’t have to come to us, we don’t have to go to them. We can provide very technical information, including maps. They can post questions on those maps. So the social media interaction has been extremely effective. Do you want to provide any additional detail to back up?

[Witness] No. I mean, I think we’re finding it as a good value for money medium. And, but yes, we have multiple channels, as you would expect. Again, we can confirm those, but all the ones you would expect Facebook and Instagram, LinkedIn, those things are on YouTube, those sorts of things. So, but we can get you the details.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. The business case lists 87 coal trains a week, going into Brisbane every week, all the way through to 2050, I understand that coal reserves that would come down that line run out in 2030. Is that true? And if so, what does that do to your business case?

The first part, we would be speculating on we’d have to take it on notice ’cause we don’t control the coal market.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes Obviously.

The second part, we have testified previously, that even if coal was to go to zero, and I’m going to ask Mr. Campbell and Mr. Hornsby to correct me if I’m wrong, but even if the coal volumes were to go to zero, that the business case still stacks up and still had a benefit to cost ratio over two

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. The Queensland government only allows 10 million tonnes of coal to be sent to Brisbane port, currently the port handles 7 million tonnes, is this limit of 10 still in place? And rather than 87 trains a week, how many will the remaining 3 million tonnes generate? We make it out around about seven trains a week, not 87.

Yeah. Again, we’d have to take that on notice ’cause I’m not sure the limitations at the port of Brisbane.

[Malcolm Roberts] Is it true that the port of Brisbane can only unload trains for 49 hours a week, being 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday to Friday, ten to two on Saturday and closed all day Sunday? If so, how long does it take to unload a train? The point being, how many trains can the port of Brisbane actually service as against the business case?

So, Senator the business case was primarily a terminal to terminal activity, so from Melbourne to Acacia Ridge. So as far as I’m aware that the business case didn’t really cater or talk to traffic between traffic to and from the port.

[Malcolm Roberts] How then can we assist the viability?

[Malcolm Roberts] Providing the Inland rail if you don’t know the service?

Yeah, so the inland rail is being built as a terminal to terminal, and I think as we heard earlier on there may be more than one terminal in Brisbane, and there is a separate business case analysis looking at that link to the port which is not part of the inland rail project.

[Malcolm Roberts] So if the port of Brisbane is not modelled in that how do we know the impact of the port on the inland rail? The constraint of the port?

I might ask my colleague Simon.

[Simon Orsby] Okay let me introduce myself. Sir I’m Simon Ormsby executive interstate network for ROTC and I’ve joined the bench. It’s okay chair. In broad term, we can come back with the details behind the modelling, when we take that on notice. But in broad terms, the number of trains assumed is broadly similar to the number of trains that are passed through today. But there are longer trains in the business case, inland rail and investments enables longer coal trains, so heavier coal trains to be run than today. So the assumptions aren’t poorly different, in the business case to what happens today, but we can come back to your technical notice and come back to all the data around that.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m interested in the impact, of the restricted hours at Brisbane port.

Yep, we’ll come back.

[Malcolm Roberts] Is it true that passing loops at Kings Thorpe and Fisherman’s Island can only handle a train, with the length of 670 metres yet your train are 1600 metres, so how do you propose to get your trains in and out of the port?

So Senator it’s not intended at this point, that longer trains than currently operate to the port today will operate to the port in the future. So our 1.8 kilometre trains will terminate at a terminal outside of Brisbane or on the edges of Brisbane or Acacia Ridge. And then there would need to be a different arrangement, than those trains that would take it to the port.

[Malcolm Roberts] Gets quite complex. Isn’t it?

I can’t validate the length of those crossing loops, but what I can say is part of the business case extensive capacity modelling was undertaken, and assume different lengths of trains, because you have a crossing loop or two crossing loops at 600 metres. Doesn’t mean that every train is limited to 600 metres, and there is, there’s quite a bit of double track, so if you’re particularly in running a narrow gauge train, so some of those coal trains may just have a through run without actually utilising the crossing loop.

Can I maybe just help a little bit, what he’s saying is you can give priority to longer trains, so the ones that use the passing loops are the shorter trains. So it doesn’t have to actually match the length of the train that uses the line to be given that priority.

[Malcolm Roberts] Got it.

So that’s one.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Brisbane trains have a curfew which limits inland rail services to 19 hours a day, which means that the times a train can leave Melbourne needs to adjust to avoid that curfew, there will be a corresponding window in Melbourne, and all along the route, have you modelled how this will affect loads, Once inland rail is fully operational?

So there’s no curfew for trains outside of Acacia Ridge. I’m not, in fact, I’m not aware of a curfew.

[Malcolm Roberts] So you haven’t modelled it?

Sorry,

[Malcolm Roberts] You haven’t modelled it.

No, we’ve assumed there’s no curfew, could say unlimited access between Melbourne, the Melbourne terminals and the Brisbane terminals?

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. The new tunnel ARTC will have to build down from Toowoomba has a grade end of one to 64. The train would need to do 30 kilometres an hour down the tunnel. Once the train exits the tunnel, that limit is 80 kilometres per hour, all the way to the port. Can you demonstrate that this has been factored into the 24 hour transit time?

Yes, and we can give you the train modelling.

[Malcolm Roberts] If we could please, Thank you. The project cost of 14.8 billion does not include anything to do with the tunnel, through the great dividing range outside of Toowoomba. Is that correct?

No.

[Malcolm Roberts] What is the cost?

Of the tunnel?

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.

So projects as we’ve testified a few times now, for commercial and confidence we’re under procurement right now. So we’re not disclosing project budgets, but the total cost of inland rail, does include the cost of the tunnel down the Toowoomba range.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Australian Economic Consultants and Peer reviewed by professor Rolf has put the cost of the tunnel at $5 billion plus $3 billion for new rail line between Acacia Ridge, the port of Brisbane, and $1 billion of other work. This puts the current cost of inland rail at 24 billion. How can it possibly recoup these expenses?

Sorry, Senator Roberts, I’d have to expand on those comments. That’s I believe cost of the tunnel to go to the port, and the improvements to get to the port, which is subject to that separate business case, it wouldn’t be additive to the cost of inland rail. It’s a separate project with a separate business case.

[Malcolm Roberts] How can it still stack up? That’s a heck. That’s a matter for government and the business case.

Sir the port connection, isn’t part of the inland rail project

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry.

The port connection work isn’t part of the inland rail project, and hasn’t been committed to, by any government, then to do the study.

[Malcolm Roberts] It’s additional costs.

Well we were doing a study on what’s viable and what would work with, the Queensland government. And whether or not there is a port connection built will be a matter for future government decision-making.

[Malcolm Roberts] Let’s move on then. In the original discussions around what was then called the north south rail corridor, there was a route that came over the border into Queensland. where it does now near Goondiwindi and then heads north to Mooney before crossing the mountain range at a lower elevation through Mamadoer onto Dalby, and then down to Toowoomba. This allows for a junction at Dalby with coal and bulk grains, going to Gladstone and the freight hub for Brisbane located at Toowoomba. The rest of the trip would be by road using the new $1.6 billion second range crossing which is actually built. Do you have any information on that alignment via Mooney?

Yes. That was looked at some time ago and found not to be economically feasible as an alternative to meet the business case requirements. So maybe I can address the broader question there, which is Gladstone truncating in Toowoomba. The biggest thing about inland rail we have to remember, is the actual business case and the business case was developed over a long period of time between the Commonwealth, the states and ARTC and they all agreed that the way to meet the business case, which was a terminal to terminal to meet the growth demands in Southeast Queensland and Victoria for domestic goods was the broadly the alignment we’re on today. It was not meant to get to port okay. If it was a different business case, it was about getting to the most efficient port, or it was about coal then maybe Gladstone would make a lot more sense. The terminal to terminal is very important, particularly when we look at some of the growth rates in Queensland, if you look at what’s been released in the last month or so out of Southeast Queensland two and a half million people growing to 5 million people, they’re gonna have a lot of needs, and a lot of products and goods and services. And so that is what the supply chain is all about. That’s what inland rail is all about, is getting them the furniture, the food that they need, the beer that they need, the toilet paper that they need. So, sorry,

I said here, here.

Thank you. So trying to divert now and go to Gladstone, it can be an end, but you doesn’t make sense. We have to be true to the business case and deliver on that business case. And that’s what we’re doing.

[Malcolm Roberts] A lot of complexities. In a major project we learn as we start the project, and as we implement the project, there seem to be more and more questions that are coming up.

Yes. And, but that is, you’re exactly right. That’s a major project, and so what you have to do is respond to the learnings, and improve as you go, and have a process that allows you to account for it

[Malcolm Roberts] Could it be that the original business case was not done in sufficient depth quality?

I think it’s one of the better business cases I’ve seen and certainly had a very good benefit to cost ratio compared to other projects. So it’s pretty high quality.

[Malcolm Roberts] Based on early assumptions.

Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] What’s the benefits to cost ratio?

2.6 originally

[Malcolm Roberts] The AEC found that a route that terminated in Toowoomba and sent coal and grain to Gladstone, including the cost of the extra leg to Gladstone would cost $12 billion total on a return of 1.58 as against the current route, including tunnels and links, which is now at 24 billion on a return of investment at 1.01, will you refer the AEC Gladstone alignment with Toowoomba termination, to the rural and regional affairs and transport committee inland rail inquiry for a full review?

Yeah. So I have to correct the statement, that inland rail not 24 billion. We talked about that earlier today, two different business cases. And the second thing about being cheaper to go to Gladstone, if it doesn’t accomplish the business case, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s cheaper. You know, I had this discussion with my family all the time when they buy something on sale that they don’t need, it doesn’t do us any good. So,

If it’s more productive.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much. Isn’t it that the issue really about value?

It is about value, but you have to accomplish. One of the great things is, and I’ve mentioned this a few times one of the great things about Australia, as opposed to other countries, I’ve dealt with large infrastructure, large infrastructure projects are justified based on the business case. We have to be true and honest to that business case, it’s disingenuous to deliver something different other than that business case, without going back and changing it.

May 25, 2021/1 Comment/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

CO2 is not the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef – Senate Estimates GBRMPA

Climate Change, May/June 2021, Senate Estimates

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority makes very scary claims that CO2 is destroying the reef. They do this even though they cannot provide the specific effect of human carbon dioxide on climate factors like air or ocean temperature.

The greens are always rattled when I start to pick apart these claims and you can hear them try to smear me throughout the video.

Transcript

[Chair] Thank you for attending today.

[Malcolm Roberts] First question is: what empirical scientific evidence does the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority have within a logical scientific framework that proves cause and effect, and specifically proves that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut to save the Reef? GBRMPA has said a lot about that. And I’d like to know what evidence in specific.

[Joshua Thomas] I’ll ask my chief scientist to address that, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Mr Thomas.

[David Wachenfeld], Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not our direct business. There are thousands of scientists all over the world who do research into climate and the effects of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Those, the work of those scientists is synthesised and summarised in the assessment reports of the IPCC. We don’t independently assess evidence for the effects of carbon dioxide on atmosphere and climate. And that’s a global issue, not a Great Barrier Reef issue.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I understand… I’ve forgotten your name, I’m sorry.

[David Wachenfeld] David Wachenfeld.

[Malcolm Roberts] Mr. Wachenfeld. I understand that…

[Whish-Wilson] Doctor.

[Malcolm Roberts] Doctor. Thanks. I understand that… GBRMPA. Do we have any advance on David? Okay. I understand that GBRMPA has echoed those claims and spread those claims that carbon dioxide needs to be cut to save the Barrier Reef. Is that correct?

[David Wachenfeld] So the Authority’s position is well set out in that Climate Change Position Statement, and yes-

[Malcolm Roberts] What is that?

[Joshua Thomas] So we have a position statement that articulates quite clearly that we see climate change as the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef. And that all action should be taken to reduce emissions over time at a global, national and local scale.

[Malcolm Roberts] So according to Dr. Wachenfeld, the evidence for that is in the IPCC.

[Joshua Thomas] No, Senator. The evidence for that is in probably thousands of scientific papers by scientists-

[Malcolm Roberts] You can’t point to where it is specifically for the basis of that policy?

[David Wachenfeld] Well, Senator, there is… I’m trying to summarise here a vast body of global research conducted by scientists all over the world that is probably most authoritatively summarised in the IPCC reports. The specific consequences of climate change for the Great Barrier Reef are also covered by the work of many scientists through many institutions. That work is summarised in our Outlook Report, which we produce every five years.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you for repeating it again. Mr. Thomas has just told me, your position statement says it’s carbon dioxide from human activity is the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef. Now I want to know what specifically you rely on. Pinpointed. Where’s the specific scientific data within a logical scientific framework that proves human carbon dioxide affects the Barrier Reef. And here’s the quote, Mr. Thomas: “the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef.”

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, as Dr. Wachenfeld is trying to explain, there are thousands of sources that we can-

[Malcolm Roberts] I just want one.

[Joshua Thomas] That we consider and digest. And we’d be very happy to provide you a summary or a list of some of those sources that we rely on heavily.

[Malcolm Roberts] What I would like and make very clear is the empirical scientific data within a logical scientific framework that proves cause and effect that specifically states the link between carbon dioxide and various climate factors, such as water temperature, ocean temperature, air temperature, rainfall, droughts, winds, currents, ocean alkalinity. That’s what I would like. Until you have that, it’s no basis for policy, no basis for your statement.

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, we do have that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Good. I’d like to see it.

[Joshua Thomas] Well, it’s in the Outlook Report, is the short answer.

[Malcolm Roberts] Can you give me the page, please.

[Joshua Thomas] Sorry?

[Malcolm Roberts] Can you give me the specific page of the specific effect of carbon dioxide? To make a policy and a statement on a position statement such as Mr. Thomas has made, we need the specific link between amount of carbon dioxide and impact on those various climate factors. I want to know where it is.

[Joshua Thomas] So, Senator, that’s not one piece of work. The impact of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on our atmosphere, the greenhouse effect that they have warming our atmosphere, obviously that’s global research. As the atmosphere warms, the ocean warms. That means the Great Barrier Reef warms. The Great Barrier Reef is approximately 0.9 of a degree warmer than it was about a century ago.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m not interested in that. I’m interested in the human cause. I want to see the link, the quantified link. Because until you provide that, there’s no basis for Dr. Thomas’s position statement. I want to know the link.

[Joshua Thomas] Yes, Senator, there is a basis for that position statement.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’d like to see it then.

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, it’s present in a vast body of global science summarised by-

[Malcolm Roberts] So you can’t give me a specific link to that policy?

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator.

[David Wachenfeld] The policy, yes, Senator. I’ve got it right here.

[Malcolm Roberts] Specific quantified link stating carbon dioxide from human activity.

[Joshua Thomas] Dr. Wachenfeld has tried to answer your question. The Outlook Report is our best digest of the information available to us about the pressures on the Great Barrier Reef, of which we see climate change as being the greatest. That report has some 1400 citations in it. We’d be very happy to point them out to you here this evening in the back of that document, or separately provide them on notice to you.

[Malcolm Roberts] I just want the specific, I just want the specific interest.

[Whish-Wilson] This is the elbow we’re talking about. It might be very different than Senator Roberts’s ward.

[Roberts] So what-

[Chair] Senator. Senator Whish-Wilson, Senator Whish-Wilson. You do not have the call. Can I suggest that you do take that on notice? I think what Senator Roberts is after, is a worked example of one of those pieces of work that demonstrates the linkage he’s talking about. Could I ask you perhaps to take that on notice if that answers your question?

[Malcolm Roberts] Sure. And I’ll make the comment, Chair, that when people align or smear, it indicates they don’t have the evidence. So that’s… Not accusing you of doing that by the way.

[Joshua Thomas] I rest my case.

[Malcolm Roberts] So are you aware that Liberal, Labor and National Party MPs have told me that they have never seen such evidence for the Reef nor for climate generally? Are you aware?

[Joshua Thomas] No. Senator, I’m not aware of what other politicians have told you. Sorry.

[Malcolm Roberts] Are you aware that the Howard-Anderson government introduced a renewable energy target that is now gutting our electricity sector, stole farmers property rights to comply with the UN’s gear of protocols, and was the first major party to introduce a carbon dioxide tax?

[Chair] Senator Whish-Wilson.

[Whish-Wilson] You live in-

[Chair] Senator Whish-Wilson. Interjections are disorderly. And Senator Roberts, can I ask you to come to the point on relevant questions that the officials can answer without long preambles. The hour is late and we have another two sections to get through.

[Malcolm Roberts] So on notice you’re gonna provide the evidence. What I highlight, is that I need the specific quantified relationship between human carbon dioxide production and climate factors, including air temperature, ocean temperature, ocean alkalinity, winds, and currents. Is that clear?

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, I should just point out here. We will provide that information to you. We may need to consult other portfolios-

[Malcolm Roberts] Happy to hear that.

[Joshua Thomas] And other experts who have the Commonwealth lead on climate policy.

[Chair] Thank you, Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much, Chair.

May 25, 2021/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

What happened to the temperatures? Bureau of Meteorology

Climate Change, May/June 2021, Senate Estimates

The temperature data supplied by the Bureau of Meteorology is relied on by many climate agencies to support claims of climate change. Some of this data however has been modified. If BOM has been getting it wrong, how can we trust that they are now getting it right? I asked them last night at Senate Estimates.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts] I draw your attention to your State of the Climate reports, 2016 and 2018, and specifically the two graphs of Australian surface air temperatures. One in State of the Climate 2016 on page four and the other in State of the Climate 2018 on page two. Are you familiar with those reports?

[Dr. Johnson] I’m familiar with the reports, but I confess, you know, I haven’t committed those pages to memory.

[Senator Roberts] I can understand that.

[Dr. Johnson] No, I am familiar with the reports, yeah.

[Senator Roberts] One of our research scientists, in updating his records, compared your 2016 graph on page four and your 2018 graph on page two. He then obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology the actual temperatures used in producing those two graphs. He found the two graphs very different for the dates from 1910 to 2016 yet surely the temperature data from 1910 to 2016 should be the same for both graphs, shouldn’t they?

[Dr. Johnson] I believe so, but again, I’d need to check exactly what you’re referring to ’cause they may, Dr. Stone has the report, I think, in front of him. Are you able to shed any light on this?

[Dr. Stone] I’ve got the more recent one. I’m sorry. And like Dr. Johnson, I haven’t committed.

[Dr. Johnson] I’m happy to take these-

[Dr. Stone] It might be easier just to- So we’re comparing apples with apples, Senator, and happy to answer your question.

[Senator Roberts] So let me get to the core point, then. The only changes to produce the 2018 graph should have been, as we see it, the addition of data from 2017 to 2018 on top of the 2016 graph, yet the actual data shows that in the 2018 graph, temperatures after about 1970, looking at the graph, from your perspective, are inflated and progressively increased. And the temperatures before 1970 have been progressively decreased with the effect of increasing the slope of the temperature graph, exaggerating the warming. So I’d like to know what is the reason, on notice, what is the reason for this when temperatures of historical records end up records up to and including 2016 should not have changed at all, let alone systematically changed one way after 1970 and the other way before 1970 to exaggerate the warming. I’d like to know that answer.

[Dr. Johnson] I think we’re happy to take that on notice to make sure we’re answering your question accurately, Senator.

[Senator Roberts] On notice, what basis, on what basis were the temperature data from 1910 to 2016 changed to produce the 2018 graph for the years 1910 to 2016. And has the Bureau of Meteorology’s Australian temperature record been wrong every year until 2018? Can you guarantee that the 2018 record would not turn out to be wrong in 2024? Or is the Australian temperature record anything that BOM says it is? That’s what I need to answer.

[Dr. Johnson] Take those questions on notice, chair, if that’s alright.

May 25, 2021/1 Comment/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Grilling Climate Change at Senate Estimates

Climate Change, March 2021, Senate Estimates

Senate Estimates is a great chance for me to grill these climate agencies and get very specific about the evidence that they base their policies on.

This year, we saw yet again that they love to duck and weave, but won’t actually provide me with the evidence. I talked about this on Marcus Paul last week.

Senate Estimates Sessions: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/category/senate-estimates/march-2021/

Transcript

[Announcer] Now on “Marcus Paul in the Morning” Senator Malcolm Roberts.

[Marcus] All right, 17 minutes away from eight o’clock. Good day, Malcolm. How are you, mate?

[Malcolm] I’m very well, thanks, Marcus. How are you?

[Marcus] Good, good, good. Now I see, you’ve got the Bureau of Meteorology, and also Malcolm Turnbull, and also the CSIRO in your sights this morning. Who do you want to pick on first?

[Malcolm] Let’s go with the CSIRO.

[Marcus] All right. What do you have to say about them? Of course, this argument about renewables costing us, what, 13 billion bucks a year or $1,300 per household.

[Malcolm] That’s in addition to the electricity bill, that’s the additional cost per household, $1,300. Marcus, there’s some really simple figures to understand. The median income in Australia is $49,000, so after tax, what’s that, 30 something?

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] The chief executive of the CSIRO is paid a total per year, every year of $1,049,000.

[Marcus] Not bad.

[Malcolm] The group executive in charge of overseeing the climate area, the climate research, is on $613,000, more than the Prime Minister of Australia.

[Marcus] Yeah, not bad.

[Malcolm] I put to them very basic questions about their so-called science, they refused to answer. These were the first time that I had asked questions about these pieces of information that they gave to me last Senate estimates. I’ve never had an opportunity to ask them questions before about this. This is the first time. They refused to answer. The basic things were that they gave me five new references, in senate estimates in October, I asked them questions about this.

They refused to answer. They refused to answer a representative of the people. And the papers that they provided to me, Kaufman 2020, for example, this is the sort of crap that CSIRO dishes up, when the authors of that paper input their data on climate into their calculations, they omitted the first data point and put it in in reverse order, complete false. The second reference they gave me directly contradicts the claims that the CSIRO says that it’s supposed to be supporting.

The third reference said they made conclusions on one data point, and they took it out of context and went against the CSIRO’s own advice to me last October. So what I’m saying to you is we are paying someone $1,049,000 a year, we’re paying someone else $613,000 a year, people in Australia cannot afford this nonsense, and now we’ve got no evidence whatsoever.

The CSIRO has admitted that they have never said to any politician that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger to our planet. That’s what politicians are saying. Why is this, Marcus, people are paying dearly for destroying manufacturing all because of this rubbish?

[Marcus] All right, now tell me about the Bureau of Meteorology.

[Malcolm] Well, here we go again, another government bureaucracy that’s claiming about climate. When they measure data, temperature, rainfall, et cetera, at a weather station, they also have metadata about the weather station that tells you, for example, how many times a station has been moved, because when it moves, it can have an effect on temperature and other recording devices. Townsville has been moved eight times.

The Bureau of Meteorology’s metadata says it’s been moved once. Metadata as well at Rockhampton moved four times, the Bureau says it’s been moved once. Cairns moved six times, the Bureau says it’s been moved twice. Charleville been moved four times, the Bureau says twice. The Bureau of Meteorology and its own peer reviewers fail to detect and discuss these glaring inaccuracies.

How can we rely on the Bureau of Meteorology which says temperatures are increasing, but they haven’t increased since 1995 globally, which is about almost 30 years, and our temperatures today are lower than in the 1880s and 1890s in Australia. I mean, we’re being fed this nonsense, people are paying for it, it’s destroying our manufacturing capacity all because of atrocious governments and people won’t hold these people accountable.

[Marcus] Well, there are some grave consequences, as you say, for these glaring errors and policies devised on numbers that are given by the Bureau of Meteorology, along with the CSIRO. So there we go, I’m glad we got you there asking these hard questions, Malcolm, but you don’t seem to get much support from those that are in power.

[Malcolm] That’s a really good point.

[Marcus] Why don’t you?

[Malcolm] Angus Taylor is the Minister for Energy.

[Marcus] Yes.

[Malcolm] He admits now, two or three weeks ago he admitted that he is afraid, he’s scared of what’s happening, with our reliability of power supply, security of power supply, the cost of power. He’s admitted all this. I know for a fact, in conversations with Angus Taylor, that he’s a sceptic about us affecting the climate, but he is peddling this nonsense.

Mark Butler, the former spokesman from the Labour Party, I’ve challenged him to a debate, ran away from me. I challenged The Greens 10 and a half years ago, and every day since I’ve been in the Senate, sorry, almost weekly since I’ve been in the Senate this time they’ve failed to provide the evidence.

There’s just a whole lot of groupthink. I wrote to about 20 MPS in senior positions, Labour, Liberal, National, and Greens, not one of them was able to provide me with any evidence that we have to have these policies, not one.

[Marcus] Now let’s move to Malcolm Turnbull. Hang on, there, Malcolm Turnbull, of course, former Prime Minister of Australia, claims that the demand for coal is declining, but no one has told Africa they’re building 1,250 more coal plants by the year 2030. Mines are devastating the landscape in the Hunter Valley. Well, is that true?

Reportedly more about his opposition perhaps to the Mount Pleasant coal mine and the extension plan for it which happens to be near Malcolm Turnbull’s own interest including a grazing property. The mining industry is shortening lives by reducing air quality, and taxpayers, of course, you say are left with huge environmental remediation bills covered by mining bonds. Now last week, I don’t know what was going on in the New South Wales government with the Liberals and Nationals appointing Malcolm Turnbull to this role.

You know, zero net emissions by 2050, we had Matt Kean at the centre of it all, and for some reason, somehow both John Barilaro and the Premier of New South Wales went along with this. There were a couple of dissenting voices, but Malcolm was apparently tipped to take this job. Then there was a massive back flip whether it came from pressure from the media or from One Nation’s Mark Latham. I’m not sure. I think it’s a mix of all of those.

[Malcolm] I think you’re right. Malcolm Turnbull has a lot of personal interests, of benefit to him and his family, from pushing their renewables bandwagon. He’s got no evidence, never has had any evidence for pushing their renewables. He’s got no evidence for having to shut down coal mines. And he himself attributed the dumping of his new job to Mark Latham and the right-wing media, but you know, that’s typical Malcolm Turnbull. He can’t look at his own policy and he can’t look at himself, and he’s become a pariah.

[Marcus] Yeah, look, I understand what you’re saying, I get that, but let’s be honest, he’s half right.

[Malcolm] In what way?

[Marcus] Well, of course, he’s right.

[Malcolm] In what way?

[Marcus] Well, until people down the road from us 2GB and the Telegraph and a few others started jumping up and down about it this was gonna go through. I mean, I would tend to think that unless there was a by-election just around the corner in the upper Hunter, perhaps this bloke, Malcolm Turnbull, might’ve gone on.

[Malcolm] Well, I’m not gonna argue with that, I think that you’re making some pretty good comments, but Malcolm Turnbull himself blamed Mark Latham for standing up and speaking the truth. That’s the pressure that Mark brings. Mark’s a very good speaker, he gets his facts and he went straight into bat. Barilaro and Berejiklian are the ones. How could they possibly sign off on this man, Turnbull, being put in this position? But think about this, Marcus.

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] Australia’s total electricity coal-fired power station capacity in this country was 25.2 gigawatts in 2017. So it’s less than that now with the closure of a couple of coal-fired power stations in Victoria, it’s less than that. China alone opened 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired plants last year alone, so almost double what our total capacity is. The world has opened up 50.3 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity last year alone. India is opening up on average around 17 gigawatts. India itself and China are opening up combined about three times our total capacity of coal-fired power stations.

[Marcus] And the argument, of course, is, Malcolm, I do need to go, the argument, of course, is that if they don’t get our coal, they’ll get it from elsewhere.

[Malcolm] Correct.

[Marcus] Yeah, all right, mate, thank you for coming on. I appreciate it.

[Malcolm] Okay, mate, you’re welcome.

[Marcus] Talk soon.

[Malcolm] See you, Marcus.

[Marcus] See you, mate. Bye-bye. There he is, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. Of course, David Lazell…

April 13, 2021/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

What is APRA doing about anti-competitive banks? Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Senate Estimates

March 2021, National, Senate Estimates

De-banking is the process of blocking a certain person or business from having accounts at banks. Banking is central to everything we do. If a person or business is de-banked, they are essentially shut out from society. The banks claim that they have de-banked certain businesses based on their money laundering risk, but anti-money laundering enforcers AUSTRAC have said that no one should be de-banked based on this.

Digging a bit further we find that many of the business being de-banked; bullion dealers, third party ATM operators, cryptocurrency exchanges and cash transport; we realise that many of these are direct competitors to the banks. Something smells fishy to me here. APRA needs to do a better job of investigating and not just take the banks word for it.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts] Thank you all for attending today. Last October, I raised with you the issue of de-banking and use the case of Paul Thomas’ cash in transit business commander security and AUSTRAC and AML compliant organisation that had their business accounts closed by Westpac and then was refused business banking across the whole banking sector, Wayne Byers, chair, you promised to look at it, look into it, two weeks after estimates, Westpac gave notice that they were now closing his personal account with St. George bank, which he’d had for 30 years. A joint account, they’re also closing his joint account he has with the business partner and ending withdrawal rights he has on a major, on a joint venture, sorry a joint mortgage account he has with a relative. Did you look into his case, as you said?

[Witness] So I think the issue is one in which you have a bank that has been found to not be adhering to its AML responsibilities. The bank has therefore looked very closely at it’s frameworks, it’s standards, its controls around detecting and preventing anti money laundering and has made some decisions about whether it thinks customers, including, probably the case you’re referring to, but, can be safely banked and allow the bank to satisfy itself that it is meeting its obligations and they have come to the decision that is a customer that they don’t think they can meet those obligations.

[Senator Roberts] He’s AML compliant.

[Witness] Yeah. I can only tell you that’s their decision.

[Senator Roberts] So it looks like Westpac really got him, well and truly. Now all banks use the same risk management company. Being de-banked by one bank means being de-banked by all the banks, even the Coba banks. So what is this man Paul supposed to do now? His customers need him to resupply their non-bank ATM’s in clubs and pubs. Where is the appeal mechanism in these de-banking cases? Who do they turn to? We’re seeing a bank competitor here being de-banked. Wiping out a competitor.

[Witness] So I’m not sure if your reference, Senator, to all banks use the same risk management company?

[Senator Roberts] Same, same company that assesses their risk for money laundering and so on.

[Witness] I think there’s more than one and, and ultimately it’s an individual bank’s responsibility. It can’t outsource that responsibility. Yes there are suppliers of systems that help banks do that, but there’s more than one. So it’s a difficult, it is a difficult question. And I don’t pretend, I don’t pretend that there’s an easy answer to it. But banks do have their obligations, they have to adhere to them. And they do need to, and it’s quite clear there will be significant penalties if they do not.

[Senator Roberts] And APRA has its responsibilities too because these banks are shutting down whole industries potentially.

[Witness] Yes, but in this particular case where we’re dealing with a bank that is seeking to comply with the law that’s administered by another agency, it’s difficult for us to intervene in that issue.

[Senator Roberts] Well AFCA refused to hear these cases. They don’t hear anti money laundering cases. So I wanted to discuss this issue with AFCA at estimates, but they refuse to attend estimates. The concept of anti money laundering, sorry, the concept of being held accountable for their actions was too much for them to handle apparently so I repeat my question. What do these businesses and their employees do now?

[Witness] I don’t have a, I don’t have a, an answer to that question other than to, other than to try and seek to understand what are the issues of the nature of the business that has caused the concern.

[Senator Roberts] Could, could my office contact yours?

[Witness] Yeah Absolutely.

[Senator Roberts] When I look through the company–

[Chair] Senator Roberts needs to be the last question.

[Senator Roberts] When I looked through the companies that are being de-banked, I see their competitors of the banks, remittance companies, Bitcoin and digital currency vendors, gold bullion dealers, cash handling companies that supply non-bank ATM’s with cash. Why is APRA allowing the banks to increase their market power by de-banking their customers?

[Witness] Well, it’s not, we’re not allowing banks to do, or disallowing banks from doing anything. The issue that is at the heart of this, and as you say, it’s not just this particular company, but it’s remittance services and other things is the potential for cash transactions, or transaction sorry, to be occurring anonymously. And that make it difficult therefore for the banks to satisfy their obligations to AUSTRAC and therefore they have to make a business decision about whether they wish to bear that risk. And in many cases, in the light of the experience of two major banks who’ve had very large penalties levied on them. Clearly they are making sure they are compliant with the law.

[Witness] Senator can I just add one little one.

[Chair] Very, very quickly.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you, chair. Even Paul, Jeff Devic at AUSTRAC has said don’t de-bank these people in the name of AUSTRAC. If this is in response to AML legislation, why have you not asked treasury to review that legislation to correct this unintended consequence? And isn’t this unconscionable conduct?

[Witness] Well senator, we can comment on what’s in our purview. And as the chair has indicated, we don’t make directions for banks to have particular customers or not have particular customers but they do have to adhere to the laws that abide all entities.

[Senator Roberts] Isn’t it unconscionable conduct to wipe out a competing industry?

[Witness] Well unconscionable conduct is an issue for ASIC, not for APRA.

[Chair] We do need to move on Senator Roberts.

March 31, 2021/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Senate Estimates – How much GST are we losing at the border on imports?

Transcript

Government has no idea how much renewables cost – Clean Energy Regulator

Transcript

People don’t want wind turbines in their backyard – Senate Estimates

Transcript

Here’s one for the Farmers: Restoration or Compensation (Climate Change Authority)

Transcript

What do we get for the $5.1B on Snowy Hydro?

Transcript

Is the Inland Rail a $24 Billion White Elephant? Australian Rail Track Corporation

Transcript

CO2 is not the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef – Senate Estimates GBRMPA

Transcript

What happened to the temperatures? Bureau of Meteorology

Transcript

Grilling Climate Change at Senate Estimates

Transcript

What is APRA doing about anti-competitive banks? Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Senate Estimates

Transcript

Pages

Malcolm’s Fight

Categories