How much does the U.N. cost Australia? DFAT at Senate Estimates

, ,

SIMPLE QUESTION: HOW MUCH DOES THE U.N. COST AUSTRALIA?

I could not believe no one in government could give me a total cost on what we pay to the UN, its subsidiaries and how much we spend in complying with their dictates.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts] And thank you all for attending today. My questions are about the United Nations. So I don’t know who will answer those questions. In total, how much does Australia pay to the United Nations or subsidiaries each year, in dollar terms? Do we need to take that on notice?

[Minister Payne] No, I don’t think we do, I think someone’s coming down from upstairs. We will unfortunately get into questions of definition about which subsidiary agencies and all the rest of it, we may need to… in order to give a completely comprehensive answer, we may need to take it on notice, that there’ll be a number of things that we can say that are general level that I hope will be what you’re after Senator.

[Senator Roberts] I’m after a comprehensive level, yeah.

[Minister Payne] Well if you need comprehensive Senator, I’ll ask officials to do their best at the table.

[Senator Roberts] Yes.

And then if parts of it needs to be taken on notice, we’ll return to the committee.

[Senator Roberts] Of course. – Thank you.

[Justin Lee] Thank you, Senator. Apologies. I just had to come down the stairs. Justin Lee, first assistant secretary multilateral policy division. Senator, can I just ask you to repeat the question?

[Senator Roberts] Yes. In total, how much does Australia pay to the United Nations, or its subsidiaries, each year, in dollar terms?

[Justin Lee] Thank you, Senator. The key contribution that Australia makes is our assessed contribution to the United Nations and that’s based upon the size of Australia’s economy. Australia contributes 2.21% to the UN regular budget.

[Chair] The question was in dollar terms.

[Justin Lee] Yes. And that equates to, in 2021, around $82.2 million, is our assessed contribution to the UN. We also make other contributions for example, to UN peacekeeping. And that is also based on an assessed contribution to the United Nations. And in 2019/20, which was the last year, we had a figure out for that. Australia provided $212 million in assessed contributions to support UN peacekeeping missions. Senator that is not the total of course though, of our contribution to the United Nations. And I don’t have a figure because that is provided by a range of contributions that may be made through the development corporation programme. It may be made through contributions to UN specialised agencies. They would be looked after by other Australian government agencies as well. So getting the total contribution that Australia makes to the UN, and all of the subsidiary agencies, requires a collation of data from across government, which we don’t have.

[Senator Roberts] I’ll be happy to take that on notice. Thank you. This is a very important issue for our constituents because they’re concerned at the cost and the impact on the country. The next one is along the same vein. In total, how much does it cost Australia to comply with, or to implement, UN dictates in the form of various forms, treaties, agreements declarations, protocols that are expected of the UN members?

[Justin Lee] Thank you, Senator. I don’t think that we would be able to provide a figure on that because if Australia, Australia of course seeks to adhere to its international obligations, including treaty reporting processes, a lot of that would be the responsibility of Australian government agencies and, and to to calculate that, you would need to look at the the staff costs, the time costs. Sorry, I, I… I just don’t think that we would have that figure or be able to collect a figure, on implementation of international obligations in that, in the way that you portray it.

[Senator Roberts] It would be. Thank you for your openness. It would be enormous. I’m thinking of the compliance with the UN Kyoto protocol. That’s cost a lot of farmers to lose their property rights. That’s been estimated by some people to be either a 100 or $200 billion. So it’s rubbery but it’s a difficult thing. Compliance with the water act, which puts compliance with international obligations as it’s, one of its primary aims, right through. Compliance with the UN Paris agreement, particularly when other nations don’t have to wreck their economy to comply because their goals are so easy. So manufacturing the UN Lima agreement, a declaration from 1975 and the governance impacts from the UN Rio declaration in 1992. So just take it, but I am. I am wondering if anyone has figured out the cost to this country in dollar terms, the cost to our economy the cost to a loss of our governance and sovereignty.

[Justin Lee] Senator, I think the only other way to portray it though is the, is the benefits that, that Australia gets from these arrangements and these agreements.

[Chair] With respect, I understand that but this isn’t the forum for arguing somebody seeking costs. And if somebody else wants to ask a question about the benefits, then that’s up to them. But time is very limited. I’m sorry.

[Senator Roberts] So that, that leads to my third question which is given the globalist approach of the UN, what value is there for Australia to constantly pay out money directly and at huge indirect cost to our governance and our economy?

[Justin Lee] Oh, well, I think the answer to that would be the benefits that we get from those, those arrangements, both in terms of having, having rules that are that guide many things that, that guide the Australian economy. If we look for example, all the work that we have been doing around rules that guide international aviation, international shipping, telecommunications, all of those rules are set by the United Nations. That means that we’ve got a global economy that we can participate in that sets equal rules between countries which Australia is a, is an open trading economy and an economy of our size can, can benefit from. Similarly, we have international organisations dealing with global challenges. So the roles that the WHO is playing in response to COVID. Dealing with, dealing with those challenges that we want addressed in the world, by making contributions to those, we get benefit from that. So we appreciate that there are costs, both direct costs and obligations that Australia has to adhere but we also get a number of very significant benefits.

[Senator Roberts] And I’d put it to you that the benefits, for example in aviation, they could be done by a country hosting the other countries of the world to come up with a convention on that. So that doesn’t have to come from the UN. And we’ve shown that in the history of our planet. What would it mean to Australia, if Australia chose to withdraw from the United Nations? If we exited.

[Minister Payne] Senator, I can assure you that there is no consideration of that, that our engagement in the international system, and indeed Australia’s security and prosperity has been underpinned for a very long time, by what is known as the rules-based international order in the institutions that were created to support that. What we have seen in the last 12 months, frankly, the impact of COVID around the world. We’ve seen what happens when those systems can click into gear. And can support the countries and the communities that need them. The international cooperation that we have through those UN agencies and organisations is very important to that management. COVID-19, as I was saying, has really exposed the magnitude of the consequences if those global institutions are not working as well as they should, that does not mean, and I think the prime minister and you, have probably engaged on this before. It does not mean, as the prime minister said in his Lowy speech last year. He said, ‘We can’t be an indifferent bystander to these events that impact our livelihoods, our safety and our sovereignty. We must, as we have done previously, cultivate, marshal and bring our influence to bear to protect and promote our national interests.’ So what we seek, is an international system that respects the unique characteristics of individual states within it. In our case, Australia. That still provides a framework for cooperation on security and prosperity. Mr. Lee, Dr. Lee has advanced international aviation I think, if I was, if I was hearing correctly as a, as an example of that, but there are countless others, Senator, where we understand that working cooperatively with others is an important part of our national interest. It’s in our national interest, it allows us to pursue shared regional and global objectives. And it is a centrepiece of our international engagement. Now, we did a lot of work on this last year, a lot of work. And that has crystallised and firmed the government’s views on these matters.

[Senator Roberts] Well, thank you and I respect your right to have an opinion. I also have a different opinion.

[Minister Payne] As I do yours, Senator.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you. I know you’ve shown that in the past.

[Minister Payne] We’re in a very good democracy. Sorry. I took some of those minutes. My apologies.

[Senator Roberts] I do acknowledge the prime minister said, I think these words, on the 3rd of October, 2019 when he addressed the Lowy Institute in Sydney, ‘Unaccountable’ he spoke of, ‘The unaccountable internationalist bureaucrats or bureaucracies.’ I think those were the words. And then promptly gave, advocated to give World Health Organisation more power. I would argue with you about the World Health Organization’s benefits, because I think it contributed to the rampant spread of COVID, but nonetheless. How many funding arrangements between Australia and the UN are open-ended?

[Justin Lee] I, I’m not…

[Senator Roberts] They get ratcheted up automatically, or they’re they haven’t got a closing date.

[Justin Lee] Yes. I, I’ll try to take that on notice. But my, my initial reaction would be that we would have no open-ended commitments, or any commitment that we make would be on the basis of an agreement or an understanding. But I can take that on notice.

[Senator Roberts] I think there is some updates to our laws or our requirements, or our commitments that are made automatically if the UN document or protocol is, is changed. Are you aware of any of those?

[Justin Lee] You could be, I’m not sure Senator, you could be referring to what I mentioned earlier, which was our assessed contribution. And there is a committee that looks at our assessed contributions and adjusts that contribution according to changes and our national circumstances, our size of our economy, debt ratios and the like in comparison to other countries. That is still part of a committee which we participate in. But ultimately we would abide by the finding of that committee and at the end of that process. So there is that sort of process. And that was what I was referring to earlier about the calculation about assessing.

[Senator Roberts] It may be, I’ll finish up now, but it may be in the human rights area. Or the rights of the child area, where changes in the UN requirements are automatically fed through to us and we have to comply with them. So that may be something to consider, but I believe that’s the case.

[Justin Lee] I can take that on notice.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you, if you could. And, you know, from my, my questioning. I really question the need to stay in the UN and the advantage to this country because of the governance impact on our country, the sovereignty impact on a country and the economic impacts on a country. So, you know, I recognise and acknowledge that this country’s current government is not thinking about exiting the UN, but we certainly are. So a lot of our constituents want to.

[Minister Payne] Senator, can I also say, I understand the reform issues you’ve raised and we are strong supporters of the reform processes that have been underway in the UN and acknowledged, more to do. And I did raise that with the secretary general last week, in a conversation on a number of regional issues. But also in passing on the year-end reform questions.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you very much.

/3 Comments/by

Should we let bad banks keeps abusing virtual AGMs? Australian Securities and Investments Commission at Senate Estimates

, ,

Annual General Meetings of large companies have almost always been held physically. This changed with COVID when the use of Virtual AGMs was authorised. Virtual AGMs were necessary when the country was plagued by lockdowns, but now as restrictions ease big companies such as banks are desperately trying to hold on to them.

Virtual AGMs allow the big banks to shut down investor questions and avoid scrutiny on important topics like the huge salary bonuses of top executives. AGMs that used to take an entire day because of questions from investors are now being sailed through in just a couple of hours.

I believe in the free market and to have that we must have confidence in the stock market. Physical attendance at AGMs for those investors that want it is a fundamental part of maintaining that confidence in the stock market and the companies in it.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts] And thank you all for attending today. The corporation’s coronavirus economic response determination number three, 2020, provided the basis for virtual AGMs. ASIC have replaced that determination, which expired this week with order 21-056 MR, which takes a no action position on virtual AGMs. Does this mean that corporations can run a virtual AGM with no restrictions coming from ASIC?

[Commissioner Melina] Senator, hopefully I can help you with that. In relation to this, there is a bill that parliament is considering about a full-time permanent change to the law to allow virtual AGMs, but that bill is still in committee and being considered.

[Senator Roberts] That was the rule of the Senate to extend it.

[Commissioner Melina] Yes, exactly, exactly. So in light of the fact that the pandemic, whilst we’ve operated very effectively nationally in the pandemic, but there is still some uncertainties about the pandemic for companies whose balance dates, for example, after December 31, this year, they have five months to have their AGM. In light of that fact, we think that it is reasonable given that there are still some restrictions of movements for companies to temporarily, until we hear, and it is temporary, but until we hear how parliament intends to pursue that matter, have an opportunity to, if they need to hold a virtual AGM to comply with various restrictions, wherever they may be located. Now, it is only a no action position. We don’t have the power to amend the law in this area or make any more permanent situation. But we are intending to give guidance to companies about what’s important. If they do need to take advantage of having a virtual AGM to ensure really the safety of their shareholders, their employees, and their staff. We are working to ensure that we give enough guidance about what’s necessary, so that people have an opportunity to ask questions of the chairs.

[Senator Roberts] So you’re saying this is temporary.

[Commissioner Melina] Temporary, absolutely.

[Senator Roberts] When will it expire?

[Commissioner Melina] We intend to revisit it once we, one, if the pandemic conditions change dramatically and two, once we hear more how the Senate and the parliament are considering this particular issue.

[Senator Roberts] So why couldn’t you’ve extended it until September 30th?

[Commissioner Melina]Well, we weren’t feeling comfortable about doing that because we were, my understanding and please correct me because I’m not so familiar with parliamentary time-tabling but my understanding was it’s possible that this bill could be determined before then. I understand the committee that is considering it is due to report at the end of June. So we did want to take our lead from the decisions of parliament. We’re not interested at all in-

[Senator Roberts] So the intent is temporary, but there’s no deadline.

[Commissioner Melina] And we could announce in a month or two, you know, it’s no longer applicable, but we want to give companies the opportunity to plan. These events do require a bit of logistics.

[Senator Roberts] Were you happy with the outcome of the trial of virtual AGMs?

[Commissioner Melina] Generally, there were some instances where we received complaints about how those, on some occasions, how questions were dealt with, but generally we were reasonably happy, and we’re able to go back and talk to chairs and companies about the particular issues.

[Commissioner] Senator, I just wanted to emphasise what Commissioner Melena just said, that the dialogue, the ongoing dialogue, which we had with the director community and the corporate community was very constructive so that we saw improvements taking place, as this was operationalized by companies in that initial no-action period.

[Senator Roberts] Okay my experience and the feedback we’ve got is quite the opposite. Companies are using virtual AGMs to disenfranchise activist shareholders. And these tactics include sending activist shareholders a wrong entry code. So they can’t access the virtual meeting room. Accepting questions on notice and then not reading them out, not calling on shareholders who they know will ask difficult questions and switching off shareholders, who were asking difficult questions. So this is why virtual AGMs went to an inquiry. So you’re basically invalidating the process.

[Commissioner Melina] Well, Senator we would be very happy to take those points on board and review them ‘cos that sort of feedback is very helpful.

[Commissioner] Yeah, we are interested in following up that sort of feedback.

[Senator Roberts] It does become a great way to manipulate annual general meetings and shareholders. American shareholder organisations are stating just that. So I understand the benefit for small companies to have virtual only AGMs, if shareholders agree before every AGM. But are you really saying that 100% virtual is acceptable for large companies like the banks and Crown Casino, who featured strongly in complaints to my office? And in addition, it seems like some of these companies want to shut down the problems, but that only defers it, because they eventually pop up, and then it becomes more embarrassing.

[Commissioner] Senator the points that you’re raising, we will certainly take on board, but just to confirm and this is explicit in your question. This is a temporary relief, we’re waiting on parliament. And certainly we will take those points on board but it strikes me that these are issues for Parliament’s consideration.

[Senator Roberts] Okay, thank you. Going to Banking Code of Practise. The enforceable code provisions, particularly, how close are we to seeing which provisions of the Banking Code of Practise will be enforceable?

[Commissioner Hughes] Morning Senator. Sean Hughes-

[Senator Roberts] Good morning.

[Commissioner Hughes] Commissioner at ASIC. Thank you for your question. The current version of the code, which we approved in January, which came into effect on the 1st of March does not contain any enforceable provisions. The changes that were approved by us in January are essentially minor in nature. We are however waiting to see the outcomes from the ABO’s triennial review of the code, which commences in June, that will also include a consideration of the small business threshold definition with the reviewer recommending an increase of that definitional threshold from $3 million to $5 million. At that point in time, I’d suggest Senator that we would revisit to the issue of enforceability in relation to any provisions of the code.

[Senator Roberts] So what date after June?

[Commissioner Hughes] So they’re commencing the triennial review in June.

[Senator Roberts] So at the moment, ASIC doesn’t have any provisions it wants to see as enforceable?

[Commissioner Hughes] The position in relation to enforceable code provisions, Senator is that the relevant body in this case, the ABA needs to apply to ASIC to say whether any provisions should be made enforceable. No such provisions were nominated to us and having considered it, we didn’t believe that any needed to be made enforceable at this point in time. As I say the changes that we approved in January were relatively minor and technical in nature. We would prefer to revisit the question of enforceability post the triennial review in June.

[Senator Roberts] So basically at the moment ASIC is waiting for the banks to tell them what to do.

[Commissioner Hughes] That’s not the case at all Senator. We have not identified any enforceable provisions in relation to the minor and technical changes to the code made in January.

[Chair] Senator Roberts, two more questions.

[Senator Roberts] Yes, exactly that, two. Going to unconscionable conduct. My question relates to this week’s judgement of the full bench of the Federal Court in the Kybolt Case which saw a substantial change in the definition of unconscionable conduct. Unconscionable conduct is contained in section 12CB of the ASIC Act. Will ASIC assist Corporate Australia to meet the lower standard of proof this offence now carries by way of a regulatory document or note or report?

[Commissioner Hughes] Senator I’ll take that question as well. We are aware of and have followed the decision of the High Court in relation to that proceeding that was commenced by the ACCC. And we’re revisiting the extent to which that may have an impact in enforcement actions that we are running. But as you rightly point out, Senator, that’s a very fresh judgement from the High Court. And I can’t make predictions as to what we will do in relation to future litigation matters at this stage.

[Senator Roberts] Will you be assisting Corporate Australia though to understand this component?

We will certainly continue to inform and educate Corporate Australia as to the impact of that decision. As I know, the ACCC will do, and we will be discussing with colleagues across the law enforcement agencies the benefits and the implications of that judgement .

[Senator Roberts] Last question. Well, it’s not a question, actually it’s a statement. May I compliment ASIC for its enforcement history on unconscionable conduct cases against the major banks. And I look forward to this judgement making your job even easier.

[Commissioner] Thank you, Senator.

[Commissioner] Thank you, Senator.

/by

How can small business operate with so much red tape?

, ,

Small businesses are going under across the country because of the amount of red tape they have to get through to earn a dollar. I was proud to have removed some paperwork requirements for them with my amendments to the recent IR reforms but the Fair Work Act is still six inches thick.

How can we really expect smaller operators and employees to be across the mountain of complex laws that govern how we go to work? The Fair Work Act must be simplified. Small Businesses are the backbone of this country but they are starting to crack under the weight of red tape.

Transcript

[Chair] Senator , we’re gonna move on to Senator Roberts

[Man] I’m done.

[Chair] Senator Roberts.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you chair and thank you for attending today. This is the Fair Work Act. I’ll refer to it in a minute. The root of many complexities, what can be done to reduce industrial relations complexity for small business. And is there a better way for small business and for workers?

[Witness] We believe there’s great scope for simplification. My predecessors had quite a bit to say about that. And I think Senator O’Neill might’ve been referring to some work I did on that subject for the Fair Work Commission about how to make the regime work better for small businesses, his Honour Justice, Iain Ross asked for some views within the current law about how you would make it more small business friendly. So there’s quite a, quite a range of options there. The agency has done a piece of work on that and I’ve got some of the things around loaded rates and streamlining the enterprise bargaining process for businesses and workforces that are inclined to do that. There’s quite a number Senator and some reports around.

[Senator Roberts] I know your predecessor committed to taking part in, in simplifying industrial relations in the country. I had a lot of respect for your predecessors as senators around this table have said–

[Woman] Can I just clarify adviser?

[Man] Yes.

[Woman] Thank you, Yep.

[Witness] I presume that was what you were referring to earlier Senator. And that was with the Fair Work Commission.

[Senator Roberts] And I note the Japanese miracle after the Second World War, Peter, I’m sorry, W. Edwards Deming was introduced by Macafa.

[Witness] Yes, can’t measure what you can’t manage and can’t manage what he can’t measure I think was one of his phrases.

[Senator Roberts] Yes, but the key to Deming’s work was that instead of focusing on the level of production and tinkering with the process, focus on reducing variation and when people reduce variation in the process, the process becomes more efficient. And this introduces a whole lot of variation and destroys because of the complexity. So we need to get back to simplicity. I mean, it’s proven in every industry, so what else needs to be done to support small business and workers?

[Witness] We think there’s some scope to look at reg tech, we’d use some technology tools.

[Senator Roberts] Red tech?

[Witness] Regulatory technology to help businesses navigate the rules. It’s, it’s interesting that small business men and women can create, conceive and grow their own business but really feel they need expert advice to navigate that pile that’s in front of you. And it seems to be why, why does it need to be so hard? Why can’t it be more surefooted? So there’s been some ideas put forward around reg tech, helping with that simplification even having annexures or a stripped down version of awards for smaller enterprises. They’re the sorts of ideas that the agency has, has brought forward previously and some of which are in that report.

[Senator Roberts] It’s very difficult for workers to find their entitlements in here and know when they’re getting ripped off. This is harmful for workers. It’s led to a decline in union membership in this country, I believe. And it’s led to small businesses not knowing what they’re doing and being frightened all the time of breaking the law. I believe it’s led to large businesses, large companies being very poorly managed because they focus on rules rather than on the core workplace relationship between employer and employee. So I can’t see how this favours anyone. We’ve had senior officials of the largest unions in the country. We’ve had employer groups all saying that this needs to be tackled for the sake of Australian business, not just small business, but especially small business.

[Witness] Well our view Senator is if it’s easier to get it right, that’s in everybody’s interests.

[Senator Roberts] Especially the workers.

[Witness] Absolutely. It would help inoculate against employees under payment, if there’s ability of employers to be able to understand and make it easier to do the right thing and know what that is, we think that’s in everybody’s interest.

[Senator Roberts] And the other thing, another thing about this is that it focuses on trying to prevent the bad doing things. Whether it be poor workers or, you know bad workers or bad employers. I mentioned this to COSBOA’s head, Peter Strong.

[Witness] Yes.

[Senator Roberts] And he said, of course, what a wonderful idea, focus on the positives, to enable good workers and good employers to get on with severe punishments for those who break the law. So simplify the law, make it focused on enhancing the employer, employee relationship, and then punish anybody who goes against it, really severely. At the moment, this is a game for lawyers to just act out in courts and workers and small business are left in the dust because they haven’t got the deep pockets for lawyers. On the point of improving small businesses, what can be done to support medium sized businesses as well?

[Witness] Well, we think the proposition we’ve put forward is that if you can have a framework that’s small business friendly and built with smaller employers in mind, that’ll improve the prospects for larger businesses If you build it from the ground up was the argument that was put forward, rather than build for assuming there’s 10 people in a workplace relations team.

[Senator Roberts] So you’re coming back to the primacy of the workplace relationship.

[Witness] And keep that as understandable, as straightforward and simple, so it can be implemented and people can focus on the success of the enterprise that’s in everybody’s interest

[Senator Roberts] Now this is based on reinforcing the IR club, the lawyers, the consultants, the um–

[Witness] Yeah. I must confess in the report that Senator O’Neill mentioned, I did refer to the club that thrives in the complexity.

[Senator Roberts] So it needs to be, needs to be made for workers and employers.

[Witness] Yeah, I think so, and that people can confidently navigate it knowing what the right thing is and that’s in everybody’s interest.

[Witness 2] And, and.

[Witness] sorry, Senator.

[Witness 2] And just on the medium business side, our definition of what a small businesses is, is up to a hundred employees on an FTE basis. So we actually do get well into that sort of middle territory as well.

[Senator Roberts] And the Fair Work Act defines a small businesses as 15 or less full-time equivalent.

[Witness 2] It’s, that one’s different.

[Witness] I mean, we also had some ideas around the fair dismissal code, you know, addressing it, just making sure it was, it’s functioning as, as was understood to be its intention when it was introduced. And even some structural reforms where there’s, you know might be a small business division within the Fair Work Commission that has processes that are right sized for smaller workplaces. And perhaps the club is less necessary, less necessary to be involved. So, I mean they’re just some of the ideas that have come forward, both from the agency and referring to the report that said–

[Senator Roberts] Well the Industrial Relations Club is focused on perpetuating its power and control.

[Chair] Senator

[Senator Roberts] can I just make one comment about Kate Carnell please? She reached out to people, including us. She came with solutions, not problems and she was always proactive and she always was happy to listen and engage and meaningfully listen.

[Witness] It’s a good formula.

[Malcolm] Thank you, Chair.

/by

CSIRO Refuses to answer questions at Senate Estimates

,

I have asked CSIRO time and time again to provide the evidence that Carbon Dioxide from human activity is a danger to the planet and they still haven’t given me the evidence. Like I do every estimates session, I sent the CSIRO the questions I wanted them to answer in advance so that they could be prepared. This round however CSIRO was especially belligerent in not answering my questions. I have formally lodged them as questions on notice. That means if they refuse to answer them this time the CSIRO could be held in contempt of the Senate.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: While your annual remuneration package, Dr Marshall, is $1,049,000 and Dr Mayfield’s is $613,000, the medium income in Australia is just $49,000. Government policies based on your advice are hurting everyday Australians. You may not feel the impact, yet 25 million Australians do feel it. For some, it is now excruciating. With your pay comes accountability. I’m a representative and a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, and as such it’s my duty to hold agencies that are advising on government policy accountable, particularly agencies advising governments over the past 30 years on policies that are now costing billions of dollars and impacting our nation and all Australians to the extent of trillions of dollars.

Each of my questions is fairly short. In your answers to my questions in person and in writing, on notice, at last October’s supplementary estimates hearings, you cited seven papers, attempting to justify your assertion that the rate of the most recent period of temperature rise was unprecedented over the past 10,000 years. You did not specify the location of the basis of your claim. So, we went through all the papers, and we actually contacted Lecavalier and got the data from the authors and uncovered many startling issues and questions that raise serious doubts about CSIRO’s conclusions, which appear unfounded at best. Detailed examination of your references reveals some startling facts. Firstly, are you aware, for example, that Kaufman 2020, which you cited, in importing data from the Dahl-Jensen borehole, omitted the first data point and then loaded the remaining data points in the reverse time order? Are you aware of that?

Dr Marshall: Chair, if I may, because the senator has said a lot there—the preamble to the question—CSIRO exists to help all Australians, all 25 million, and we have done so for the hundred years of our existence but perhaps never more so than in the last year, when we’ve protected citizens, we’ve developed vaccines—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking about COVID.

CHAIR: No, you had a very long preamble, Senator Roberts—which is unlike you—but let’s just let the official respond.

Dr Marshall: We’ve created personal protective equipment to protect frontline health workers, and we’ve helped government, both state and federal, to better understand the spread of the disease, its longevity on surfaces and how to best protect our people. As a result of all that work, Australia has come through this pandemic in remarkably good shape. There are crop yields that are at record highs despite drought, despite other impacts of a variable climate. So, Senator, we are deeply concerned about the wellbeing of all 25 million Australians. And I can bet that you, Senator, right now have at least three things on your person that were created by CSIRO science that maybe you don’t even know you have but that are benefiting your life.

So, whatever we are paid, which is decided by the rem tribunal, not by us, is because everything we do is designed to benefit Australia. And, like you, Senator, we want to ensure that all Australians, not just your constituents but all Australians, have the lowest possible cost of energy and the best possible life that our science and technology can create for them. And believe me when I say that when we do things like the GenCost report it’s all about helping industry and governments to make the right decisions for the future energy mix so that we can have a lower cost of energy, so that Australian industry can have a lower cost of energy, so that we can produce more products and generate more revenue here in Australia rather than shipping raw materials overseas and buying them back at a 10-times-higher price. So, we have the same mission, Senator, as you.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got a lot of information from you but not an answer to my question. Are you aware, for example, that in your response to the Senate committee as a result of Senate estimates the paper that you cited, Kaufman 2020, in importing data from the Dahl-Jensen borehole, omitted the first data point altogether and loaded the remaining data points in the reverse time order? Are you aware of that?

Dr Marshall: Dr Mayfield might be. I’m certainly not.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the answer.

Dr Mayfield: Senator, you’d be aware that we’ve probably met on a number of occasions.

Senator ROBERTS: We have.

Dr Mayfield: We’ve had quite a lot of exchange of information, whether through this forum or through questions on notice or letters that you provided to us prior to estimates. So we’ve done that over quite a long period, and in that time our observation is that you don’t agree with our answers. We can’t change that, but we also can’t change our answers, because we’re very comfortable that they’re based on the best scientific knowledge and scientific process. In the response we gave you earlier today with regard to the most recent questions, which we tabled through the committee, I think we will have to fundamentally disagree. That is the bottom line.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a simple question: are you aware that Kaufman 2020—

Dr Mayfield: We’re aware of your argument, but it doesn’t change the conclusions we make.

Senator ROBERTS: in importing data from the Dahl-Jensen borehole, omitted the first data point altogether and loaded the remaining data points in the reverse time order? That’s what you presented to the Senate as evidence. Are you aware of that?

Dr Mayfield: We’ve also presented a lot of other information to you, Senator, on many occasions. The bottom line is that you never agree.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get to that. Are you aware of that error?

Dr Mayfield: We know what we believe in. We know what we understand through the scientific methods.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on.

Dr Mayfield: That’s what we’ll stick with. So we won’t be moving away from our answer. We will have to agree to disagree.

Senator ROBERTS: I note that neither of you answered my question. No. 2: are you aware that Kaufman 2020 disagrees with another of your references—that is pages 2K 2013, the reconstruction that has no uptick in recent temperatures? Are you aware of that?

Dr Mayfield: We’re aware of all of these claims through the various interactions that we have with you, Senator. We’ve provided our answers. Those are the answers we have. They’re not going to change.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware—No. 3—that one of your references, the North report 2006, directly contradicts CSIRO’s claim—your claim—that the latest rate of temperature rise is unprecedented? Are you aware of that?

Dr Mayfield: Senator, again, we’ve been through all of this. We can go through every single question that you make, but it’s the same general response: we’ve provided our best response, we’re very comfortable with those responses and the basis of them, and we don’t have any basis on which we would change them. We’ll have to agree to disagree—bottom line.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m happy for you to keep asking if you really need to, but we are behind schedule.

Senator ROBERTS: Next question: Lecavalier, which is one of your key papers, from 2017, makes a conclusion that hangs on one data point from one short ice core, in contradiction to CSIRO’s clear statement last October to me in writing. We obtained Lecavalier’s data from the authors and uncovered many startling issues. In Lecavalier 2017, proxy data was used for recent times, when more accurate thermometer data from many Arctic thermometer stations is readily available. Yet in response to our comments about Marcott 2013, which you cited, in Senate supplementary hearings last October you said that thermometer measurements, when available, should be used instead of proxies. We agree. When the proxy is replaced with an amalgam of Arctic thermometer measurements, there is no period of unprecedented temperature rise in Lecavalier, which you cited. Why?

Dr Mayfield: Again, we’ve been through this many times. We have given you our answer.

Senator ROBERTS: I will go to the next one, because the chair wants me to hurry up. In citing Marcott 2013, how did the CSIRO overlook mentioning the author’s own statement written in the paper:

The result suggests that at longer periods, more variability is preserved, with essentially no variability observed at periods shorter than 300 years.

So, for periods shorter than 100 years, no variability is preserved in the data. The authors explain that variability is not preserved for periods shorter than 2,000 years and, for periods of 300 years or less in duration, no variability passes through the process that Marcott used to analyse his data. Given the duration of the most recent period of temperature rise is just 40 years—and that’s Marcott citing Mann 2008 in his own paper and the paper you cited—there is no validity to CSIRO’s claim that the rate of recent temperature rise is unprecedented. All eight of your papers are completely flawed. There’s no evidence in your papers—not one of them. Why are you misleading the Senate and holding us in contempt?

Dr Mayfield: We are not misleading the Senate.

Senator ROBERTS: You are, sir.

Dr Mayfield: We’ve made our responses known to you in a number of meetings.

Senator ROBERTS: Ha, ha, ha! These are simple facts.

Dr Mayfield: And we’ve had climate scientists talk to you, and you continue to ignore our answers, and we can’t change that.

Senator ROBERTS: This is why I don’t accept your answers.

Senator CANAVAN: I haven’t heard the answers and I’d be interested in them, Dr Mayfield. I think Senator Roberts has raised some interesting points. Can we all hear the answers?

Dr Marshall: It might be easier just to look at the State of the Climate report that we produce every two years in partnership with BoM.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that one, don’t worry.

Dr Marshall: The data’s in there, you can see it. It’s not theoretical, it’s measured.

Senator ROBERTS: My eighth question: you cited the IPCC, the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change from the UN, assessment report 5, working group 1. This is an irrelevant citation as the UNIPCC AR5 WG1 summary for policymakers itself contains no reference to rates of temperature rise in the last 10,000 years. That’s the only unprecedented change you claim to be in climate. Out of all the meetings we’ve had, all the letters exchanged, that’s the only one you claim is unprecedented, yet it doesn’t mention it at all. There is no reference even to the Holocene period or the last 10,000 years. Most citations in working group 1 are for only the last 1,000 years. Can CSIRO explain the inclusion of this irrelevant citation that contains no logical scientific point relevant to your claim? Can you explain why you’re using that?

Dr Mayfield: Again, you would be familiar with three meetings that we had. We had climate scientists there, we went through the arguments with you. We’ve been there, we’ve done that.

Senator CANAVAN: Chair, can I raise as a point of order? I don’t think it’s appropriate for a witness to refer to private briefings they’ve had with another senator. Senator Roberts is asking a question in this format—

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t mind.

Senator CANAVAN: in this framework. Unless there’s some public interest that’s being claimed here, I think the senator deserves an answer.

Senator ROBERTS: I got a lot from his answer, Matt, thank you.

Dr Mayfield: The record of those meetings has been tabled previously, as has the response to your various sets of questions, so there’s a lot of information that’s been tabled.

CHAIR: The fact is that this back and forwards has going on for at least the whole time I’ve been on the committee. I’ve got to say, Senator Roberts, I admire your perseverance, but I think it’s getting to the point of

being unproductive at a point in time when we are more than half an hour behind schedule and we have other important witnesses we want to devote time to.

Senator ROBERTS:   Okay, I’ll wrap up with two more. Your reference, pages 2K2013, is an irrelevant citation as it covers only the last 2,000 years—we asked for 10,000—and cannot support your claim of what you say is unprecedented over the last 10,000 years. The second-half of this question is: your reference, pages 2K2017, is an irrelevant citation as it covers only the last 2,000 years and cannot support your claim of what is unprecedented over the last 10,000 years. Why did you cite those two references?

Dr Mayfield: Again, the climate scientists that work with the CSIRO have an understanding of the science literature. They’re making those references because they add to the argument. As I said earlier, you don’t agree with the answers and we can’t change that.

Dr Marshall: Are you worried that somehow we’re giving bad advice to the government about what’s going to be the lowest cost of energy?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, definitely.

Dr Marshall: Because that’s what you said—

Senator ROBERTS: And on climate policy that’s driving the destruction of our economy.

Dr Marshall: That question has nothing to do with any of the modelling that you’re talking about.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about the underpinning advice that’s driving policies on climate and energy—

Dr Marshall: So am I.

Senator ROBERTS: the underpinning climate advice.

Dr Marshall: So am I, and it’s about the cost of solar, hydrogen, nuclear, coal, gas—

Senator ROBERTS: Dealing with property rights—

Dr Marshall: That’s got nothing to do with climate modelling.

Senator ROBERTS: destruction of our manufacturing sector—that’s what’s underpinning—

Dr Marshall: The future cost of energy is about the economics and the technology and the science that we produce.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not talking just about energy. I’m talking about climate science that underpins the destruction of our economy, including energy, but also property rights, water resources, right across our country. That’s what I’m talking about. You’re paid $1,049,000 a year in remuneration, and we’re getting this as science. It’s junk.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve made your point. Dr Marshall, I’ll let you reply, but then we are going to call it a night.

Dr Marshall: It is a fact that CSIRO’s science is in the top one per cent of the world, in some cases in the top

0.1 per cent. It’s a fact.

Senator ROBERTS: That is spurious—

Dr Marshall: It is a fact.

Senator ROBERTS: and climate science is not science. You have not given me any of the data, not a bit.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Dr Marshall: I will give you the data to substantiate every word I just said. I will give it to you.

/by

Australian Signals Directorate

, ,

Transcript

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you Chair and thank you all for being here. I have a few short question mostly about elections. My questions are about the Australian Cyber Security Centre, in Senate estimates on the 19th of February 2019, Tom Rogers, the Deputy Director of the Australian Electoral Commission said, “We work very closely with our partner agencies, the Australian Cyber Security Centre from the Australian Signals Directorate,” and then he went on and then said again, “We work with them closely and we are very confident,” pause and then, “That there has been no breach of the AEC systems,” is that an accurate statement?

[Rachel Noble]

It absolutely is, we work very closely with the Australian Electoral Commission and actually as we do with all State and Territory electoral commission equivalents, particularly focused together in partnership in the lead up to an election, during the election and then post the election, where we’ll partner on looking for any cyber security or threats to the proper running of the election.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you. Last night, the Australian Electoral Commission advised they have never used the Scytl software they purchased and instead used a bespoke system. They further commented that the internal code had been audited and reviewed. Has your office conducted a code level and server level audit of the Australian Electoral Commission election software?

[Rachel Noble]

Unless Ms. Bradshaw knows the answer to that specific question or Mr. Hanmore? No? We might have to take that level of detail on notice, Senator.

[Senator Roberts]

Okay. So, if you don’t know who did this mysterious audit, and do you also know if the software passed the audit? So, if you could, let us know that.

[Rachel Noble]

I could take that on notice, yes.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you. During the election period, is the Australian Cyber Security Centre responsible for securing the data systems used by the Australian Electoral Commission?

[Rachel Noble]

Our functions, which are set out in the Intelligence Services Act allow us to provide advice and assistance, the ultimate accountability and responsibility is for the organisation, in this case the Australian Electoral Commission itself.

[Senator Roberts]

So, are you saying then that the Australian Electoral Commission itself secures the data systems that it uses?

[Rachel Noble]

[Rachel Noble]

That’s right.

[Senator Roberts]

[Rachel Noble]

Thank you. Last question, are you 100% confident the software and systems available to the Australian Electoral Commission for the 2022 election are fit for purpose?

We will partner, continue to partner with them but it would be unwise to sort of project into the future, we will, as I said in the lead up to that election, during and after, be working in, you know, the contemporary environment both based on the state of their systems that they in place at the time, our understanding of the threat environment that we will provide to them and we’ll work in a contemporary, agile and current environment at that time, but it would be unwise for me to provide guarantees about what may or may not happen in the future.

[Senator Roberts]

So, you don’t work with them on a regular basis more just around the elections?

[Rachel Noble]

That’s right, We’ll stay in partnership with them like we do all Australian government entities at all times, so, if we become aware of a specific threat to any Commonwealth or State and Territory or private entity for that matter, we will reach out with them and engage them on that, so, we’ll do that at any time throughout the year but we will have a particular, dedicated, focused effort with them, pre, during and after an election on top of that.

[Senator Roberts]

Okay, so, you will assess the situation at any time, and any time you might hear some potential threat and you get involved, but other than that you will only get involved just before during and after the election?

[Rachel Noble]

That’s right.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you very much.

[Rachel Noble]

Thank you.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you, Chair, see, it was less than five minutes.

[Chair]

Senator Patrick, you could take a leaf out of Senator Roberts’ book in relation to timeliness, but over to you.

/by

Is the Government considering mandatory vaccination? Questioning the Department of Health Senate Estimates

, ,

Even though the government says they don’t want to mandate vaccination, they haven’t ruled out attaching it to everyday activities. That means they won’t rule out that you might have to be vaccinated to go to the pub which sounds as good as mandating it to me.

I believe in the vaccine being available to anyone who wants to take it, but it should be every individual’s choice whether they take it or not. I do not believe they should be government mandated. Where do you stand?

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you chair. And thank you all for attending. What percentage of the population, that will, will receive a COVID 19 vaccine? Do you expect or plan?

[Brendan Murphy]

Well, we were, our target at present Senator, is to vaccinate all the adult population, the over eighteens off by the end of October, give them a first dose. So that’s I think approximately 20 million, I think?

About, about 20 million going on.

Yeah. Now we may then go on and vaccinate children. If we have vaccines that are registered and approved for children. And if they prevent transmission and that helps us with herd immunity, but there are no vaccine. There’s no trial data on children at the moment. So the vaccines are only registered for adults.

Or 16 to 18 in the case of one. But no nobody under 16 has a registered product at this point.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Will that include the elderly, the frail?

[Brendan Murphy]

Absolutely. Unless there is a medical contraindication which is very rare. So if someone is very close to end of life it may be decided that it’s not appropriate. But in general, absolutely. That’s what we’re doing in residential aged care. Vaccinating a lot of very elderly and very frail people.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Do you have the constitutional or legislative power in your opinion, to impose mandatory vaccination?

[Brendan Murphy]

The government policy is very clear that we’re not. We’ve never imposed mandatory vaccination in Australia. We take the approach that we want to encourage, promote and provide the evidence for vaccination. There have been situations where, for example, with flu vaccination last year in aged care where there was a public health order that the States and territories made. That decided that you couldn’t enter a facility unless you had proof of flu vaccination. But that was that’s very different from, from making, from mandating a vaccine. It just means that you have to make a choice about whether you go into an aged care facility. And obviously for childhood immunisation similar rules have applied. With again, mostly enforced by the States and territories, with no jab no play and government policy with no jab, no pay. But none of those have said that you are by law required to be vaccinated.

[Malcolm Roberts]

In the States?

[Brendan Murphy]

Yeah, In the States. Nobody can force a medical intervention on another citizen. We can do a lot of things to encourage, promote. And in some cases to restrict situations of risk if you’re not vaccinated. But we have never taken the view that we can force a citizen to have a medical intervention.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And you won’t be taking that view.

[Brendan Murphy]

I, I can’t imagine. That’s not, we wouldn’t recommend it.

[Witness]

There is absolutely no proposal from the government to make any COVID vaccine compulsory for anybody.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So are there any policies or plans or ideas or has it been discussed to make something unavailable without the vaccine? Effectively making it compulsory?

[Brendan Murphy]

Well, again, there has been discussion at HBPC. About whether, and Professor Kelly can comment on that, whether, at some stage we might use the same approach that we used for flu last year. To say that if the COVID vaccine is really effective at preventing transmission, that to say that to work in aged care or to enter a facility you need to have a vaccination. But HBPC has decided that; A, there isn’t enough evidence on prevention of transmission at the moment. And, B it would be silly for such a public health order to be introduced until such time as all of those workers and community members who might visit aged care have had the opportunity to be vaccinated. So that is, that’s a live matter for consideration that will be reviewed as the evidence evolves.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay.

[Witness]

No, I’ll just be very clear here though, that the current position of the government is that this vaccine is voluntary and not withstanding that the HPCs work and the, and the health departments work. But the government’s position is very clear, that the vaccine is voluntary.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. And thank you, Dr. Murphy. I’ll just jump outside of vaccines for a minute. To understand the overall context, and then come back to vaccines. What are the main factors in managing a pandemic? I’ll just test my own knowledge with you first. Is isolate and arrest the vaccine, which is called a lockdown, I understand. Then there’s number two is, identify the location and the spread to get on top of the quickly. What’s that? testing, tracing and quarantine. Then there are attempts to reduce the transmissibility through restrictions like masks, gatherings, criticism, movement of people, sorry, not criticism, movement of people. Then the fourth one would be cure and prophylactic areas to try and prevent, to try and cure people of the virus. For example, antivirals. Number five would be vaccine. Have I, have any, have I included any that are wrong? Have I missed any?

[Brendan Murphy]

Well you’ve missed international borders, which is probably…

[Malcolm Roberts]

Isolate and arrest.

[Brendan Murphy]

Yeah, well, certainly that has been one of our most successful interventions. Was to prevent the importation of a virus from, despite all the impact that it’s had on our citizens overseas. It has been one of the most singularly important parts of our success in controlling COVID.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So there’s just isolate and arrest, which I include international borders. Identify the location and spread through testing, tracing, quarantine. Reduce the transmissibility through restrictions. Cure and prophylactic approach and vaccine.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That seems pretty complete Professor Kelly?

[Professor Kelly]

individual behaviours.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Sorry?

[Professor Kelly]

Individual behaviours. So the hand hygiene, cough into your elbow, that sort of stuff.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Thank you.

The following line of questioning occured after the end of the attached video clip (see HANSARD)

[Chair]

The last question.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Sure. Can I get, on notice, an assessment of the characteristics of the virus? We were told initially it was a respiratory disease and we shoved ventilators at people. Some people were telling us that it hinders the blood absorbing oxygen or uptaking oxygen. We were told about various treatments. Perhaps you could tell me, on notice, what are the characteristics you measure to assess the virus’s mortality and
transmissibility, and any other characteristics of the virus, and perhaps rank it relative to, for example, the decreasing order of impact. We’ve had the Black Death, the Plague of Justinian, smallpox, the Antonine Plague, the Spanish flu, the third plague, HIV/AIDS and now COVID-19, which is a fraction of the population affected. Is it possible to get that summary?

[Brendan Murphy]

We can certainly provide it. This virus is now well studied. Essentially, as we’ve said on many occasions, for most fit, young people it’s a relatively mild disease, but 126,000 people have died in the UK, a very similar country to us. We have avoided a very large death rate by controlling this virus, and we’re very proud of that achievement, Senator. Whilst it may be a mild disease, that means it transmits wildly. Older people and people with underlying conditions are at risk of getting severe respiratory disease and dying, as they have done in their millions around the world.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

/8 Comments/by

Why are casual coal miners getting ripped off? Coal LSL at Senate Estimates

, ,

Despite possibly tipping more into their entitlements from working more hours, casual miners pull out less on the other end from the entitlements pool at Coal LSL. I also queried $33 million dollars that has been paid out at Coal LSL with no description of why.

If that wasn’t enough, we also believe there are money laundering risks due to insufficient record keeping and the amount of money being held by Coal LSL. The entire model and governance needs a root and branch review as it is totally inadequate.

Transcript

[Chair]

Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you, Chair. And thank you for coming again. First of all, The Coal LSL Scheme. The Coal Long Service Leave Scheme was established specifically for the Coal Mining Sector. Is that correct?

[Witness]

That’s correct. Back in 1949, The portable long service leave scheme was established.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. The objective of this scheme is to provide long service leave for employees in the Coal Mining Sector. Is that correct?

[Witness]

For eligible employees who are defined under the Admin Act? Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The scheme provides the ability for employees to request to be paid extra amounts directly rather than contributing into the scheme. If they do this, it immediately becomes their money rather than going into the pool funded Coal LSL. Is that correct?

[Witness]

You’re referring to the clause on Waiver Agreements,

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes

[Witness]

Senator, I believe and that is underpinned by a separate regulation, but yes Waiver Agreements are enabled under the legislation.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Coal LSL has a guidance note explaining how it calculates the “levies” on the eligible wages for coal employees. It provides two formulas; one for casual employees and one for permanent employees. Casual employees are required to pay the levy on all hours worked. Whereas permanent employees contribute based on a maximum of 35 hours per week. Is that correct?

[Witness]

It’s the employers who are paying Senator, but 3B under the Payroll Levy Collection Act does outline how the different calculations are to be performed by the employer. And they are linked to the employees classification, employment classification but the employer is paying that payroll levy.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So, a casual employee though, accept that so casual employee working the same weekly shifts as a permanent employee pays in more because they contribute on all hours worked whereas a permanent pays not more than for 35 hours. Is that correct?

[Witness]

No, the employer is paying the levy and it is a different calculation. So it is linked to different assessment of hours. That’s correct, but the formula is different between the two classifications.

[Malcolm Roberts]

When it comes to a crowing and taking long service leave casuals and permanents are treated differently again. Permanents automatically get long service leave accrued for the maximum of 35 hours , regardless of the hours worked in that week. But the casual only gets it for the actual hours worked in a week. If the roster patterns of a casual don’t fall neatly in a week, there is the potential for them to work the same shift pattern as a permanent employee yet accrue less entitlement than a permanent on the same shift. Is that correct?

[Witness]

Correct. In the sense we’re relying on the hours reported for the employees working week to inform the accrual calculation for the casual employee. That’s correct.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So casual employees working in the coal mining sector can work the same weekly shifts as a permanent employee, but pay more in levies to Coal LSL through their employer and get a lower accrual of long service leave than a permanent employee. This is despite working the same shifts. They pay in more, their employer pays in more on their behalf but they get less out of it. Is that a fair outcome?

[Witness]

I don’t agree that the employers paying more in that scenario Senator, because they are very different formulas that are linked to the wages that are paid for each in different employee. So I don’t agree that is as simple as the way it’s been described. And I’d also say for the casual who is working the 35 hour week, they will accrue the same entitlement as the full-time equivalent. So if they are working the 35 hour week and the employer reports those hours they’ll accrue that full-time equivalent.

[Malcolm Roberts]

A lot of them are not working that 35 hour week, if they’re on production, they’re on a roster.

[Witness]

We’re relying on the hours and yeah

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah, we’ve seen what happens with that relying on employers hours. This is in the past, this is all based on a Coal LSL guidance note, which interprets the act. Given the potential for such an inequitable outcome, is it possible that your interpretation is wrong?

[Witness]

No, I’m confident our interpretations right. It’s been through legal channels over the years and that guidance note is verified. It has not been tested in a court as such but it has been formulated based on legal interpretation.

[Malcolm Roberts]

When the coal, this is the last question on this thread. I’ve got some more on others. When the coal long service leave system was established for coal mine workers. Do you think that it was intended to make one employee through their employer pay so much more and get less?

[Witness]

I don’t agree, that it’s as simple as that Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Sorry.

[Witness]

Okay. The intent of the scheme coming back to the intent of a long service leave scheme is for the employee to access a benefit when they meet certain milestones. So i think the intent of the scheme is structured correctly and that all workers should be able to access an equivalent entitlement when they meet the AES qualifying service milestone.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. So moving on to another topic, do you ensure that casuals are made aware that they do not have to pay contributions paid to coal LSL and that they may be able to X to be paid the approximate 2% cash in hand, so they can elect to take the cash instead of having it accumulated.

[Witness]

Colleague will talk to the detail their regs of a Waiver Agreement.

So Peter Kembrey, General Manager legal calls Hill. Senator there is information on our website in regard to the Waiver Agreements. I think it is important to point out that Waiver Agreements are only available for a small category of employees. So they’ve targeted. The intent of that is for people coming to either on high incomes or coming to the end of over 55 that already have the 8 years qualifying service or have no qualifying service to be able to redirect those contributions as you say, to other forms of savings whether that be superannuation, which is the commonly what we see is, is the conversation that we have with people that are interested in that. So most people in this game, can’t quote don’t count

[Malcolm Roberts]

But those who are eligible for the Waiver, are they notified?

[Witness]

Well, they are not notified individually but there is information in respect of

[Malcolm Roberts]

So they’re not notified. They could have to go to a website, which they might not know about.

[Witness]

Senator. We don’t know the ages of people necessarily who are in the fund.

[Malcolm Roberts]

No, but no employers do it either. Is that right?

[Witness]

I can’t speak for what employers do, but

[Malcolm Roberts]

Do you tell the employers that they need to do it?

[Witness]

Well, we don’t instruct the employers to do it but we certainly make it clear to employees that information in regard to aspects of the fund are contained on the website. There is information in regard to Waiver Agreements, better than say the waiver Agreements. There’s no many people in the fund or a significant minority of people in the fund can actually apply for these.

[Malcolm Roberts]

From the research we’ve done into Coal LSL it would seem that when an employer registers an employee with Coal LSL, that Coal LSL just asks for a name and a date of birth. Does this mean that because you did not take a Tax file number that you are not able to verify that people named are indeed real people that they exist. What do you do to verify they are real people and provide me with a summary of the last three occasions when this was done.

[Witness]

Sorry. The last three occasions we verified people

[Malcolm Roberts]

When you verified someone was done.What was real?

[Witness]

My understanding of the process is when a new entrant comes. Firstly, I say, we are not authorised to collect tax file numbers. That would mean amendments in legislations. So it’s not it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Is anyone raised that with the government?

[Witness]

It’s been raised, but like, it’s there’s very few entities that can do that. But, so we don’t collect tax file numbers at this point in time.

[Malcolm Roberts]

But you collect names and dates?

[Witness]

We collect names and dates of birth.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And you collect money

[Witness]

And we collect money, Yes. We collect money and we keep records of entitlements but we write to those new entrants into the scheme at the time that they appear on it. So we get their addresses, we contact them and we follow them up in regard to this is what we’ve been told, are these details correct? Particularly in cases where there might be employers registering them in registering them in regard to historical service. So we asked, we say this is what the records we’ve been given. Can you verify these are correct.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So let me continue then. Also from the research we have done, I was concerned to see reference to approximately $33 million in levy reimbursements made to entities with a statement beside it saying, “not readily available”. This is a lot of money to have no detail attached to it. Can you explain what’s happening. And I can give you a reference in the report, given last Senate estimates. The report was EEC-BE20-82, pages 121-144. As you provided to me.

[Witness]

Senator, the further detail that we provided in that written response to the question on notice was to explain why that reference was associated to a number of the transactions. So in the Excel spreadsheet that were provided to you which was data from July 17 to June, 2020 had 5,594 lines. And there was a 100 or 407 odd lines, which had that category. The reason being we insourced our operations in 2017. So when we took over the administration from the previous administrator that resulted in us implementing a new financial system. So all the records live in the administration system going back to day one. So all the historical records reside there which is the employees entitlements, the money in and the money out. We, and in our response to we said it would be an unreasonable division of resources to be able to extract that data because we were only migrating it to our new finance system from 2017 where we’re able to readily access the data through reporting frameworks that had been established. So the period of three months where we had that description that we explained in our response to the QON that was that migration stage. And all of the detail, I’ll say migration hadn’t been established but I do assure you, it will always residing in the administration system but it would be unreasonable allocation of time and money to be able to put a reporting framework around that, to extract that data, as you requested.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So you don’t know about it then. You don’t know

[Witness]

No, we do know about it

[Malcolm Roberts]

But you know about it but you don’t know the identities.

[Witness]

No, we do. It lives in the administration system and should we receive inquiries at a transactional level, We will investigate or access that transaction to pay but to pull thousands, hundreds of thousands of lines of records out of that system, establish the reporting framework to extract that in the timeframe that was needed. It was an unreasonable allocation of resources to extract that. And we’ve provided you with the information that was readily available.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. I note from records provided that registered and unregistered employers, make long service leave contributions. And then in some instances they claim the funds back. Yet I’ve seen no evidence whether these bulk refunds made by Coal LSL are linked to a list of employees or that if employees are referred to that, they are real people. To me, this leaves open the question as to whether the coal LSL could leave themselves open to claims of potential money laundering. Do you ensure that the money laundering does not happen? And if so, how, how do you do it?

[Witness]

It would be highly unlikely for money laundering to be existing in the fund. For an employer to come into this scheme, through a registration project process, we verify their details through ASIC, ABN and verify their bank banking details. So their, the source information that we rely on to ascertain that the employer or the entity is a found entity. The employer would then need to have an employee in their records for years of years of service and paying a levy for that period in order to see that that employee meets the qualifying service provisions and then ultimately access any reimbursement from the fund should that employee access their long service leave. So it is, there are many hurdles that an employer would need to jump through over a very extended timeline in order to launder money through our fund. So first up, Senator Roberts look at the time, we’ve got a minute left. So the one very quick question or we have to ask you to put the rest on notice, please.

[Malcolm Roberts]

How many board members or members of the bodies they represent have been on either registered or unregistered companies that made contributions and or received reimbursements from Coal LSL? Could you please provide a list of them and the entity names and the dollar value of all the transactions.

[Witness]

The current directors?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes.

[Witness]

Senator,

/by

Why do we send data to the IRS without telling the individual? Australian Tax Office at Senate Estimates

, ,

Australian banks hand over a large amount of sensitive banking and financial data to the United States IRS. This happens through the FATCA Act. Despite the huge intrusion to privacy and information of Australian citizens, no privacy impact statement was ever prepared for the Act.

The government has also failed to negotiate mutual recognition of retirement instruments like 401Ks in the US and super in Australia, meaning dual citizens are double taxed. This will only cost Australian taxpayers more as retirement funds are lost to US taxes.

Transcript

[Chair]

As well, Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you chair. Thank you for attending again. I want to talk about, oh, ask questions about FATCA, which for people on the committee, who don’t understand. In implementing the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Acts, that’s FATCA, in Australia. One major group of stakeholders has been ignored from the very beginning. They’re the individuals, typically dual Australian and US citizens. Whose financial data is being reported to a foreign government. So this goes beyond the question of, why are we reporting data on Australian citizens to a foreign government? But it goes into the specifics of FATCA. In drafting the post-implementation review of FATCA, did treasury consider the impact on those Australians whose accounts were being reported to the internal revenue service in America?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

I got to take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Thank you. If not, why did treasury decide that this group of Australians were not significant stakeholders in the Australian implementation of FATCA?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

So Senator I’m happy to provide whatever information we can on that conservancy US initiative.

[Malcolm Roberts]

It is and it’s hurting dual citizens all around the world because United States is the only country I understand that taxes on citizenship basis. Whereas every other country, taxes on residency. So an Australian citizens-

[Chair]

You can understand from the official’s point of view, it’s difficult for them to answer on the policy of another country. So perhaps-

[Malcolm Roberts]

This is to do with reporting.

[Chair]

I understand-

[Malcolm Roberts]

Under that policy,

[Chair]

But perhaps look keep going with your line of questioning, but it might pay if we can put these on notice and then at least give the officials the chance to consider this in some more data,

[Malcolm Roberts]

Some of them, they will have to be taken on notice, I accept that at the time.

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

Maybe just one context about the interaction of FATCA which is indeed another country sovereign, right And their sovereign, as you point out they tax they’re citizens on a different basis from pretty much every other country. I think there’s maybe one or two others, who tax on a citizenship basis, not developed countries. That FATCA was designed in a way that it would penalise, let’s say if the Australian government did not collaborate, did not interact at all with the FATCA system. It was designed in a way to force other countries banks to report the data with a penalty tax of 30% on all their US earnings, which would effectively stop those banks from actually operating in the international banking system. It was a very strong unilateral measure. The Australian government and many other governments negotiated to try to mitigate that through in a sense providing some of the information or in a sense agreeing to be a conduit for some of that information from domestic banks to the US government, primarily to save domestic banking industry from this measure. So it’s the consequence of the Australian government. Not, in a sense having that information flow would be, there’d be a 30% withholding tax on pretty much all the US source income of Australian organisations.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’m aware that it’s blackmail. So let’s continue asking questions and what has to come on notice, but I thank you for that clarification. What was the number of accounts and aggregate values reported to the American internal revenue service in the fact that data sent by the ATO in September 2018 September 2019 and September 2020. You’d have to taken it on notice

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

I’ll probably take that on notice but if you give me one second, I might just clarify

Yes senator, I’m going to have to take that on notice

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Of these accounts how many were held by Australian residents? I imagine you have to take that on a notice too how many were under the United States dollar 50,000 minimum reporting threshold?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

So again.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yep were there any accounts reported by institutions that qualify as local client base banks under the FATCA agreement? So this one, you probably third question I have is how are account holders informed that firstly their data is being sent to the internal revenue service or secondly the amounts being reported under FATCA? What opportunity do account holders have to correct the information reported about them to a foreign government?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

So Senator, I’ll take those on notice but primarily the relationship of the account holder is with their bank who first provides the information to us which we then on provide.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yep.

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

And so many of those the notification points will be matters between a bank and its clients. I would say that the clients would generally be, I would expect would almost universally if not universally be advised that they are a person with US indigene and be asked for more information to clarify their US potential status

[Malcolm Roberts]

Which raises more questions. But anyway, that’s not for now, thank you for that. Why wasn’t a privacy impact statement, PIA conducted with regard to FATCA reporting and given the quantity of data being sent to foreign governments under both FATCA and the CRS the common reporting standard shouldn’t a privacy impact statement be conducted as soon as possible?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

So Senator, look I’ll have to take that on notice, but I don’t think that’s

[Witness]

I think between the two of us we’ll take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Is it acceptable for financial institutions doing business in Australia to deny accounts or otherwise discriminate against Australian individuals because of their citizenship or national origin?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

So again Senator, I suspect that’s a matter for different specialists who specialise in discrimination matters.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, you’re discriminating because you’re, sorry the ATO is discriminating by sending that information by requiring it off certain individuals in Australia.

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

Sorry senator I was focusing on your question, which is should the bank be able effectively stop customer relationship? I mean, really that’s a matter for the bank and its and its discrimination law in terms of the information we receive, Yes we do share information with the US. We share information with many peragrando of common reporting standard, which is a multilateral solution. We do provide information to many other countries and also receive information from many other countries.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Thank you.

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

So the CRS is a two way so we’ve received both in and out for example, and again I don’t have the numbers with me but we received a lot of information about Swiss bank accounts, for example, under the CRS.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And the previous question was about the privacy impact statement. So what recourse do Australian individuals have when they are denied accounts due to their US citizenship?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

Senator, I think that that would probably be a matter of for APRA or ASIC.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Last question Chair, FATCA reporting includes reporting on the Australian income of Australian residents, has treasury expressed their support of a same country, exception to FATCA as recommended by the US taxpayer advocate?

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

Is that a question of treasury?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes

[Jeremy Hirschhorn]

Senator, I’ll take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Thank you. Just a final statement. This not only affects US residents, it affects Australians because we have to pay more of our tax to people in America who are Australians who have superannuation and have to go on the pension because they’d been taxed to the hilt by the Americans. There’s a dual taxation, so Americans get slugged, they have a different definition of superannuation than we do. So our superannuation accounts are taxed heavily because they happened to be Americans who had got dual citizenship. There’s a lot of cost involved in this for our country. Thank you very much.

/by

How many foreign deals have we actually rejected? Questioning the Foreign Investment Review Board

, , ,

Despite the tough talk about foreign ownership, the government continues to allow foreign entities to buy up too much Australian land and critical infrastructure. While there is a lot of spotlight on larger deals, the government isn’t that concerned about the amount of small residential properties that are being lost to foreign ownership.

This pushes up the price of local house prices while other countries won’t even let us own property in their country. There is a difference between foreign investment and foreign ownership. Foreign investment, fine. But foreign ownership, absolutely not.

Transcript

And you have the call Senator Roberts.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you all for being here today. Since the Foreign Investment Review Board lowered the dollar threshold for projects to be considered to zero, how many projects have been rejected because of unsuitability by the treasurer?

[Tom Hamilton First Assistant Secretary, Foreign Investment Division]

Senator, excuse me, Tom Hamilton First Assistant Secretary, Foreign Investment Division. I don’t have a specific response to a question in relation to the timeframe that you’ve asked. As you know, a very small number of rejections over the period of operation of the FADA itself. We work every carefully to facilitate investment into the country and we, you know, we’ve been very careful through the whole period of the $0 threshold to ensure that we are allowing investment works in the national interest.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So I understand it’s only investigated if the project is raised by someone, is that right?

[Tom Hamilton]

No, that’s not right Senator. So if- every investment that comes through under the foreign investment framework is assessed carefully by Treasury and its consult partners on a case by case basis, you referred to the $0 threshold, which is a temporary measure during the course of 2020. During that period, we looked at every proposal that came forward before the treasury in accordance with the operation of that threshold.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So can you get me the numbers?

[Tom Hamilton]

I can give you the numbers for, for the numbers that were considered. Let me start my numbers here. All right, so for the period of, in total in 2020, there were 2,943 proposals. Of those, 1,732 were not $0 threshold. So the balance were that the cases that came forward as a result of the operation of that new threshold.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And none were rejected?

[Tom Hamilton]

I don’t have that number Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Could you get me that number please?

[Tom Hamilton]

We’ll take that notice Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. When will the Commonwealth Government act to stop foreign purchases or leases of significant local real estate gems, including Keswick Island in the Whitsundays in Queensland, as foreign purchases continue to buy up local real estate, rural mining, and tourist properties?

[Minister Simon Birmingham]

Senator, a number of different waves in relation to foreign investment reform over the time, our time in government, to seek to make sure that the perspective that has long been Australia’s policy in relation to foreign investment, which is that it ought to occur, where it’s in national interest is one that is effectively applied under our foreign investment laws. You know, foreign investment is important to a country like Australia. It has continued to support economic growth, jobs growth and ultimately achieving wages and living standards above a level, certainly well above global averages and global standards commensurate with a small country in population terms able to achieve large economic outcomes, thanks to domestic growth and foreign investment activity. And so it remains important but it has to be in the national interest. And that’s why we have taken successive steps, particularly in areas of national security to make sure that we have the right safeguards there to make those decisions. Just make an observation in terms of your first question about numbers rejected as well that it’s not unusual through the screening process for applications to be withdrawn at different junctures depending upon the types of question scrutiny or otherwise perhaps that applicants find themselves facing. So numbers rejected should not be seen as the only measure of effectiveness in relation to the FIRB, the mere fact that we have the regime in place would stop some from even bothering to make an application quite clearly. And then even the process itself will occasionally deter some as they get a sense of the type of conditions or the type of rejections that or the potential for rejection that may ensue.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s a fair comment. I’m also interested then in the number of rejections, sorry the number that have withdrawn their applications.

[Tom Hamilton]

I mean, Senator I’ll take that on notice. I mean, one thing that we bear in mind is being very careful not to release information that might relate to the business dealings of the applicants. But we’ll take that question on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Minister, I don’t think there’d be too many Australians who would argue with you that we need investment. However, there would be a lot of Australians who are upset about the control in foreign hands, and we’ve got Keswick Island, a beautiful gem in the Whitsundays, and it’s now been leased by the Queensland Government to a Chinese firm. And that is now acting like tin pot dictators over that island and trashing the barrier reef and the state government’s doing nothing. Now that’s not your responsibility to the state government as the lessee but lessor, rather, but these are the kinds of incidents that leave a bad taste in people’s mouth when we’ve got Chinese coming in here or anyone foreign and restricting what Australians can do and can’t do. And in fact, hurting our own environment. They are the things that annoy people.

[Simon Birmingham]

Look, I without personally knowing the circumstances around Keswick Island, so I’d be reluctant to comment directly on that, but as a general observation Senator Roberts you’re right, there’s a social licence aspect that goes to areas like foreign investment. It’s why making sure the Third Regime operates in the national interest has been so important to our government to seek to maintain that support for our own investment. And particularly as we face changed security risks and environments across our region to respond to that in the way in which we have structured those arrangements but indeed other things beyond our control, such as the way in which properties are operated, obviously can also undermine areas of confidence. And so all governments in that sense, have a responsibility to make sure that not only do we have effective screening but also that the laws and standards that we expect in this country, be they in relation to payment of wages and industrial conditions, be they in relation to payment of taxes, be they in relation to protection of the environment, apply equally to whoever you are. Absolutely.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And compliance with our laws. Is there any opportunity for us to contact someone in FIRB to discuss this particular issue? Do you have a review process?

[Witness]

Senator we are always happy for people to contact and give information. And I would just add to what the Minister has said that character of investors is part of the national interest tests that we look at as well. So we’re very happy for people to contact and provide information.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay, thank you. We will do that. Are there any more rule changes being considered to take into account the widespread purchases of Australian properties by overseas interests pushing up prices and making it harder for younger Australians to purchase a home?

[Witness]

So certainly in relation to foreign investment, as you know, the most recent and significant set of reforms came to effect from the 1st of January. The government has commenced a review of the legislation as set out in the legislation itself. That review is due for completion at the end of this year. We have made it clear in talking to stakeholders that we’re willing to, you know, hear from interested parties around the operation of the act.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay so then you’re just doing a review at the moment.

[Witness]

Yeah, that’s right.

[Malcolm Roberts]

No formal consideration of further changes yet.

[Witness]

Well, Senator the changes just took effect from 1 January. And so we’re actually quickly commencing our review process, which was part of what was passed in the legislation. And we’ve got until the end of this year to complete the review of the changes that were just made. So that’s why we’re sort of saying we’re very happy to hear from people because there are quite extensive legislative changes that were implemented as of 1 January.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s right. And we’re happy with some of them, but we’ll see how they’re implemented because it comes down to not just the legislation, but how it’s implemented. And that seems to be an area that’s wanting, especially when we see water and land and properties and essential services like electricity in foreign hands.

[Chair]

Senator Roberts, we want move rather soon.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Can I have the last question?

[Chair]

Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Is it not time to consider stopping sales of Australian assets to overseas interests? Many countries do not allow foreign ownership of their land. Investment in Australia is fine and may include long-term leases but we need to sell stop selling off our country. Is there any consideration being given to at least stopping sales of land to those, citizens of those countries that don’t allow Australians to own land in their countries.

[Witness]

I think Senator, as the minister has said the positive impact of foreign investment is very, very obvious.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I don’t dispute that. I agree with that.

[Simon Birmingham]

But I think Senator Roberts, it’s particularly important given the way you frame the question there to understand the extensive restrictions that exist in relation to foreign investment in residential property. The tightened screening restrictions were put in place in relation to foreign investment in agricultural lands as well. And in terms of your question about how other countries treat us, I guess we have under our foreign investment arrangements an overall approach that sets the threshold for any country in the world and their eligibility to purchase, which usually entails more frequent screening and lower thresholds for screening. And then we have the thresholds and arrangements that are put in place under reciprocal arrangements, essentially as negotiated through our free trade agreements that do seek to provide a, usually then a slightly higher threshold for screening to apply because of the level of reciprocity that’s usually been negotiated.

[Witness]

And if I can add to what the minister said, which is all correct, the thresholds do vary. For foreign government investors, $0 threshold continues to apply. And there are some, much stricter thresholds in relation to agricultural land as well. And not withstanding the threshold, every time an investor comes to us, we look at that case very carefully.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well perhaps, I said, I wouldn’t ask any more questions. So that was my last but perhaps I could just give you one area to consider in the future. Many foreign companies do not have to pay tax in this country, company tax. We know that, that gives them a hell of an unfair advantage over Australian companies. Maybe we should be generating more Australian investment by making sure we track tax foreigners properly. So thank you.

/by

Can we afford $220 billion Submarines right now? Department of Defence at Senate Estimates

, ,

CANCEL THE $220 BILLION SUBS CONTRACT

It is currently estimated that the Future Attack Submarines the government wants to buy will cost $220 billion including construction and ongoing service. We aren’t expecting to see the first one in the water until 2032 and the final one sometime in the 2040s.

They are outrageously expensive, will be obsolete by the time they hit the water and aren’t even nuclear powered. Don’t just take my word for it, almost every expert adviser and person outside the government has said they must be cancelled.

Transcript

[Chair]

As the call.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you Chair, thank you all for being here today. My first, the questions are about the Attack Submarines Contract. Given that some estimates of the final cost to Australia for this Attack Submarine fleet of 12 subs may run to more than $200 billion over the life of the subs. For example, the Managing SEA 1000 document is Australia’s Attack Class Submarines, February, 2020. Why is this considered good value for money in the face of wide criticism from reputable experts on the government appointed Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board, which included admirals and others. The board advised the government to consider terminating the contract with Builders Naval Group.

[Greg Sammut]

Greg Sammut, General Manager Submarines. Senator, the board didn’t recommend terminating the contract with Naval Group. They recommended that we make sure that we are managing our risks properly as we continue our work to get into contract with Naval Group and talked about the best alternative to a negotiated outcome when they made their recommendations. What actually occurred was, we reached a negotiated outcome with Naval Group. We entered into contract with them and as the auditor general concluded, we have established within the strategic partnering agreement. A fit for purpose strategic framework for meeting the government’s objectives for the future submarine programme.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. You raise the word risks and that report raised risks, that committee meeting. If the last sub will be delivered in the 2040s and the first delivery estimated to be in 2032, ’33, won’t these subs be obsolete by the time they’re ready for the water.

[Greg Sammut]

No Senator, they won’t be obsolete by the time they enter the water we’re designing these boats now to meet Navy’s capability requirements. Those requirements contemplate a submarine that has to operate within the timeframes of delivery. We’re also designing this submarine to have appropriate margins, such that through life new technologies as they sufficiently mature can be incorporated into the submarines to keep them regionally superior throughout their service life.

[Malcolm Roberts]

When the contract was first being considered, is it true that only eight submarines were to be built?

[Greg Sammut]

Not when the contract was being first considered I’ve said previously in Senate estimates that the competitive evaluation process that was initiated in February of 2015, which was established to pick an international partner used an assumption of eight submarines. But as we’ve also said previously to this committee, after the decision was made to commence the committee evaluation process there was a defence White Paper in which the government announced its policy to acquire 12 submarines.

[Malcolm Roberts]

What was the reason for the change? From eight to 12

[Greg Sammut]

There was a policy decision in the White Paper of 2016 to acquire 12 submarines that followed a process that was underway at that time, called a full structural review that accompanied the defence White Paper of 2016. And through that process, when options were considered for the structure of the defence force, 12 was the number that was decided by government.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The original cost quoted of around 25 billion was that for eight or 12?

[Greg Sammut]

I’m not sure what original cost you’re referring to, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’m told that the original cost of the programme was expected to be around 25 billion.

[Greg Sammut]

I’m not sure where that information ever came from, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

It was widely known that in the early stage of this project that the cost was estimated to be around 55 from memory for 12

[Greg Sammut]

I’m not aware of what you’re referring to, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

What was the original cost of the programme? The very first cost when the contract was set.

[Greg Sammut]

When the contract was set, $50 billion constant, which today in outturn dollars is $88.5 billion that has not changed.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So the $200 billion that some people are estimating, reliable people.

[Greg Sammut]

I think people are endeavouring to estimate not only the acquisition costs but the through life sustainment costs, which will run out to an excessive 2080. And cost that also include I might add, not just material sustainment of the boats but expected costs of crewing, operations and fuel.

And infrastructure.

Infrastructures included in acquisition costs as well, Senator, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

How will these subs be cutting edge when they use technology from the 20th century?

[Greg Sammut]

What technology are you referring to, Senator?

[Malcolm Roberts]

This technology of the subs comes from the 20th century.

[Greg Sammut]

Well, Senator, I’ll assume you’re referring to the battery technology that we’re using.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I am, ’cause the next question is will these subs be using lead acid or lithium composite battery bank? That’s one of the things, but the technology generally comes from the last century.

[Greg Sammut]

We are using proven technology in these submarines to meet the capability requirements of Navy. And I think that’s what we must understand in the first instance. We’re not making compromises to meeting capability requirements, by simply choosing technologies. We are also being very mindful of the risks that attend the use of new technologies in something as complex as a submarine. So if we were to take the battery as an example, yes, the first batch of submarines will be delivered or at least the first future submarine will be delivered with a lead acid battery. We need make that decision now because if we don’t make that now the boat’s design will not be completed. And if the boat’s design isn’t completed in sufficient time we won’t be able to commence building and deliver the boat by the early 2030s. What’s important to understand is that in choosing the battery technology that we’ve chosen we are still meeting Navy’s capability of requirements when it comes to parameters such as dive endurance, range and so forth. We will continue as we are currently doing now to look at new battery technologies. Indeed we have an established and funded science and technology programme that is looking into a number of battery chemistries, including lithium ion but there are other promising technologies out there such as nickel zinc. When these are sufficiently mature, And we agree that they can be safely incorporated into the submarine to meet the Seaworthiness requirements of Navy which go to the safety of our crews at sea as well as meeting those capability requirements or indeed expanding the capability of the boat because of what advantages that new technology might bring. We will have the option to incorporate that. Because as I said earlier, we are building a submarine with margins to be able to incorporate new technology into the future.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you, how easily, these questions reflect concerns of our constituents. And they’re very concerned when we look at the government debt right now and what has happened last year, they’re very concerned at the amount of money that’s going towards these subs. And they’re very concerned about the value in particular. How easy will the submarines be located by potential enemies when they’re so large and powered by obsolete diesel engines that apparently are easily heard? I’m not a submariner, but that’s what I understand.

[Greg Sammut]

One of my first response would be that diesel engines aren’t obsolete. Diesel electric submarines throughout the world use diesel engines to generate electricity, to charge batteries, to run the submarine. Again back to the capability requirements of Navy to which we are designing this submarine, it contemplates the threats and the scenarios in which the submarines will be operating. And those requirements have been established to enable the submarine to operate in the environments in which it operates remaining undetected to achieve its mission.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Given the exponential rate of increase or improvement in technology throughout life. Is there any regular or systemic review of the original assumptions?

[Greg Sammut]

We always continue to look at new technologies and what they might bring, not only to the future submarine but the existing submarine capability we have today. And that’s a good example perhaps to use that for your constituents, to understand how we continuously look at the ability to upgrade existing platforms that were produced some time ago. And if you look at any Naval vessel, it generally has a long life. And you’re right Senator, of course technology does evolve over the life of ships or submarines which are typically in service for at least 30 years in many cases. Over that timeframe we have to have the ability in Australia to be able to not only maintain the systems as they’re delivered, but to update them to deal with obsolescence that might emerge as well as upgrade them to take advantage of those new technologies so that we can maintain a capability edge or regional superiority. We do that today with the Collins class, we’re upgrading the Sonar suite in the Collins class, we’re upgrading the communication systems in the Collins class. We continue to manage any obsolescence that may arise in the Collins class because it was designed back in the 1980s. And we have to make sure that it continues to perform well. Life of type extension for the Collins class looks at these very issues where we will look at updating the diesel engines in the boat as well as the main motor and power control and distribution systems in the first instance. So what I’m saying to you is that we don’t design a vessel, deliver it and expect that that’s the way it will remain throughout its service life. It will be updated. It will be upgraded to ensure that it remains a potent and viable capability for the defence of our nation.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. And you mentioned the Collins class. So let’s go to that. Given the difficulties that have been reported about like for locating enough submariners to man the current Collins class submarines, what’s planned to identify and train enough submariners to man the Attack Class submarines, should they actually be built

[Greg Sammut]

I’ll hand that question to Chief of Navy whose his area of responsibility that falls under

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

Good afternoon Senator, Vice Admiral Michael Noonan, Chief of Navy, with respect to the workforce for our submarine force, we have a growth plan which will allow us to achieve the required manpower to man 12 submarines as the Attack Class come to service.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Can you tell us any particulars about that that would give us confidence without divulging anything secret?

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

The submarine force has been enduring record growth over the last five years. I currently have over 800 submariners in the trained force which is an increase of almost 50% of where we were 10 years ago. And we have a separation rate from our submarine force at the moment, which is the lowest of any other trade within the Navy. I need to achieve a growth of approximately 50 submariners a year to achieve our target for the introduction of the cones. And we are well on track.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So could you just tell me the expansion, how much it expanded? Was it 50% since when?

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

50% in the last 10 years.

[Malcolm Roberts]

10 years. Could we man all of the Collins class submarines 10 years ago?

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

No, we could not.

[Malcolm Roberts]

My final three questions Chair. They’re brief ones, they’re to the minister because they’re matters of policy or opinion. Given minister that the prime minister has just said that the submarine contract will go ahead is this to win votes because of Australian-built content?

[Minister]

Absolutely not, Senator Roberts, as you know and as I think Mr. Sammut has indicated and has been discussed in this committee for some time both during my previous tenure and since. The Australian government and the Australian Defence Organisation, both the ADF and the Defence Organisation itself regard submarines as a vital element of our defence strategy essential to protecting those interests. And we will continue to stand behind the commitment that we have made the partnership that we are invested in and engaging in. We have, as you have noted in passing a very strong policy approach about maximising the Australian industry content, about building submarines here in Australia with Australian steel, with Australian workers. But that aside, Senator, we regard this as a vital element of our strategic approach.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Has the government given… I’ll leave that question. Can Australia afford this in the light of the COVID 19 restrictions from state and federal governments, that recovery will now take enormous effort from our country? Can we still afford it?

[Chair]

How many last questions do you have, Senator Roberts?

[Malcolm Roberts]

One.

[Minister]

Senator, my response to you would be how can we not afford to do it? We must do it in the interests of the factors I put forward to you in response to your previous question and in the context of a COVID-19 recovery, the the impact of the work that we are doing in defence industry and particularly in Naval ship building is absolutely vital in the Australian economy. So I would absolutely respond to you in the affirmative to say we can afford it and we will afford it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So given the risks with technology increasing and improving so much outside the area, as well as inside the area, given that and the cost, and the changing circumstances in Australia isn’t it time to face reality and cancel these particular submarines?

[Minister]

Senator, I don’t agree. And I think Mr. Sammut has done an excellent job of setting out the reasons why including at a highly technical level.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

/1 Comment/by