Since November, I have been trying to get a very simple answer out of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO): How many potential foreign buyers are they detecting?
The ATO runs a data matching program that checks the details of more than 2.4 million sellers and buyers to detect if they might be foreign.
The ATO claims only 1% of purchases are foreign, but they won’t tell me how many of those 2.4 million matches they get are flagged as potentially foreign. Watch as they again refuse to tell me how many foreigners they identify in the 2.4 million records.
They claim to have manually checked over 230,000 records every year that can’t be automatically matched to confirm whether they are Australian. With other evidence like the NAB property survey indicating up to 11% of new housing stock is purchased by foreigners, I believe the ATO figures are completely understating the level of foreign buying in the country.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight, and congratulations to you, Mr Heferen. I don’t think we’ve seen you since your appointment. My first question is about foreign buyers of real estate. Radio 2GB reported in April that foreign buyers accounted for 11 per cent of newly built homes in the final quarter of last year. This is a disaster for Australian homebuyers. Can you please provide that data for each quarter over the previous 12 months—the proportion of newly built homes bought by foreigners?
Mr Thompson: I think the 2GB article would have been using the National Australia Bank—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s my understanding.
Mr Thompson: As I think I’ve talked about at the committee before, there are a number of differences between the National Australia Bank survey and our data. So the National Australia Bank’s data is from a survey, so it asks real estate and other real estate professionals to estimate. I think the exact question in that survey is about overseas buyers. Our numbers are coming from state and territory land title offices, which are matched against Home Affairs data and Australia Electoral Commission data. There is a very significant gap between the numbers that appear in that survey and the numbers that we get. Our numbers are based on the definition of a foreigner under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. I think last week we released the 2022-23 numbers, which would put the estimate at around one per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: Moving onto the first home super saver scheme, I’m quoting from the eligibility requirements in guidance note 2018/1: There is no requirement for you to be an Australian citizen, Australian resident or an Australian resident for taxation purposes. Why are we allowing foreigners—not even residents for taxation purposes—access to this scheme, which is meant to be for getting Australians into their first home?
Mr Heferen: That would be a policy question for our colleagues at the Treasury.
Ms Brown: It is a policy question for Treasury, but the appropriate group for it to be directed to is markets group. That is administered by our Retirement, Advice and Investment Division in markets group. We can take it on notice and have them provide a reply.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to come back to foreign ownership again. I refer to table 3 of the answer to question on notice SBE106 from the November estimates. Through the Department of Home Affairs visa data- matching program, how many of the real property transfer report entities records that are automatically matched to ATO records are foreign?
Mr Thompson: As we’ve answered previously, we’re not able to—the question was, ‘How many do we automatically match?’ and ‘How many do we have to go away and do additional things to match?’
Senator ROBERTS: I’m coming to that.
Mr Thompson: If you think about it coming through the system: if it’s an exact match, that’s all automated. There would be a range of circumstances where we don’t get an automatic match. It could be that the date of birth’s the wrong way. It could be a maiden name. In those circumstances, we have additional processes to match. We work down through every record. In the automatic matches, there will be some foreigners. In the ones we can’t automatically match, there will be some foreigners.
Senator ROBERTS: What percentage?
Mr Thompson: At that point—
Senator ROBERTS: You can’t tell us?
Mr Thompson: The numbers in that answer to the question on notice were addressing how many we automatically match versus how many we perform additional—
Senator ROBERTS: Correct. How many that were matched were foreigners?
Mr Thompson: If the question is about the compliance results that we get, they’re published—
Senator ROBERTS: My question is: what percentage of buyers are foreigners?
Mr Thompson: One per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide to me on notice the numbers of foreign buyers for the last five years.
Mr Thompson: We publish that. I’ve got the latest public—
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, if you could take it on notice for the last five years.
Mr Thompson: I’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: From table 4, immediately below that from the same question on notice from November estimates, how many of the entity records that were not able to be automatically matched to ATO records remain unverified or unresolved?
Mr Thompson: None.
Senator ROBERTS: How many unmatched records from the data-matching program remain unresolved from 2018 to date?
Mr Thompson: I think that’s the same question.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to go right back to 2018.
Mr Thompson: I’ll take that one on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: How many residential properties in Australia are owned by foreigners today?
Mr Thompson: I think that is the question around the register.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to know how many foreigners own real estate. We’ve got a housing crisis. We’ve got people in Brisbane and all up and down the east coast of Queensland in major provincial cities sleeping under bridges and in cars, taking families home.
Senator Gallagher: Yes, but I think it’s very simplistic to say that that housing shortage is a result of foreign investment in residential housing. We’ve had a number of hearings where you’ve been told how relatively low that level is in comparison to non-foreign owned.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like the exact numbers.
Senator Gallagher: And we’ll provide that number to you, but the link that you are saying—that foreign ownership of properties equals some of what you’ve been talking about and is a real issue in Brisbane—is not right. The issue is supply. We’ve got to build more houses for people, not blame foreigners for it.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve never said it’s entirely due to foreigners, but that is one—
Senator Gallagher: We need to make sure that the rules are tight, that there are restrictions in place, which there are, so that that arrangement works properly. But it’s not fair to say that the housing crisis is because we’ve got some small foreign-owned investments.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. I said that’s one contributing factor.
CHAIR: I’ll just do some committee administration here. I’ll table three documents—the three articles referenced by Senator O’Neill earlier. The committee has agreed to a time management plan to conclude questions, so last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to make the point that the witnesses have provided answers so late, in the past, that they’ve been distributed at 8 pm on the day before they appear in Senate estimates, 100 days after the last hearing, and failing to raise any public interest immunity claims on answers they don’t give. That’s a clear frustration of the committee’s work.
Senator Gallagher: We will try and do better, Senator Roberts. We have had a long discussion about the number of questions on notice which are coming in and having to be managed by departments, but I agree: it’s an important accountability measure, and departments should work to meet the timeframes.
Senator ROBERTS: When it’s 100 days, it’s way late, and then it suddenly comes in at 8 pm on the night before.
Senator Gallagher: Yes. I understand your frustration.
Daily Telegraph Article: Foreigners buying homes at twice the rate claimed in official figures, according to real estate agents and state tax data
https://img.youtube.com/vi/gamy1bETaVU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-15 13:55:002024-08-15 13:59:04How Many Foreign Buyers Are Really Snatching Up Australian Homes?
In the event a war breaks out or our shipping routes are blocked, Australia is screwed with practically all of our local refineries out of business.
At the May Senate Estimates, I asked the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) for a detailed breakdown of current fuel stocks, specifically how much is finished liquid fuel versus crude oil. Ms Svarcas indicated she will provide these figures on notice and at the same time, will clarify how crude oil is reported under the Minimum Stockholding Obligation (MSO).
I then inquired about the latest figure for Australia’s crude oil stock relative to the International Energy Agency (IEA) requirement of 90 days. Ms Svarcas confirmed that the current figure is 53 days and includes all fuels and refined products in Australian waters. This stock does not include the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) stock, avoiding double counting between IEA and MSO measures. Ms Svarcas noted that “consumption cover days” are reported monthly on their website and are publicly available. She added that these figures indicate how long the stock will last based on average consumption, giving a clear view of Australia’s fuel supply.
It was a big surprise to discover that Australia had sold its 1.7 million barrels of oil from the US strategic reserve. While it was never a good idea to have a national reserve held on the other side of the world, the secrecy with which the sale was done in response to Ukraine is concerning.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let’s move to fuel security. We covered the minimum stock holding obligations for petrol, diesel and jet fuel at some length last Senate estimates. You gave to me on notice, in SQ24000046, that the refineries may also report crude oil and unfinished stock as liquid fuel. Do you have a breakdown of how much of the reported stock holding is actually finished liquid fuel versus crude oil—not a projected conversion of existing crude into future petrol, diesel or jet fuel, but the actual quantities of the four measures, as it exists now?
Mrs Svarcas: Just so I’m really clear, for the MSO obligation, you’re asking how much of the crude oil do we count as petrol, jet fuel and diesel?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Can you also provide to me the actual amount, right now, of crude oil as it is, jet fuel as it is, petrol as it is and diesel as it is, and not projected conversions of crude oil into those things?
Mrs Svarcas: I will have to take on notice the projected for crude oil into those things. The MSO does allow, under the reporting obligations, for an entity to effectively say they’ve got a bucket of crude oil, and they will be converting X amount of it through their normal operations—and how much of that is going to be diesel, how much of that is going to be jet fuel et cetera. I would have to take on notice how much of the crude is crude, if you will, and how much is fuel.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’d be good. You explained previously how there’s the domestic minimum stockholding obligation for petrol, diesel and jet fuel put in place by the government then there’s the International Energy Agency agreement for 90 days of crude oil. Last estimates, you told me we were at 55 International Energy Agency days of crude oil. What’s the latest figure for that, and is all of that stock in Australia’s exclusive economic zone here?
Mrs Svarcas: The actual figure of that today—the last report was from March 2024—is 53 days and that figure captures all of the things. It might be helpful if I describe what’s captured in that. It’s crude oil as crude oil. It’s diesel, petrol and jet fuel. It also includes other refined products. For example, the oil that you would put into your car is included under the definition provided to us by the IEA. It’s those stocks that are on land in Australia and in our domestic waters. But, importantly, the difference between the IEA days and the MSO calculation is that it does not include the product that’s in our EEZ; it’s just the product that’s in Australian waters or physically in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: So is there any double counting then?
Mrs Svarcas: No, there’s no double counting. There’s a difference between a vessel that is in Australian waters—how it’s included in the IEA days—and stock that is in the EEZ that is counted in the MSO days. It might also be useful, if you’ll indulge me, to explain the difference between the measures that we have in place so that you can get an idea of what we use it for. As I described, the IEA days are one single calculation of all of the fuel and fuel products as defined by the IEA. We also have our consumption cover days. They’re the days that we report every month publicly, and you’ll find those on our website. They are a measure of how long the stock will last. So they give us a really good indication of what we’ve got every month, and how long, based on average consumption, that will last. That’s all publicly available. Then we also have the MSO, which is slightly different, and the purpose of that measure is to set that minimum stockholding obligation to give us the insurance policy of making sure, from our perspective, how much fuel, liquid fuels and things we should have in Australia should there be a market disruption. So the purpose of each of those reportings is slightly different, which is why what goes into them—what we count and how we count them—is also slightly different, because they have different purposes.
Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to the numbers that you’re going to give me. Our strategic reserve—
CHAIR: If you’ve finished that line of questioning, we will need to rotate.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve just one more question on strategic reserve. You told me at last Senate estimates that Australia has sold all of the oil reserves in the United States’ strategic reserve?
Mrs Svarcas: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: That was 1.7 million barrels—nearly two years ago—in June 2022. That hasn’t been reported anywhere, as I understand it.
Mrs Svarcas: No, I believe it was publicly reported. I’ll be happy to table that report.
Senator ROBERTS: Did anyone at the department announce that the 1.7 million barrels had been sold?
Mrs Svarcas: Like I said, I believe it was. I’m happy to be corrected if my evidence is wrong but I do believe it was made public at the time.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/8wXRRbrlw-A/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-15 13:30:002024-08-15 13:54:07Australia’s Fuel Stock Shortfall: Current Crude Oil Reserves at Just 53 Days
The government wants to drive us off a cliff as we speed towards Net-Zero dictates from the un-elected United Nations and World Economic Forum.
None of it is based on proper data and all the evidence we have is that it will destroy our energy grid and our economy.
With inflation re-emerging, we have to put a stop to the billions being poured into climate policy making Australians pay more.
Transcript
Every time you see a wind turbine or an industrial solar complex, think one thing: your energy prices are going to increase. That’s what those things mean. We’ve been promised that energy prices will decrease, but wind turbines and industrial solar complexes mean higher prices for people, for families, for small businesses, for larger corporations and employers, for the whole community. And they mean trillions of dollars in waste in our economy. In every country around the world, as the percentage of solar and wind has increased, the cost of electricity has increased. That’s a fact—everywhere, consistent. And now, after nearly 30 years of pushing solar and wind, which started with John Howard’s renewable energy target, we see the ridiculous situation of the Labor government offering energy price relief. Why? Because they’re driving up the cost of energy to make it unaffordable; that’s why. So let’s have a look at why. Let’s see why killing the environment in the name of supposedly saving it is costing us so much. Let’s turn to the terms of the motion for an inquiry. So many people want us to have an inquiry, not just rural people but urban people, because they’re worried about the cost. This is what the inquiry is looking into:
… the importance of ensuring that the National Electricity Grid has the capacity to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy to Australians as the economy transitions to new and more dispersed—
and we’ll talk about that—
methods of generations and storage, and acknowledging that transition will necessarily transgress on agricultural, Indigenous and environmental lands and marine environments …
The environment and our productive capacity are suffering.
I’ll cover some key concerns that are key to the inquiry because the uniparty has not thought about this—from when John Howard, the Liberal Prime Minister, started the renewable energy target to this ridiculous situation we’re in now. By the way, John Howard started that and did three other things, which we might have time to discuss, that laid the foundation for the crippling of our energy supply in this country. Six years after he was booted from office, he admitted that, on the matter of climate science, he is agnostic. He didn’t have the science. This whole thing is based not on science; it’s based on contradictions of science.
Let’s start with solar and wind. The amount of steel needed per megawatt of electricity from a coal-fired power station is 35 tons. For wind turbines it’s 542 tons of steel. That’s 15 times as much. Straightaway, wind is suffering a cost penalty. It’s a huge cost burden. Then, when you look at the energy density of coal, it’s very high. It’s not as high as uranium, but it’s very high. For solar and wind, it’s very low.
Secondly I see the government throwing barbs at the coalition, and well it should over aspects of its nuclear policy, but the government is accusing the opposition of uncosted policy. Where are your costs, government? Where are your costs on solar and wind? Where are your costs on solar and wind, Greens? We even see some solar and wind complexes, massive complexes in the Kennedy electorate in Queensland and in western Victoria, not connected to the grid. They have been built but not connected. That’s how much thought has gone into this. It’s bloody ridiculous.
Solar and wind have an inherently high capital cost plus a low energy density, which means low energy production and very high cost per unit of electricity. Plus the amount of land needed for solar and wind is enormous. And then we see that the average capacity utilisation of solar and wind is 23 per cent. That’s less than a quarter of what the nameplate capacity is. Now we see the latest figures just released on wind, which show that it’s 21 per cent. That’s one-fifth of the capacity. What does that tell you? For a given capacity of a coal-fired power station, you’ll need a certain capacity of solar and wind. Multiply that by four, because you’re getting less than 25 per cent. Multiply it by five in the case of wind. Five times makes it prohibitive. Four times makes it prohibitive. Then think about this: at peak hour, when we need maximum electricity, the average utilisation and the average capacity is 10 per cent, which means that, to get the equivalent of that coal-fired power station, we need 10 times the solar and wind capacity—10 times. Then, for sizeable periods, we have the sun not shining brightly because of clouds or we have the wind drought. That means we need a further multiplication to make sure we can store up enough in energy and batteries. But the batteries to store that amount of wind and solar energy have never been thought of, never been considered and never been developed. It’s impossible. The cost if we don’t have them will be blackouts and outages in hospitals, businesses and family homes.
Plus there are the transmission costs. Transmission costs, many years ago, used to be 49 per cent of the cost of the electricity bill. I don’t know what it is now, but it’s certainly substantial. Solar and wind have to be located a long way from the major metropolitan areas, which means straightaway that transmission costs are even higher than for a coal-fired power station, which can be located close to the metropolitan areas. Then, because of the dispersed nature of solar and wind, we have even more transmission lines. Then, because of the capacity factor that I just mentioned, we have even more transmission lines. This makes it prohibitive, not just in terms of the installation of solar and wind but also in terms of transmission lines. Plus, the transmission lines will barely be used because of the capacity of solar and wind not being utilised. And then we have the 15-to 20-year life, at best—12 to 15 years more likely—of solar and wind industrial complexes. That means that over the life of a coal-fired power station or a nuclear power station, they have to be replaced four times, so multiply the cost again by four. What have we multiplied it by so far? We’ve multiplied the cost by five, then by 10 and now by another four. Yet the CSIRO considers not one piece of that puzzle—not one piece. They say that it’s all sunk cost; just ignore it.
That’s why solar and wind can compete. And they still need subsidies. Then you’ve got to add batteries and pumped hydro. Pumped hydro itself is an admission of failure. You cannot have pumped hydro without a disparity between peak hour prices and off-peak prices, and that’s due to the failure of the grid and solar and wind. And then we need firming, another cost, because coal, nuclear and hydro are stable, synchronous power supplies. Solar and wind are asynchronous—unstable—so they need firming. And they need backup gas or backup coal because solar and wind are unreliable. There’s a doubling. Look at the multiplication that we have got there.
None of this is included in the GenCost report from the CSIRO. It assumes no transmission cost because they’ve already been built. That’s rubbish. We need far more new transmission lines. We have an inherently higher cost from solar and wind, plus low capacity, plus regional, plus dispersal, plus backup, plus stabilisation. Think about this: for a business, you need a stable, reliable, low-variation input. When variation occurs, it costs enormous amounts of money. At industrial and manufacturing plants, farmers are using backup, so they have to pay twice for their electricity. We also have a huge footprint in terms of land. Solar complexes and wind turbines use far more land and are far more scattered than a concentrated coal-fired power station or a nuclear power station. They’re taking up huge quantities of resources. The resource footprint of solar and wind is enormous.
We have agricultural land being sterilised. We have poisons and toxins potentially going into the Brisbane water supply, into their drinking water—lead, cadmium—which feeds Brisbane, Beaudesert, Gold Coast, potentially Toowoomba, Ipswich, Logan and other areas in the south-east of Queensland. We also have the future cost yet to be added—Snowy 2.0. By the way, when they first did the costings of Snowy 2.0, thanks to Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership and poor leadership, they forgot about the transmission lines. They forgot to add the transmission lines. Whoops! We better add a few more billion to that. Now look at it. It was originally slated for $2 billion. We could see this, and I’m not an energy expert. We could see it when Malcolm Turnbull first released it. We told them, and no-one took any notice. Now they’re putting in all these additional costs, and Snowy 2.0 is heading for $14 billion and perhaps $20 billion—if it moves! This is not about having an alternative energy supply; it’s about less energy and control of energy.
We also have Mr Albanese and Mr Bowen, ‘Blackout Bowen’, talking about us being a renewable superpower. It means economic and environmental suicide, resource sterilisation, and displacement of Indigenous. No costings—a huge catastrophe! We’re talking about billions of dollars and impacts worth trillions of dollars. We must have this inquiry. They’re building in a high-cost overhead and a huge environmental legacy. When some of those farmers who are looking at the money now—some aren’t selling out, but some are selling out because of the money coming in—think about the environmental legacy. No bonds. The energy company owning the wind turbines and the solar complexes can just walk off and leave it. There’s no requirement to fix it. Farmers will pay for that. They’re already paying in many cases, as are rural towns, with the slow thrum, thrum, thrum of infrasound, which is proven harmful to humans. So they’re killing the environment to save it. We’re seeing human progress being reversed.
The No. 1 message from the last 170 years since the industrial revolution started was that we have a higher standard of living and all the benefits that brings because of a relentless reduction in energy prices. What we’ve seen since John Howard come to power is a reversal of that. As energy prices increase, productivity falls, wealth falls and prosperity falls. We see a reversal of human progress. So what if we spend billions on solar and wind, what if it costs our economy trillions of dollars—and it will—and what if China does not? What happens then? Now do you get what’s going on? Now do you see it?
I want to turn to two other points. As I said, John Howard introduced all the problems we’re seeing now: the Renewable Energy Target; the stealing of farmers’ property rights to comply with the UN Kyoto protocol; and the National Electricity Market, which is really a national electricity racket. He also introduced an emissions trading scheme as policy—not as fact, but as policy. That’s a carbon tax. He was the first major leader of a major party to have that. The CSIRO has never provided any empirical scientific data and logical scientific points that prove the need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity. The CSIRO admitted that to me when I held them accountable, and they gave me three presentations, each 2½ hours long. In the first presentation they admitted that they had never given the advice and had never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and needs to be cut. In the second presentation they gave me, they admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented; they’ve happened before—many, many times. In fact, the scientific term for periods of high temperature is ‘climate optimum’, because they’re beneficial for humanity, for civilisation and for the environment. The temperatures are not unprecedented.
The second point is that I’ve asked many government departments in this federal government for their basis of policy. To have a basis of policy you need to have the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on some climate factor. No-one has given us that. We have amassed 24,000 datasets on climate and energy from around the world, from legally scraped websites and research institutions like the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, and we’ve never found any change in any climate factors at all, so there’s no basis for policy. You need that quantitative impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on a climate factor so that you can then study the alternatives, if you want to get rid of the carbon dioxide production. You’ve got to have that to track progress, but there’s none of that. There’s no basis for policy. We are flying blind. We’re heading for a cliff.
Then we see there’s no environmental impact statement for the use of solar and wind—none at all. What impact is the energy we’re taking out of the wind going to have on our climate? What impact is it going to have on the natural environment? Yet they say that 0.03 per cent of the carbon dioxide is coming from humans, and 1.2 per cent of that from Australians. No impact quantified—the absurdity is enormous. And who will pay for all this mess? We, the people. You are foisting this on the people. We need an inquiry now. (Time expired)
If you enjoy your petrol or diesel car, the government is trying to make sure you won’t be enjoying it for long.
Looking through this word salad I got from the Department, the reality is the government is placing fines on manufacturers who sell too many petrol and diesel cars. Australians prefer cars that are useful for a weekend of camping, spacious enough to fit the whole family, and capable of doing long road trips without frequent refuelling or needing to stop to recharge.
The government thinks you’re enjoying your cars too much and is going to forces manufacturers to progressively phase them out, leaving only useless electric vehicles available.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Can I turn to cars and utes, as mentioned by Senator O’Sullivan. Car makers must comply with regulations that you are about to introduce. They must also comply with customers’ needs. My understanding is that the demand for sedans—for example, a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Civic—is decreasing, and the demand for the corresponding SUV—which in the case of Toyota would be a RAV4 or a Honda Civic—is increasing dramatically. The SUVs are heavier, they’re more utilitarian, but they’re preferred. But they chew more fuel and they produce more carbon dioxide—which to me is not a problem, but anyway. How does that affect the manufacturer? On the one hand they have a government that says, ‘Decrease the size of the car, the weight and the fuel efficiency.’ But customers say, ‘No, do the opposite.’ The customers don’t think in terms of carbon dioxide because they know it’s crap.
Ms Purvis-Smith: As I mentioned in a previous answer, manufacturers are able to make commercial decisions as to what their fleet looks like. The standard looks at their whole fleet. There are a range of ways that manufacturers can meet the standard. I think Mr Kathage went through this before. I’m not sure if you were here. He could go through that again. If they get credits in one year they can hold them over to meet debits they may get in a following year. They can also trade credits. They can look at the fleet, change the fleet and make commercial decisions about what they import into the country and offer consumers.
Senator ROBERTS: Before Mr Kathage does that, perhaps you could tell me: if customers want SUVs over sedans, will that company be penalised?
Mr Kathage: I can point you to appendix A of our impact analysis, where we set out the sales volumes of various types of vehicles. Your question is actually quite difficult because, as Ms Purvis-Smith mentioned, there’s actually quite a lot of things that vehicle suppliers can do to improve the efficiency of the vehicles they sell and their fleet overall. The first thing I’ll mention is that there are changes to the vehicles themselves that they can make—improving the aerodynamics, changing the drive train—
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. But an SUV compared to a sedan—they can make improvements on both but the SUV will chew more fuel and is heavier—full stop, end of story.
Mr Kathage: That’s right. So one of the features of the policy is to include a few flexibility mechanisms. The first one is to include two targets. One target is for passenger vehicles and a higher target for light commercial vehicles. The second flexibility mechanism in the scheme is to adjust the limit by weight. So you might have a Toyota Kluger, for example, which will have a particular mass in running order. Therefore, the target for that vehicle or the fleet of vehicles—that weight—will be adjusted. The third thing is that in any given year a vehicle supplier might bring in too many vehicles that are too polluting. They’ve got two years after that point to bring what’s called their ‘initial emissions value’ down to zero. So they do have some time.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Looking at electric vehicles, for example, this policy, these regulations, are to make petrol and diesel vehicles less attractive and to make electric vehicles more attractive. That’s clearly what’s going on. But the efficiency of resources in electric vehicles is quite low, because the vehicles are inherently heavier, as Senator O’Sullivan said—needing heavier brakes, more resources; heavier suspension, more resources; heavier components all through, more resources. So we’re actually driving an economy to use less efficient vehicles and less efficient use of resources. That doesn’t make sense to me.
Mr Kathage: I’m sorry; what was the question?
Senator ROBERTS: The question is: are you aware that that’s happening?
Mr Kathage: I’d probably say the purpose of the new vehicle efficiency standard is to improve the efficiency of new vehicles. It’s not to drive a particular type of vehicle or particular type of outcome, except for reduced emissions. That’s the purpose of the policy.
Senator ROBERTS: You talked about reducing emissions. Have you done any work on the life cycle production of carbon dioxide from a diesel and a petrol vehicle, compared to the electric vehicle—
Mr Kathage: We have—
Senator ROBERTS: Particularly right through the mining sector as well, because there are extra resources that need to be mined for an EV.
Mr Kathage: Yes, we have. We included some evidence in our impact analysis, which is now published on the Office of Impact Analysis website. Section 4.2.1 sets out a range of different estimates that have been made. The first one is from our own Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics, which finds that while manufacturing an EV may produce more GHG emissions than an internal combustion engine, that is more than offset after about one year if the vehicle is charged from renewably sourced electricity—that is, home solar—and two years if charged from the grid using a mix of electricity generation sources. In that section—I won’t read it all out—we do have, I think, four other sources that support the same contention.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s an assumption there that they’ll be using renewables—solar and wind. That’s a big assumption. Thank you, Chair.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/pwwjkq9IO6k/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-15 12:05:002024-08-15 13:57:01Government Crack Down on Petrol and Diesel Cars
During this Senate Estimate session, I inquired about the amount the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) spent on the unsuccessful Voice Referendum. The figure was not available. I questioned whether that expenditure might have been more effectively used if directed straight to the communities and expressed concern about the efficacy of the spending.
I highlighted the substantial amounts spent on procurement, noting that Barbara Constructions received $613 million over an eight-year period, while Evolve FM was allocated nearly $497 million. Additionally, Price Waterhouse Coopers, disgraced consultants, received around $50 million.I asked for the total amount spent by the NIAA during that period, which was, of course, taken on notice. I also questioned why, despite billions being spent on NIAA programs, the gap was not being closed. It was reported that $9.5 billion had been spent on procurement.
I asked whether there was any consideration being given to providing funds directly to communities, bypassing agencies that are not delivering effective results, and offering communities greater autonomy. I did not receive a direct answer to this query.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. How much money did the NIAA spend on the doomed voice referendum?
Dr Gordon: Good afternoon, Senator Roberts, I don’t have that exact figure with me, but we’ll be able to get that quickly this afternoon to you.
Senator ROBERTS: If not, I’ll put it on notice. What difference would that money have made if provided directly to local Aboriginal communities to spend on their decisions and actually make a difference?
Ms Guivarra: Senator, although we don’t have the figures with us, you may be aware from previous testimony at other hearings that the majority of the expenditure on the referendum was actually with the Australian Electoral Commission. NIAA received a very small proportion of funding for issues associated with the referendum working group meetings and a civics and awareness campaign. Really, as I said, it was a very small proportion of the overall expenditure on the referendum.
Senator ROBERTS: My concerns are not only with the amount of money spent but with the effectiveness of it. That’s why I asked the question about whether it would be better spent with the communities. Let’s continue. Looking at NIAA figures obtained through freedom of information—seeking moneys that NIAA spent—why are such large amounts provided to particular contractors? Barpa Construction Services has received almost $613 million.
Ms Guivarra: Senator, are you referring to overall expenditure under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, not related to the referendum?
Senator ROBERTS: No, overall money that NIAA has spent. I think the previous man said something like 1,200 grants or 2,000 grants.
Mr Dexter: Senator, I think you might be referring to some information that was released under FOI to do with the Indigenous Procurement Policy over the last several months. The Indigenous Procurement Policy is a whole-of-Commonwealth policy that provides preferential procurement practices for registered Indigenous businesses. Barpa Construction did ring a bell with me as one of the businesses that were released as receiving a certain amount of money.
Senator ROBERTS: $613 million, I’m told.
Mr Dexter: I believe that was an amount that Barpa has received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy, which is not necessarily—in fact it’s Indigenous Advancement Strategy money. It’s a collection. The Indigenous Procurement Policy and the reporting under it is a collection of all of the contracts that organisation has received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what they were paid for? If it’s outside your accountability, that’s fine.
Mr Dexter: No, Senator, I wouldn’t know. That that would need to be directed to the agency that engaged them.
Senator ROBERTS: What about Evolve FM Proprietary Limited, which received almost $497 million?
Mr Dexter: That would be in the same category, Senator. There were a number of FOI requests that were made recently which were asking for the aggregate amounts that Indigenous businesses had received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy over the life of the policy. The Indigenous Procurement Policy is a policy that’s been in place since 2015. It’s resulted in about $9.5 billion going to Indigenous businesses over that period of time. I think one of the questions that we got under the FOI was: ‘What are the top 100 businesses that have received money through that policy?’ Evolve and Barpa were both on that list.
Senator ROBERTS: What about PricewaterhouseCoopers, disgraced consultants, who’ve received almost $50 million?
Mr Dexter: I’d need to check, Senator, but I would hazard a guess that it was not PricewaterhouseCoopers itself but rather PwC’s Indigenous Consulting, which is a separate entity.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you check on both those items, please.
Mr Dexter: I’d be happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the total amount of NIAA money spent over the eight-year period to companies providing contract services?
Ms Guivarra: We’ll have to get some other colleagues up for that, Senator.
Ms Broun: Senator, could you repeat that question?
Senator ROBERTS: What was the total amount that NIAA spent over that eight-year period to companies providing contract services? That’s the eight years to January 2024. Ms Jackson: I don’t know if we’ve got the eight-year amounts with us. We’d have the last couple of years, which we can go into if you like, but otherwise we can take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Take it on notice, thank you. Presumably it’s several millions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars. With that kind of money and other moneys being injected into Aboriginal wellbeing, why is the gap not being closed?
Ms Broun: Senator, clearly the evidence is that there are gaps in outcomes for First Nations people. Closing the Gap is designed and has been designed with our partners, particularly the Coalition of Peaks but all states and territories, to address those gaps. I’m a bit confused by your question in terms of ‘there’s some spending here, so that would have changed the outcomes over there’, because obviously there are different outcomes depending on different areas of government as well. I’d like to be a bit more specific about your question.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned that there’s a huge amount of money being spent, and it’s going through agencies, but it’s not closing the gap. Why isn’t it closing the gap?
Ms Guivarra: Senator, the majority of your questions are related to what we’ve done under the Indigenous Procurement Policy. The original intention of the Indigenous Procurement Policy obviously was to support Indigenous businesses, because we know that in fact Indigenous businesses also have a higher employment rate for Indigenous people as well, First Nations people. As Mr Dexter has said, we’ve had a lot of success with that— over 65,000 contracts with a total value of $9.5 billion worth of business going to First Nations businesses as a result of that Indigenous Procurement Policy.
Ms Broun: You may be aware that in fact the assistant minister launched a review of the Indigenous Procurement Policy back in December. We opened up a consultation process for that review. It closed, I think, around March of this year. We’re going to take the learnings from all of that and see what further improvements we can make to continue what, I think, has been a success story just in relation to the generation of Indigenous business and creation of Indigenous employment.
CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re telling me there’s been a review of money given to Indigenous businesses. What I would like to know is: is there a review being conducted, or any idea of a review to be conducted, on spending of all kinds? Could that money instead be going directly to the communities to develop accountability and autonomy? Communities are screaming out for autonomy.
Ms Guivarra: Senator, as I indicated, in fact this review and consultation was really to see how we can further strengthen the Indigenous Procurement Policy because, as I mentioned, it has been very successful in awarding business to First Nations businesses and creating employment opportunities for First Nations people.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I acknowledged that and said: can you extend it to a review of all spending? And specifically can you send the money directly to the communities and bypass the agencies?
Ms Guivarra: The money associated with the Indigenous Procurement Policy is basically services contracted across all of government. Then it’s for each agency to decide whether they’re seeking to procure services from businesses, including First Nations businesses. The Indigenous Procurement Policy has a mandatory set-aside for First Nations businesses as part of that policy, which applies across government agencies. There has been interest in the community more broadly about what can be done to further to enhance that particular policy, and that’s the purpose of the review.
CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I acknowledged that twice. But what I’d like to know is: is there any consideration being given to reviewing expenditure across NIAA, not just on procurement?
Ms Broun: Senator, obviously spending on Indigenous outcomes—and this is why we have cross-portfolio here—cuts across all of government to deliver outcomes in specific portfolio areas and specific policy areas. In NIAA we have the IAS, a large part of which has been employment services. Another part is ranger services. To your point, that goes particularly to communities on the ground, so it is focused on those sorts of things. Then there are a whole range of other programs that are supplementary to mainstream funding. But these are services that citizens are entitled to. It depends how you quantify the spending, but the different programs are there to deliver different outcomes for Indigenous people. We could go into the programs that are specifically designed with community and go directly to community, because there are a lot of those sorts of programs as well. They’re not all being delivered through departments, but on the ground as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’ll continue this in the future.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/G0VU2FgrNog/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-13 12:09:502024-08-13 12:18:57Ineffective Use of Funds and Procurement Practices by the NIAA
Reserve Bank Governor Michelle Bullock was appointed to the position after a 20-year career in the Reserve Bank, including being the recipient of subsidised housing loans despite her substantial salary. Her early comments were reflective of her being “a long time in the public service bubble” and were out of touch with the hardships faced by everyday Australians due to past Reserve Bank policies causing high inflation and interest rates.
Her recent comments, however, appear to be much more in tune with understanding everyday Australians’ concerns.
At Senate Estimates, my questions were aimed firstly at getting updates on less reported projects and secondly, I wanted to know whether the Governor realised her role is about people not spreadsheets.
I found her responses encouraging and look forward to more people-oriented management from the Governor going forward.
Transcript
CHAIR: Thanks. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. I missed you last time because I couldn’t get on the schedule. I want to get a quick update on as many things as possible. Part of the Reserve Bank’s process is to review inflation data and unemployment data. Do you use data from the ABS and, if so, do you use that data exclusively, or do you have other sources for unemployment and inflation data?
Ms Bullock: We use ABS data obviously for inflation and unemployment. We use a variety of other sources of information, though, because we don’t just focus on the unemployment rate itself; we focus on a variety of measures that the ABS put out. We also focus on things like vacancies and advertisements. There’s information we get from our business liaison program, where we talk to businesses about what they’re doing with their labour forces: are they demanding more labour or not? So we use the ABS data, but we have a wealth of other information that we look at as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Business-to-business payment defaults and business bankruptcies, to the third quarter of 2024, are at a record. I’m sure you know that. Are you watching these metrics? And would these record figures act to reduce the appetite in the Reserve Bank for another interest rate rise?
Ms Bullock: We do watch the business insolvencies data. My understanding is that they haven’t actually returned to the trend that they were prior to the pandemic. In the pandemic, with low interest rates and government assistance, insolvencies were actually at a record low. They have popped up, but they haven’t popped up to where the trend was going prior to the pandemic. So I think that’s important perspective to put it in. We do look at it and we look at it from a couple of perspectives. We look at it from the perspective of how monetary policy is impacting businesses, but we also look at it from the perspective of financial stability and the potential impact on banks, banks’ arrears and banks’ balance sheets.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Suicide Prevention Australia’s community tracker, also to the third quarter of 2024, shows a huge rise in the number of calls to help services, in suicidal behaviour and in clinical presentations. This is an independent and accurate barometer of how everyday Australians are doing. Are you aware of that tracker?
Ms Bullock: Yes, I am. In fact I have regular meetings with various organisations—for example, Beyond Blue. They talk to us a lot about this sort of data. We also talk to ACOSS regularly, we talk to other charities in our business liaison program and we hear a lot about the fact that charities are seeing people come in who they haven’t seen before. So this is obviously an indication that they’re stressed. So, yes, we do keep in touch with that stuff.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on the state of the central bank digital currency, please? The last word we had was I think when Mr Debelle was deputy governor. I understand you’re developing a standard, not an actual currency itself? Is that correct?
Ms Bullock: We’ve done a couple of things. We ran a pilot program with a real claim on the central bank last year.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that what’s known as a ‘sandbox’?
Ms Bullock: It was sort of like a sandbox, if you like. We had a number of different use cases. Various businesses came in with their use cases to use the central bank digital currency. From that information, what we took away was that probably the most fruitful piece of research we could continue with was the use of a central bank digital currency in a wholesale sense. By that I mean there’s a lot of discussion about putting assets on the ledger—for example, having a distributed ledger of financial assets—and then you could have a central bank digital currency which is used to make settlements of those financial instruments, or they might be physical instruments, physical assets. That’s the most fruitful work and that’s where we’re going at the moment. We’re in the process of standing up a project that looks at how a central bank currency could be used in the atomic settlement of assets. That’s where we’re going at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not developing a standard?
Ms Bullock: No. Basically, we’re looking at what the business case might look for. We’re not so interested in the technology and we’re not so interested in standards. What we’re interested in is: is there a business for this?
Senator ROBERTS: Would that allow other parties, including each of the banks, to develop their own cryptocurrency?
Ms Bullock: The banks themselves can develop what some people call ‘stable coins’, and some banks have developed stable coins. Central bank digital currency, if it were to be developed, would be something that everyone could potentially use—not literally every Australian, because, if we’re focusing on business, then it might be that some businesses can use it. Individual banks can, in theory, at the moment—and some of them have experimented with it—develop stable coins, which are effectively cryptocurrency. CHAIR: It’s your last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: This would not exclude existing cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin?
Ms Bullock: No. The central bank digital currencies would not have a relationship with bitcoin, no.
Senator ROBERTS: But it wouldn’t exclude bitcoin?
Ms Bullock: What do you mean by ‘exclude bitcoin’?
Senator ROBERTS: To sideline them or remove them.
Ms Bullock: No, bitcoin would continue to exist, but central bank digital currencies offer a different business proposition than bitcoin. Bitcoin has particular uses; central bank digital currencies would not be encroaching on that space, I suspect.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ts4piJ8XZoQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-13 11:35:192024-08-13 11:35:25Reserve Bank Governor Shifts Focus to People Rather than Spreadsheets
At the May/June Senate Estimates, I queried ASIC about their investigation into allegations raised by several whistleblowers regarding a major bullion company charging for sales and storage of bullion it did not hold.
While ASIC did investigate, they allowed the company months to get their affairs in order and provided advanced notice of the audit date, enabling potential moving of bullion to defeat the audit, possibly resulting in multiple counting of the same bullion. Furthermore, there are allegations that bullion not belonging to the audited investment scheme but belonging to another entity, was included in the audit.
Despite several sessions with ASIC on this matter, none of their responses have addressed the fundamental issues surrounding their flawed investigation. The case has now been referred to another agency and I await the outcome.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: It’s now been found that the bullion inspected was the property of three companies operating two investment schemes. Were you aware that your auditor was inspecting bullion belonging to two companies not under investigation?
Ms Court: I’m unable to comment further on this issue of the bullion company. I haven’t got further information beyond that which—
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not saying that you won’t answer; you’re saying that you haven’t got it with you.
Ms Court: I’m saying I—
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll put it on notice.
Ms Court: Perhaps—if you put questions in relation to this issue. I’m assuming that your questions relate to a continuing investigation that Mr Savundra referred to. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate to put those on notice to make sure that we can answer them comprehensively.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about the audit. I’ll continue with questions on the audit. What steps did your auditor take to ascertain ownership of the bullion being offered as theirs? What steps did the auditor take?
Ms Court: I think it would be preferable to take those questions on notice. You’re asking for details of an investigation. We have given evidence previously that the matters raised in relation to the bullion company have been extensively investigated.
Senator ROBERTS: So it should be easy to get answers. Was the theoretical stocking figure provided for the amount of bullion just for one scheme as compared to gold for two? My information is that it was.
Ms Court: I will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: The facility that held the bulk of the bullion did not have council approval for secure storage and, in fact, was not a secure storage. Why wasn’t the company prosecuted for charging customers for secure storage that didn’t exist?
Ms Court: I’ll take that on notice also.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you answer that now? It’s Senate estimates. The guideline is that you will answer if you can answer it now.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, another ASIC inquiry is underway. In relation to operational matters, from time to time, ASIC provides information to senators in another forum where we can be very assured that appropriate structures are put around the information provided, so, when Ms Court says that she’s taking it on notice, that is appropriate in relation to this investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: This one? Okay. Will you now please set aside your pride, open up the investigation and work out what was done wrong and what action should be taken for misleading ASIC.
Ms Court: I’ve already said that I’d prefer not to answer further questions. Part of the challenge with answering the questions in the way that you’re putting them is that it assumes the correctness of the proposition in your question, which, of course, ASIC takes issue with. We reject that there has been any misconduct by ASIC in relation to this investigation. It has been conducted extensively over quite some time. As the chair has indicated, to the extent that you could wish us to address you on these issues in camera, then, of course, we would be willing to do that, if the committee seeks that briefing.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Can we do that? I’ll finish with the last question on this issue. I have put in more detailed questions on notice and ASIC has received the information I mentioned today directly, so I look forward to further communication on this matter and will take you up on the offer for the in camera briefing.
I enquired about the number of requests for assistance that had been sent to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) and was informed that none had been received during that week, attributing this to potential delays in processing. They mentioned that their preferred method for addressing issues is via phone calls and stated they wouldn’t be establishing any new methods for submitting materials that exceed the current 1000 character limit.
Furthermore, the FWO made it clear that they wouldn’t be accepting responsibility for the validity of any enterprise agreement approved by the Fair Work Commission.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again.
Ms Booth: Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How many complaints has your office received about stolen wages from coalminers working for labour hire companies?
Ms Booth: We may or may not be able to give you that information right now, but I cannot. My staff may be able to assist. Ms Volzke, do you have those numbers?
Ms Volzke: I don’t have the exact number. The requests for assistance are low, but you know that we have had a number of formal investigations in relation to black coal mining employees.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Volzke, three requests for the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate worker underpayment under the Black Coal Mining Industry Award were sent to your office recently.
Ms Booth: We could ask Mr Scully if he has that information, as he’s the responsible person.
Mr Scully: As for your first question, the information I have before me is that, with respect to disputes received from employees or participants in the coalmining industry, in the 2022-23 financial year there were nine; in this current financial year to the end of March there were six.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that include the recent ones I have learned about?
Mr Scully: Of the recent ones you are referring to, one was in October 2021, another was in April 2022 and another in June 2023. I understand that they would be included in those numbers.
Senator ROBERTS: I have learned of three others that were submitted. The Independent Workers’ Union of Australia submitted, I am told, via email address, three requests for the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate worker underpayment under the Black Coal Mining Industry Award, each of the three on behalf of an underpaid coalminer. That was in the last week.
Ms Booth: We wouldn’t that have data available yet because it wouldn’t have reached the status of an investigation; they would have to be triaged first. So that will be for another Senate estimates.
Ms Volzke: Senator, in relation to those most recent complaints, would I be able to ask about the date and time of the underpayments? Are we talking about historical, older underpayments?
Senator ROBERTS: It varies. Some are over extended years. I can give you some information. The miners whose assessments have been completed have given approval for their data to be shared, with individual names withheld. I can give you their Fair Work Ombudsman reference numbers. One is coalminer Fair Work Ombudsman reference No. 3389142, years assessed 2013-18, and amount underpaid $121,000. That is for one man or maybe a woman; I know that there are women involved. Another is coalminer Fair Work Ombudsman reference No. 3380088, years assessed 2013-21, and underpayment assessed at $104,000. A further one is coalminer Fair Work Ombudsman reference No. 3380122; five years are listed, but he or she is still doing assessments for another three years, and the total there, so far, is $54,000, but it’s expected to top out at $85,000. These are not small amounts of money. My understanding is that many more miners are now applying for the Independent Workers Union of Australia to lodge complaints or, I think you call them, requests for investigation.
Ms Booth: Requests for assistance.
Ms Volzke: Senator, in relation to those matters, again, they traverse a period of time when we had the SAJER legislation passed, which was under the previous coalition government, and the Rossato decision; they sit over the top. Now we have the most recent legislation, and I think Minister Watt referred to one of those ‘same job same pay’ orders already having been made. All those matters that you raise still raise those core issues that we spoke about previously, when you and I met, I think, towards the beginning of last year, about the consequences of the black coal mining award not providing for casual employment. The statutory definition changes to casual employment that had retrospective effect—
Senator ROBERTS: Have you seen their request for investigation?
Ms Volzke: No. That’s just by the dates that you’ve given me; that’s all. Absolutely, we’ll look at those, but I’m saying that they traverse that same time period.
Mr Scully: Senator, we call it a request for assistance and, as you’ve indicated, if they’ve come in recently, they will not have got to me or Mr Ronson, who is also with us today. We will find where they are in our system and the circumstances regarding the requests for assistance.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are complainants limited to only 1,000 characters in their request for assistance or request for investigation—that’s about 130 words—in making a complaint about unfair work practices, including wage theft in the coalmining industry; why are they limited?
Ms Booth: I would imagine that is in order to have both a website that’s capable of being properly hosted and information capable of being absorbed. The full extent of information that’s provided to the Fair Work Ombudsman is not contained in those characters. That’s a commencement process and, thereafter, individuals who have made those communications with us would be spoken to.
Senator ROBERTS: Why does the Fair Work Ombudsman refuse to accept complaints that are more detailed than those that can fit within a 1,000-character limit?
Ms Booth: The area of technology is in Mr Campbell‘s purview. This will be entirely a technological matter, I’m thinking. Mr Campbell, are you able to say anything about the number of characters in our communications form?
Mr Campbell: I’m going to have to guess a little bit in my answer and I don’t like to do that in this forum. It depends on the channel through which the people you speak of have sought to engage with us. In certain channels we do have limited fields for the collection of information from customers. Normally, that goes to complaints through our anonymous inquiry facility. But through ‘my account’, where we would normally access most of our requests for assistance, there would be the ability to capture more information, and that’s normally because the person has given us all their information that we’ve sought and they’re seeking to provide us with further information to assist us in making an assessment of their RFA, or request for assistance. I’m not quite sure that they’re limited from writing more than the characters that you’ve said.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that they tried to make an application but couldn’t get beyond the bureaucratic brick wall of that 1,000-character limit, which is roughly 130 words. Why was there no email address on your website, other than one that the submitters are told relates to freedom of information requests? When they couldn’t get their material under the 130-word limit, they then looked for an email, and the only one they could find they used, and were told that it relates to freedom of information requests.
Ms Booth: Most of our requests for assistance come through a telephone contact. Of course, our 13-13-94 number gives no limit to the amount of information that can be conveyed, so that option perhaps in this case was not one that was undertaken by those people.
Senator ROBERTS: These are pretty intelligent people. I’m surprised that they did not see it.
Mr Campbell: I don’t know. I don’t want to speak to that, because I’d be making a judgement about their intelligence, and I can’t do that from here. But our request for assistance online lodgement capability seeks to authenticate the person who’s contacting us, so we know who they are and who we’re dealing with, and information about their circumstances, and that would include seeking them to detail their concerns to us. It’s not my recollection that’s limited. I’m happy to go and have a look because it would seem at odds with how we’re trying to collect information in the authenticated space. As I offered at the start, there is a facility for people to provide us with anonymous information about a workplace or circumstance, and that might have a limited character overlay on top of it, which might be where they’ve started, as compared to seeking to raise with us a request for assistance using online lodgement.
Senator ROBERTS: With, say, a document with 20, 30 or 40 pages of evidence—these people have a lot of evidence—even just taking a small slice of it, they were wondering initially how they would get that past that bureaucratic brick wall.
Mr Campbell: I don’t think there is a bureaucratic brick wall.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what they tell me.
Mr Campbell: Perhaps I could take it on notice and confirm it for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay.
Ms Booth: As Fair Work Ombudsman, could I reassure the committee that there is no bureaucratic brick wall. If anything, the channels of communication into the Fair Work Ombudsman that I’ve observed, since I have been Fair Work Ombudsman, are many and varied, and there is no constraint on the amount of information that can be provided.
Senator ROBERTS: So you would refute any suggestion that the Fair Work Ombudsman is trying to make it impossible for workers to provide evidence?
Ms Booth: Absolutely, I would refute that.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a list, on notice, from Mr Campbell?
Mr Campbell: I’ll take that on notice and come back—
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, a list of all the optional ways of getting through and maybe some assessment of whether it’s easy to identify those options; that is, whether it would be easy to find, for someone who lands on your website?
Mr Campbell: Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: How should workers submit a complaint? How do workers communicate with you, and how do workers get through that 1,000-character limit? What are the options?
Ms Booth: Make a phone call. Ring 131394 and speak for as long as you like to a Fair Work adviser.
Senator ROBERTS: From there, you would say, ‘Send us the evidence’?
Mr Campbell: It would be allocated to an officer for assessment and determination about what further assistance we might be able to add or offer. If the circumstance, as depicted to us, warrants an intervention by an inspector, for example, it might be allocated to an inspector, who would then consider it, and they might seek further particulars from the customer or the complainant, depending on the circumstances.
Senator ROBERTS: Would the Fair Work Ombudsman consider creating an email account where complainants, regarding wage theft, can lodge their complaints in full, with all documentation required to prove their complaint?
Mr Campbell: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Mr Campbell: Because it’s an inefficient way to deal with disputes from customers.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is it inefficient?
Mr Campbell: Because they are unauthenticated contacts from a customer. Anyone can create an email address. We seek to create a picture of the customer so that we can determine how we can best assess them: understand award coverage, understand which sections of the Fair Work Act might be triggered by their circumstances, make a determination on their level or ability to self-resolve their workplace dispute and find out whether they’re still employed, the business that they work for and the customer details. We have a portal which is used daily and regularly, and very successfully, by thousands of individuals every year. It is consistent with every other regulator in the Commonwealth and probably at the state level, in terms of how they deal with volume complaints from their ‘regulator’ community.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the Fair Work Ombudsman aware that the Senate has directed Minister Burke to investigate the multimillion-dollar wage theft—we estimate it to be over $1 billion in total—conducted against labour hire coalminers, where their 25 per cent casual loading was not paid and an average of more than $30,000 person per year was not paid?
Ms Booth: I am aware that a resolution of that nature was passed in the Senate, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that some miners have been underpaid $40,000 a year, person, for up to a decade?
Ms Booth: I have no comment on that.
Senator ROBERTS: The number of miners, we believe, is around 5,000 or more?
Ms Booth: No comment on that.
Senator ROBERTS: More than $1 billion in wages stolen, it’s estimated?
Ms Booth: Again, no comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Including an Australian subsidiary of the world’s largest labour hire company, Japan’s Recruit Holdings?
Ms Booth: These are matters that you’re asserting; I have no ability to verify them here, so I will not comment on them.
Senator ROBERTS: On behalf of some of the world’s largest multinational global mining companies?
Ms Booth: As indicated.
Senator ROBERTS: In collusion with the CFMEU, which enabled theft by illegal enterprise agreements, which the Fair Work Commission approved?
Ms Booth: Again, no comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the Fair Work Ombudsman aware that the CFMEU Mining and Energy Union has recently admitted publicly, in circulars, that wage theft has occurred?
Ms Booth: I’m not aware of those alleged admissions in circulars, no.
Senator ROBERTS: They denied it for many years, when I was raising these issues. Now they’re admitting it publicly, in email newsletter form. They’re basically admitting it, and vindicating me in what I’ve been saying for five years, including the amounts owed. Why has the CFMEU Mining and Energy Union not applied for backpay?
Ms Booth: I can’t read the mind of the CFMEU.
Senator ROBERTS: Has it applied to the Fair Work Ombudsman for a ruling?
Ms Booth: A ruling?
Senator ROBERTS: An investigation. Has it made a complaint to the Fair Work Ombudsman about underpayment?
Ms Booth: Not that I’m aware of. Mr Scully, as you previously heard, is responsible for that area.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems not; I would conclude not. That means they certainly haven’t applied for backpay. Perhaps mine workers are now joining the Independent Workers Union of Australia in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley because they’re finding that they can make applications for backpay.
Ms Booth: Again, I have no knowledge of that.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the Fair Work Ombudsman, along with the Fair Work Commission, accept some responsibility for the massive stolen wage bill, an issue that I’ve been raising for almost five years?
Ms Volzke: We’re aware that the motion has been made and we understand that, in the evidence that was given yesterday, the department is considering their advice to the minister on that, and we will await that as well.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve been dismayed—I won’t raise the names—that, on a number of occasions, the Fair Work Ombudsman has relied in Senate estimates hearings on documents that I have argued and documented as being fraudulent, as has Simon Turner, and I showed those documents to be fraudulent. Are you aware of that, Ms Booth?
Ms Booth: I’m aware of your assertions,
Senator ROBERTS. My observation is that the Fair Work Ombudsman assesses a request for assistance comparing workers’ actual payments received with their lawful entitlements under their work instruments. That is our obligation and that is what we do.
Ms Volzke: We provided a formal letter in relation to one of those complainants, under a letterhead dated 23 July 2023, about those allegations of fraudulent evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding of that letter is that it ignores documented evidence and decisions from other federal government agencies saying that the document that the Fair Work Ombudsman officers relied upon was not correct and was fraudulent; is that the same letter?
Ms Volzke: It is. It is, I think, about a six-page response, so I would consider it to be very thorough. The outcome of our investigation into that is included in that letter.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t agree that something is thorough or accurate just because it’s lengthy.
Ms Volzke: I would say that, in relation to the investigations that we have undertaken into a couple of individuals, which I’m sure you’re well aware of, I feel very confident that the Fair Work Ombudsman has undertaken an extremely comprehensive investigation in relation to all of those matters. I feel very confident in the outcomes. In terms of what the law is and what the legal outcome is, I feel very confident in those outcomes.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a copy of that letter dated 23 July 2023, please? That doesn’t have to be right here and now, but could we have that on notice.
Ms Volzke: Yes, of course.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the Fair Work Ombudsman continue to deny that the miners have been the victims of a massive fraud that labour hire companies have perpetrated?
Ms Volzke: Again, as the regulator, it’s our role to apply the law as it currently stands, including when an agreement has been approved as passing the BOOT by the Fair Work Commission. We apply that agreement. That’s exactly what we’ve done in relation to those investigations where there has been an agreement that has applied.
Senator ROBERTS: What about if the enterprise agreement is illegal?
Ms Volzke: I don’t think we should speculate around hypotheticals. We know of various cases, and I think in previous estimates we’ve spoken about them: the Warren case, One Key and another more recent one. The reality is that the legal effect of the Black Coal Mining Industry Award not providing for casual employment in operational roles has not been comprehensively argued or subject to submissions by any party, so there has not been an authoritative determination on that issue.
Ms Booth: I think it really is very important to understand the distinction between the role of the Fair Work Ombudsman and the role of the Fair Work Commission. Whatever we would like it to be is not in our purview; we look at what is, in terms of the law. We look at the law as it stands and not at how the law came into being or what it ought to be in the future.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. We’re seeing what seems to me to be—and I’ve been advised that this is correct—criminal involvement of some CFMEU or Mining and Energy Union bosses who facilitate, enable and approve the wage theft through illegal enterprise agreements. I’ve asked Mr Campbell for the process that people can follow for various ways of applying. Could you also advise me of any ways that the Fair Work Ombudsman could consider to make the process easier. Maybe think about the perspective of someone making a complaint or a request, including what they would confront when they log on to your website and how that process could be made easier.
Mr Campbell: I’ve taken the questions on notice and I’ve undertaken to get you the information. I don’t want to open up the dialogue again; I’ve said yes, so I will do it.
I asked officials from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) if they were aware of the second reading amendment, which requires the government to investigate wage theft in the Hunter Valley. This issue could potentially involve up to $1 billion, impacting around 5,000 miners with losses estimated at $40,000 per person per year.
The officials confirmed their awareness but were unable to specify when the minister had been informed or if any plans or discussions had been initiated to advance the investigation.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My first set of questions relates to a recent Senate second reading motion to a Fair Work Act bill. The motion requires the government to conduct an investigation into massive wage theft occurring in the coalmining industry. I will read the motion. The part that is relevant states:
but the Senate:
(b) requires the Government to investigate claims that casual miners working under enterprise agreements in the black coal mining industry are, and have been, underpaid; and
(c) if underpayments are found to have occurred, facilitate the reimbursement of the underpayments;
Ms Yanchenko: Thanks. We’re certainly aware of that motion.
Senator ROBERTS: This is Australia’s largest wage theft case, totalling possibly over $1 billion and involving thefts of up to $40,000 per year per miner, stealing from 5,000 or more coalminers. When was the Senate’s second reading amendment to your government’s latest Fair Work Act amendment bill conveyed to the minister?
Mr Manning: I am not sure, in the sense that we wouldn’t necessarily have conveyed it to the minister.
Ms Yanchenko: We were watching along in real time.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you convey that to the minister?
Ms Yanchenko: I didn’t personally, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it possible to find out when the minister—
Mr Manning: When he first became aware of it?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Manning: We will have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: That is fine. I don’t expect you to know everything; most things, but not everything. I take it then that no discussions have been held between the minister and the department?
Mr Manning: We are still thinking through our advice to the minister; so, no, not yet.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the department received or made any instructions?
Mr Manning: We haven’t yet given advice or a submission to the minister about the motion. We are still working through it.
Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t made any instructions to him or given him any advice?
Mr Manning: Not as yet.
Senator ROBERTS: Has Minister Burke discussed with you the nature of the investigation the Senate required him to make into wage theft involving Central Queensland and Hunter Valley miners?
Mr Manning: No, not yet.
Senator ROBERTS: Have any of your staff raised it with you?
Ms Wettinger: At this stage we haven’t discussed the matter with any of the minister’s staff, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Who do you expect will have a role in the investigation?
Mr Manning: It is too early to say. There is a long history to the matter—
Senator ROBERTS: A very long history.
Mr Manning: So that’s what we are considering in terms of getting ready for those discussions and that advice to the minister.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what would you expect of a fair and independent investigation?
Senator Watt: That it be fair and independent.
Senator ROBERTS: What would characterise a fair and independent investigation?
Senator Watt: I think everyone understands what those concepts mean. I know you have an interest in the conditions of coalminers. Have you caught up on the good news about the first decision or agreement resulting from our ‘Closing Loopholes’ laws?
Senator ROBERTS: I am aware that there is an agreement in application.
Senator Watt: I think there might even be a couple, actually.
Senator ROBERTS: I am aware of two.
Senator Watt: It is good news that we are seeing coalminers receive what they are entitled to as a result of our legislation. I don’t think you voted for that legislation, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll hear more about that. I have already told you why publicly, Senator Watt.
Senator Watt: It is delivering more money to coalminers.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll have more to ask you about that tomorrow, with glee.
Senate Estimates: I asked Senator Watt what was being done to reduce net immigration.
The government’s planned reduction is insufficient. Cutting immigration is not enough. Temporary visa holders need to leave now.It’s time to put Australians first.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are concise and straightforward, and hopefully the answers will be the same—so that the chair is not disappointed! In the context of the mass release from immigration detention of approximately 150 noncitizens awaiting deportation, how many of these detainees were in fact released as a result of the decision in NZYQ?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m very, very sorry: you asked me whether we were talking about migration in outcome 2, and we are, but the matters you’re raising with those questions are relevant to outcome 3, and we’ll be dealing with that tomorrow.
Senator ROBERTS: There you go; you got an early night!
CHAIR: Do you have other questions? I thought there were more general questions about migration numbers. I apologise.
Senator ROBERTS: No.
CHAIR: I’ve listened to so many of your Senate speeches, Senator Roberts. I thought I was pre-empting your questions. But we will be here tomorrow to ask questions of Border Force particularly around those issues.
Senator ROBERTS: And also Immigration, I hope—Home Affairs?
CHAIR: There are other questions that might be relevant to outcome 2. If you want to put them, they might have the officials here for you.
Senator ROBERTS: No, these are to do with the legality of immigration.
Ms Foster: If I can help: because the questions relating to the High Court cover both outcome 2 and outcome 3, we typically try to cover them as a group together so we’re not saying, ‘We can answer a little bit of that and not the rest of it.’ But if there are more general questions on the migration program then we should be able to answer them for you tonight.
Senator ROBERTS: These are more to do with the legalities and what is happening about removing people.
CHAIR: They are related to the same cohort of questions—is that right?
Senator ROBERTS: I think they are.
CHAIR: They are related to the same issues.
Ms Foster: If they are related to the same cohort, it is probably sensible to do them tomorrow as a batch.
Senator ROBERTS: The same cohort and a similar cohort.
CHAIR: It sounds like we will be able to deal with them tomorrow.
Senator Watt: I predict there will be many questions around this issue in the morning. So you will be in good company.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps one might be covered off now—the last one I had. For visas requiring accommodation in 2019 it was 1.9 million people; in 2024, at the start of the year, it was 2.3 million plus students at over half a million, plus a higher percentage of non-productive people. Housing demand has been driven through the roof and prices and rents are skyrocketing. We are in a per capita recession and have been for three quarters. Minister, it appears to a lot of Australians that the government does not want to be tagged as the government who took us into recession so it is flooding the country with migrants to avoid a technical recession. Having said correctly that we’ve had three-quarters of a per capita recession, the government, to me, seems to be uncaring about the plight of Australians. In our state’s capital city there are people living under bridges, in cars and in caravans—and I’m talking about working families coming home with their two kids to sleep in a car. I don’t know where they go to the toilet and where they shower. We’ve got it right up the coast—not just in our capital city but right up the coast. The Labor government must remove visa holders. When will Labor resolve the housing crisis and stop the out-of-control and unsustainable growth of Australia’s population? We had 750,000 come in last year.
Senator Watt: I’m not sure that that 750,000 figure is correct, Senator Roberts. But the point really is that the government does believe that migration levels have been unsustainably high. We believe that that is a direct result of the failures of Mr Dutton and other coalition ministers to manage the migration program correctly. That is exactly why we have dramatically reduced the grants of international student visas and that is why we are on track to halve what is known as the net overseas migration figure by next financial year. If you look at the numbers, where they were when we came into office and post-COVID, we are on track to halve that figure by next financial year. I do not think the 750,000 figure is correct, Senator Roberts. What is known as the net overseas migration—
Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t implying that was net; that was incoming.
Senator Watt: You also have to look at the number of people going out.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct; but 750,000 people coming in is a heck of a lot of people.
Senator Watt: Sure; I agree.
Senator ROBERTS: It is way above the previous record.
Senator Watt: Agreed. As I said, our government believes that migration has been too high. That’s why we’ve taken a range of steps to reduce it, and we are on track to achieve that target. On the point about housing—which is obviously a matter for a different committee—as I pointed out to you before, Senator Roberts, it would really help if we could get your vote in the Senate when we try to spend more money on housing. Unfortunately, so far, you haven’t—
Senator ROBERTS: How many houses have you built, Minister? Zero.
Senator Watt: We have committed about $32 billion worth of funding.
Senator ROBERTS: You have committed how much to housing? You have committed $20 billion to a housing future fund.
Senator Watt: Of the $32 billion that we have committed for housing, $10 billion was for the Housing Australia Future Fund, and unfortunately both you and Senator Hanson voted against that with the coalition.
Senator ROBERTS: We don’t want more bureaucracy; we want tradies to be set loose. That is why we did it.
Senator Watt: But the vote was about creating a housing fund and you voted against it. You voted for less spending on housing.
CHAIR: Senators, I don’t think the question is relevant to—
Senator ROBERTS: How many houses have been built in the last two years?
Senator Watt: You would probably need to go—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, your question—
Senator ROBERTS: Okay; let’s come back to my question, as the chair is reminding us.
CHAIR: Minister, could you assist me in not speaking over me while I give Senator Roberts some direction. The question you have ultimately ended up asking is not relevant to this committee. That is probably why you have received a response of the kind Minister Watt has given you. If you have more questions in relation to migration, this is the outcome to put them. Otherwise, we will back tomorrow with outcome 3.
Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, Chair, this is calling out Senator Watt because he has not answered my question.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you say ‘with all due respect’ and then continue to talk over me when I have given you a direction as the chair to ask a relevant question, or I can give the call to someone else who has relevant questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. The question for the minister is the same: when will the Labor government remove visa holders to ease the pressure on housing in this country?
Senator Watt: Sorry; are you saying that we should have zero migration to Australia?
Senator ROBERTS: We should have negative, until we get the housing pressure and the infrastructure to catch up.
Senator Watt: What do you mean by negative migration? Do you mean forcing people to leave?
Senator ROBERTS: More people who leave than come.
Senator Watt: The government’s policy is to halve the net increase in migration or net migration numbers by next financial year, and we are well on track to do that. We agree that we have a housing shortage in Australia. That’s why we’ve devoted so much money towards that project. We also recognise that we have a range of jobs and there are not enough people to fill them. If you speak to any building firm in Queensland, they will tell you they need more people. We are funding a lot of training of locals, but the reality is that we need some level of migration to fill those jobs. If you go to any aged-care facility in Queensland or anywhere in Australia—and I go to one pretty regularly to visit a family member—you will see lots of migrant workers there. Our aged-care system would collapse if we did what you suggested, which is stop migration. So it’s a balancing act to make sure that we don’t have too much migration in this country—as was occurring under the policy settings we inherited from the former government—while still making sure that we can deliver the workforce that we need.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, isn’t it true that, under John Howard’s prime ministership, immigration was dramatically increased and it has stayed high since then under both parties—both Labor and Liberal and National party governments?
Senator Watt: My recollection is that the major change under the Howard government was a big shift towards temporary migration. I don’t know what the overall figures were under the Howard government.
Senator ROBERTS: I think it went from 80,000 to over 130,000. Then it went up under the Rudd-Gillard, and the subsequent LNP governments to over 230,000 net. What are you proposing for next year?
Senator Watt: We are proposing that net overseas migration next financial year would in the order of 260,000.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s still very, very high.
Senator Watt: It’s about half of what it was a year or so ago.
Senator PATERSON: This year?
Ms Foster: In 2022-23.
Senator ROBERTS: Senator Watt, I could say that you are much taller than me. That’s not saying much!
Senator Watt: A competition of the shortest men in parliament! Let’s put Senator Farrell in there as well. Senator Ghosh, do you qualify?
Senator ROBERTS: My point is that 250,000 is still a lot.
Senator Watt: But we’re big in heart, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: But 250,000 is a lot. It may be half, but it is still very, very high and it is putting a lot of pressure on housing.
Senator Watt: I agree; which, again, is why we—
Senator ROBERTS: Do we agree?
Senator Watt: I agree that migration has been too high and it is putting pressure on housing, which is why we would have really liked your vote for the Housing Australia Future Fund—which is another committee.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to stay on immigration.
CHAIR: Me too.
Senator Watt: There are two parts of the equation. It is about immigration and—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right: you’re driving up the demand for housing.
Senator Watt: If we had more homes we mightn’t have such an issue with migration numbers. But we don’t have the homes and that’s what we’re trying to fix. But we are halving migration numbers. International student grants in April were down 38 per cent on last year’s levels. We’ve taken a whole range of other actions to crack down on some of the rorts in the migration system that were left behind by Mr Dutton and his colleagues. But, equally, as I say, if you want to have people look after your family members in aged care, they are not all going to come locally. If you want people to build the homes, they are not all going to come locally. If you want people to work in hospitals, they are not all going to come locally. If we actually said, ‘Close the door entirely to migration,’ you will have a lot of people waiting to get into emergency departments and into aged-care homes et cetera.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the state our country is in right now. Are you going to build 250,000 new homes next year to accommodate the 250,000 new people coming in?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I have given you direction about whether those questions are relevant to this committee.
Senator ROBERTS: How is 250,000 new net migrants a low number simply because it is half of what the previous one was? It’s not; it is a very high number.
Senator Watt: The departmental officials could probably take you through the work that was undertaken to determine that figure. I would be confident that, in developing that figure, they took into account the need to reduce migration and the pressure on the housing system, but also the workforce needs of hospitals, aged-care facilities, construction firms, et cetera. It would be interesting to know what the opposition did to arrive at the various different figures we’ve heard from them. I don’t know if anyone from the opposition here can tell us what their policy actually is.
CHAIR: They’re not here to give evidence, Minister Watt. They are here to ask questions.
Senator Watt: But a lot of work has gone in from the government’s side to come up with the right figure.
CHAIR: Is that the end of your questions, Senator Roberts?
