Senate Estimates Archives - Page 30 of 32

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

May/June 2021, Property Rights, Senate Estimates

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

Transcript

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

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

Well look–

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

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

Well, you can ask the Minister about government–

[Malcolm Roberts] Is that a fair policy?

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, I’ll withdraw that

and rephrase your question.

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

I’m not aware of those comments.

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Happy to have a conversation later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brad Archer] Senator–

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

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

[Chair] Sure, on notice would be fine.

[Malcolm Roberts] Certainly, sure.

[Chair] All right, thank you.

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

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

Energy, May/June 2021, Senate Estimates

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

Transcript

[Chair] Senator Roberts, you have the call.

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

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

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

[Paul Broad] Sir, I don’t understand.

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

[Paul Broad] Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] What will be the benefit?

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

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

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

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

[Paul Broad] Yep.

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

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

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

[Paul Broad] Mm-hmm.

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] So, there are many –

[Paul Broad] And for us sorry?

[Malcolm Roberts] So, many complicating factors.

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

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

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

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

[Paul Broad] I don’t think so. No.

[Malcolm Roberts] You don’t think so?

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry?

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. Thank you, Chair.

May 25, 2021/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

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

May/June 2021, National, Senate Estimates

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes Obviously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I might ask my colleague Simon.

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

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

Yep, we’ll come back.

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Got it.

So that’s one.

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

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

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

Sorry,

[Malcolm Roberts] You haven’t modelled it.

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

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

Yes, and we can give you the train modelling.

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

No.

[Malcolm Roberts] What is the cost?

Of the tunnel?

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry.

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

[Malcolm Roberts] It’s additional costs.

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

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

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

I said here, here.

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Based on early assumptions.

Yes.

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

2.6 originally

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

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

If it’s more productive.

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

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

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

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

Climate Change, May/June 2021, Senate Estimates

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

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

Transcript

[Chair] Thank you for attending today.

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Mr Thomas.

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

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

[David Wachenfeld] David Wachenfeld.

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

[Whish-Wilson] Doctor.

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] What is that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] I just want one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Joshua Thomas] Sorry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator.

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

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

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

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

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

[Roberts] So what-

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

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

[Joshua Thomas] I rest my case.

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

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

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

[Chair] Senator Whish-Wilson.

[Whish-Wilson] You live in-

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Happy to hear that.

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

[Chair] Thank you, Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much, Chair.

May 25, 2021/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

What happened to the temperatures? Bureau of Meteorology

Climate Change, May/June 2021, Senate Estimates

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

Transcript

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

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

[Senator Roberts] I can understand that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grilling Climate Change at Senate Estimates

Climate Change, March 2021, Senate Estimates

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm] Let’s go with the CSIRO.

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

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

[Marcus] Yeah.

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

[Marcus] Not bad.

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

[Marcus] Yeah, not bad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm] That’s a really good point.

[Marcus] Why don’t you?

[Malcolm] Angus Taylor is the Minister for Energy.

[Marcus] Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm] In what way?

[Marcus] Well, of course, he’s right.

[Malcolm] In what way?

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

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

[Marcus] Yeah.

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

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

[Malcolm] Correct.

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

[Malcolm] Okay, mate, you’re welcome.

[Marcus] Talk soon.

[Malcolm] See you, Marcus.

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

April 13, 2021/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

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

March 2021, National, Senate Estimates

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

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

Transcript

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

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

[Senator Roberts] He’s AML compliant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Witness] Yeah Absolutely.

[Senator Roberts] When I look through the company–

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

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

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

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

[Chair] Very, very quickly.

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

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

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

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

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

March 31, 2021/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

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

March 2021, Senate Estimates, United Nations

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

[Senator Roberts] Yes.

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

[Senator Roberts] Of course. – Thank you.

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

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

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

[Chair] The question was in dollar terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Minister Payne] As I do yours, Senator.

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

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

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

[Justin Lee] I, I’m not…

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

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

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

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

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

[Justin Lee] I can take that on notice.

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

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

[Senator Roberts] Thank you very much.

March 30, 2021/3 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

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

March 2021, National, Senate Estimates

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

[Commissioner Melina] Temporary, absolutely.

[Senator Roberts] When will it expire?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Commissioner Hughes] Morning Senator. Sean Hughes-

[Senator Roberts] Good morning.

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

[Senator Roberts] So what date after June?

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

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

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

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

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

[Chair] Senator Roberts, two more questions.

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

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

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

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

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

[Commissioner] Thank you, Senator.

March 30, 2021/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

How can small business operate with so much red tape?

March 2021, National, Senate Estimates

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

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

Transcript

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

[Man] I’m done.

[Chair] Senator Roberts.

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

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

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

[Woman] Can I just clarify adviser?

[Man] Yes.

[Woman] Thank you, Yep.

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

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

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

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

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

[Senator Roberts] Red tech?

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

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

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

[Senator Roberts] Especially the workers.

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

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

[Witness] Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Witness 2] And, and.

[Witness] sorry, Senator.

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

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

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

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

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

[Chair] Senator

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

[Witness] It’s a good formula.

[Malcolm] Thank you, Chair.

March 30, 2021/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

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

Transcript

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

Transcript

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

Transcript

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

Transcript

What happened to the temperatures? Bureau of Meteorology

Transcript

Grilling Climate Change at Senate Estimates

Transcript

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

Transcript

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

Transcript

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

Transcript

How can small business operate with so much red tape?

Transcript

Pages

Malcolm’s Fight

Categories