The Threat From Lab-Grown Meat is Lost on FSANZ

,

I have asked, over multiple estimate sessions, about the approval process for lab-grown meat. While I acknowledge and understand Food Standard Australia New Zealand’s (FSANZ) need to take their time with this decision, the process seems more about ticking the boxes rather than conducting a serious investigation into the potential health impacts of this Frankenstein food product.

Australia has the highest quality farm produce globally, with the capability to both feed our population and export protein. There is absolutely no need for lab-grown meats. The process of cultivating muscle cells from live cattle via biopsy in a bio-reactor to create meat, bears a resemblance to how cancer cells replicate.

Lab-grown meat has the nutritional value of whatever it has been cultivated in. There’s no chance this product will match the nutritional value and safety of real meat.

One Nation believes that before lab-grown meat is approved, extensive generational testing must be conducted to assess the impact of this product on human cells, including testing for potential damage to reproductive capacity and to the development of cancers – a process known as genotoxicity testing. If such testing were performed on rats (a perfectly valid method), it would have been completed by now. The lack of such testing is alarming and begs the question – why has it not been conducted?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. At last estimates, I asked about genotoxicity of products grown in a bioreactor—lab meat. Your answer on notice—and thank you for providing this—was: ‘There are no safety concerns, including genotoxicity.’ Is that still your position?  

Dr Cuthbert: Yes, it is.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your answer doesn’t address my question. I didn’t ask if you had no genotoxicity concerns. I asked, and now repeat: have you received genotoxicity testing on this or a similar product from a suitable jurisdiction?  

Dr Cuthbert: I’ll pass to Dr O’Mullane, who is the general manager for risk management and intelligence and is managing the assessment.  

Dr O’Mullane: Thank you for the question. If I could just go back to a statement around genotoxicity or carcinogenicity, and that is that the starting material for these types of cell based meat products are cells taken from healthy animals. They are not cancerous cells and they are not cancer cells. They are cells that are harvested from connective tissue, from muscle tissue, from skin tissue. They are then taken into a bioreactor and they are selected. There are natural variants that can live for a reasonable period of time in that bioreactor under very specific and controlled conditions, along with tissue culture media components. Taken outside of that bioreactor, they are not capable of surviving. They are not going to survive food processing activities or cooking; they would certainly not survive through the human digestive tract. So our position very clearly is that the cells that are used in terms of the quail application that we’re currently looking at don’t pose any cancer concerns. They’re not cancerous. That view is held not specifically for these quail cells but certainly in a more general sense via the US Food and Drug Administration who have made statements in this effect and also the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, who provided a report last year around cell cultured foods, and they have made similar statements. To your question on genotoxicity data, I don’t believe that genotoxicity data was provided as part of this application. I will confirm that. So the characterisation of the safety risks are very much around the molecular characterisation of the cells and what is involved with the actual culture media. So we are confident that these cells and the actual products that are generated from those cells aren’t going to pose a human health and safety concern. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you have not received genotoxicity testing on this or a suitable product from a suitable jurisdiction?  

Dr O’Mullane: I don’t believe we have. But I will confirm that on notice if I may.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How can you say then that you have no genotoxicity testing concerns if you haven’t done or seen genotoxicity testing?  

Dr O’Mullane: Based on the points that I’ve already made. It is based on the actual characteristics of the cells. These are entirely normal cells that have been taken out of healthy animals. So there is no plausible reason to consider that they would have any sort of cancer or genotoxicity potential.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re relying upon the FDA in America?  

Dr O’Mullane: We are not relying on the FDA. As part of this particular application, certain data have been provided. We are still going through an active process of scientific evaluation which is still running for at least another six months. On the basis of what we have seen to date, we went out with a first public consultation ending in February this year. The risk assessment that we put out very clearly said that there were no human health and safety concerns. If there is any additional information that might be available, either from yourself or others, that could be submitted, we would certainly be happy to look at that and see whether we needed to make any sort of adjustments. But, based on the evidence that we’ve seen to date, we are confident in the safety of this particular cell based quail.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you’ve done no genotoxicity testing. What is the state of approval for Vow Group’s application to produce imitation quail meat in a bioreactor for human consumption?  

Dr O’Mullane: I mentioned that there was a first public consultation round earlier in the year. We’re due to go out with a second public consultation round in July. Then there will be a period of time where we will evaluate any submissions. That second so-called call for submissions report will include the proposed legal drafting: things like labelling that will appear in the Food Standards Code. There will be an opportunity for stakeholders to comment on our legal drafting in terms of its clarity and enforceability. We then go through a period of proposing a so-called approval report for the FSANZ Board to make a decision. At the moment we’re looking at around the end of the year, probably in December. Once the FSANZ Board has made a decision, there’s a 60-day window where that decision is notified to food ministers, who then have the opportunity to call for a review of that decision or not. Following that, if everything goes smoothly, it would be gazetted and then go into food law.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve in embarked on consultation?  

Dr O’Mullane: This is considered a major application, so we’re required to undertake two rounds of public consultation. We’ve undertaken one round, and we’re about to take—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve finished the first round. You’re about to start the second.  

Dr O’Mullane: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Then the approvals will continue without any further testing, and, even if you give approval, it will be the subject of the health ministers and the states to object if they want to.  

Dr O’Mullane: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have they got the capacity to do their own testing? They’d be relying on you.  

Dr O’Mullane: Yes. They would certainly provide us with very detailed commentary around why they were calling for the FSANZ Board to review its decision.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who decides use of the word ‘meat’, which the public rightly associates with an animal product, not a laboratory product? 

Dr O’Mullane: In relation to the current quail application, as part of the first public consultation we’ve looked at possible options for labelling and what it may be called. Where we are heading to at the moment is either ‘cell cultured’ or ‘cell cultivated’ quail. Based on the consumer feedback that we’ve had, that seems to be best understood by consumers. In terms of the use of the term ‘meat’, you’re right that there is a specific definition of meat in the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code, which is defined there. But if the term ‘meat’ is used in an accurate context so as not to mislead consumers it could potentially be used in a different context.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean?  

Dr O’Mullane: For example, use of the term ‘milk’. Milk is defined in the Food Standards Code, but milk can also be used in the context of soy milk or oat milk. In that context it’s not misleading because consumers generally know that it’s not from an animal, similar to the use of the term ‘beer’ in ginger beer or ‘bread’ in shortbread. It’s around the context of use that we need to look.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your reply also states that FSANZ is a member of the World Health Organization’s technical working group on cell based food as well as an OECD expert group on cell based food. Can Australians have confidence this decision is all your own work instead of being guided by foreign commercial interests?  

Dr O’Mullane: We’re still going through an active process at the moment. The food hasn’t actually been approved. If it is approved by the FSANZ Board, it will be because there is a scientific weight of evidence supporting the safety and suitability of the cell cultured quail. If it does end up on supermarket shelves, consumers can be confident that that’s the case and that the food will be labelled appropriately so that consumers can understand the true nature of the food and that they can make informed purchasing decisions. Senator ROBERTS: But you’re doing no further testing, including no genotoxicity testing.  

Dr O’Mullane: We don’t specifically do testing. We rely on the evidence that the applicant has provided, and there are—  

Senator ROBERTS: You rely on the evidence the applicant has provided?  

Dr O’Mullane: We rely on the evidence the applicant has provided in the context of the legislative requirements to provide certain information, data and studies. That is supplemented by our own scientific searches of the literature.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is a new field, yet you’re relying on regulations or legislation made in this building?  

Dr O’Mullane: We’re relying on scientific information. It’s a weight of scientific evidence that will then support the decision one way or the other about whether to permit this cell cultured quail product. 

/7 Comments/by

Wetlands Bulldozed: Coomera Connector 2 Environmental Application Expected Soon

,

I’ve been closely watching the progress of the Coomera Connector Stage 2 project between the Gold Coast and Brisbane. Original proposals included plans to completely bulldoze sensitive wetlands that were brought to my attention by community members at Eagleby. After the previous Estimates, meeting Minutes revealed that the Queensland Government wanted to advance the environmental approvals through a secret, non-public pathway rather than what’s called a public environment report (PER).

There are still huge environmental impacts from the proposed route, while a suitable alternative is available just a few kilometres away. I’ll be watching for the imminent referral that will detail the full extent of these environmental impacts to the Eagleby community.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. This is about Eagleby and Coomera Connector 2 up in Queensland. Can you please provide an update on any progress of an EPBC referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2?  

Ms Parry: We can. We’ve just got officials coming to the table.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Mr Edwards: It’s my understanding that we have not yet received a referral for that stage of the Coomera Connector.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s from the Queensland government?  

Mr Edwards: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the meeting minutes you gave in SQ24-000073, you mention the potential likelihood that the referral would have to be subject to a public environment report—PER. That would be usual for a project with this level of complexity, public interest and controlling provisions. Did Queensland’s Department of Transport and Main Roads preference bypassing the PER and have the project dealt with only by referral information?  

Mr Edwards: They don’t actually get to dictate the assessment approach.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s under your authority, is it?  

Mr Edwards: That’s right They refer it and we look at things such as complexities you’ve mentioned and determine what we believe is the right assessment approach to take.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any further expectations on when you expect a referral to be made?  

Mr Edwards: I’ll just ask my colleague Mr O’Connor-Cox. 

Mr O’Connor-Cox: The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads are aware of their obligations and they have indicated to us that they will refer. I can’t give an exact date about when that referral might occur, but my understanding and best guess would be that it would be a matter of weeks.  

Senator ROBERTS: Imminent?  

Mr O’Connor-Cox: Imminent.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you provide any minutes of any further meetings you’ve had with transport and main roads Queensland on Coomera Connector 2 on notice?  

Mr O’Connor-Cox: I can take that on notice. I’m not aware of any further meetings, but I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can’t be an expert on every topic—none of us can be—so pardon my ignorance, but in the answer you gave in the previous minutes, what’s an offset site and what’s an advanced offset site?  

Mr O’Connor-Cox: After a proponent has avoided and mitigated impacts to matters of national environmental significance, there might be still a residual impact, and they’re required to offset that. They go to a site that has comparable values and they protect that site and improve that habitat, to square the ledger if you like, to compensate for the residual impacts that they have.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s an advanced offset site?  

Mr O’Connor-Cox: An advanced offset site would be one where they’ve commenced work before the approval is granted and they can then claim credit for the improvements they have made prior to the approval.  

Senator ROBERTS: Under what conditions would they start work before approval?  

Mr O’Connor-Cox: That would be something that’s before the approval. It wouldn’t be something we condition. They would then do that on their own volition and do so at their own risk, I guess, because they haven’t been granted an approval where we’ve said ‘Yes; that’s the appropriate offset.’  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, so they’re just taking a risk that you will approve it with the right conditions, so they’re starting work early.  

Mr O’Connor-Cox: I should add I’m very much talking in the general sense. I haven’t been involved in any of those discussions. It’s likely that discussion was around the prospects or potential rather than us getting involved in any detailed discussions about any actual advanced offset site. But generally that’s how it works.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not raising a flag up the pole for everyone to start work without permission—I can see Mr Knudson shaking his head vigorously.  

Mr Knudson: No, advanced offsets don’t have a negative impact. It’s basically taking actions to improve environmental outcomes and then using that, as Mr O’Connor-Cox talked about, to balance the ledger later on. ‘I’ve already done this beneficial action in terms of an offset, therefore any residual impacts can be dealt with by something I’ve already secured in an offset.’ That’s the point of an advance: you’ve done it in advance of the impact.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you both. 

/2 Comments/by

Port of Gladstone Key to Inland Rail’s Success

,

Inland Rail is a multi-billion dollar project aimed at extending the existing inland railway line that currently runs between Melbourne and Parkes, and up to Brisbane.  This will be a combination of existing and new sections of rail.  The idea is to have a north south connection between Brisbane and Melbourne that can shift hundreds of thousands of movement from road to rail freight. This line will need to be upgraded to accommodate double-stacked container trains that are 1.8 km long.

One Nation supports rail transport over road transport, but for this to be effective, the rail service must reflect the needs of the industry. This means trains need to depart according to industry schedules, reliable connections need to be maintained, and fair pricing offered. Inland Rail, in its current form, will provide none of those things. The current alignment (route) in QLD takes the line across the Condamine floodplain, which is, quite frankly, a stupid idea. The deep clay soil in that area cannot support a railway line without horrendously expensive supports, which will then act as a dam during a flood. The Brisbane Port access is constrained, meaning the railway line across Brisbane and into the Port is running close to capacity, with no easy way to extend it.  The Port of Gladstone offers a much better option.  The line can go inland up the Mooney Highway, then through Wandoan to Banana and onwards to Gladstone. This direct, flood-free alignment will provide a cheaper and more reliable transit option.

A new container handling facility is being built in Gladstone, with an intermodal connection to the railway. Gladstone is perfectly positioned to serve as Australia’s gateway port for container traffic from Asia. Best of all, the Port is located away from the city and is strongly supported by local councils. Despite inquiring about this option, it appears the floodplain alignment remains the preferred option. This is not good enough!  One Nation will continue to campaign for Inland Rail to run through to the Port of Gladstone.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. I have a number of questions, but I think they’re fairly short and straightforward. Recommendation 1 of the Schott report into the ARTC was to address skills deficiencies in the ARTC. I note that you’ve hired a new chair, Mr Peter Duncan. Has Mr Duncan ever built a railway?  

Mr Johnson: Mr Duncan is the chair of the board. His skills go to requisite skills to be able to lead a board and our organisation. He is certainly familiar with long linear infrastructure, the engineering infrastructure. He’s very familiar with that from his prior roles.  

Senator ROBERTS: What sort of long—  

Mr Johnson: Roads and water. It’s really not a matter for me to comment on the appointment of other directors and Mr Duncan in a role. What I would say is that the board are working really well with myself and holding me to account to make sure we’ve got the requisite skills to operate, maintain and create the network. Further to the recommendations, a key recommendation from Dr Schott’s report and the review was the establishment of the Inland Rail subsidiary and the establishment of the board in parallel. That’s why we sit here today. Nick is the new CEO to Inland Rail. That subsidiary is now fully fledged. They have both a chair and a board in place for the construction of Inland Rail.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate and understand the distinctions between governance, management and trusteeship, if you like. He has not built a railway, but he has done other long infrastructure. The other new senior hire is Dr Collette Burke, who is a qualified engineer. Can you confirm her engineering qualification, please?  

Mr Johnson: I know that Collette is an esteemed and qualified engineer, but I don’t have those details in front of me.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could we get it on notice, please?  

Mr Johnson: No problem.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are reports—these may be old—that Dr Burke is also contributing to the Marinus Link from Tasmania to Victoria and Snowy Hydro 2.0. At these still current appointments?  

Mr Johnson: Like all directors, Collette as a director on the board has made clear what other commitments she has and whether are any conflicts at play. I can confirm that is the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: So she is still on the other two boards?  

Mr Johnson: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, has the government made any other appointments to ARTC that address the skills deficiencies identified in the Schott report?  

Senator Carol Brown: I don’t have that information with me, but I can take it on notice.  

Mr Miller: Of course there’s a secondary board now, the subsidiary board of Inland Rail, whose directors all have extensive infrastructure experience.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the earlier discussion on Inland Rail, I asked about what has been called the Goondiwindi to Gladstone alignment. I was advised that this is in the hands of the Queensland government. I find that surprising, when the Commonwealth government is paying for the project. It sounds like the Queensland government is going to decide how the Commonwealth spends the money. The Goondiwindi to Gladstone route is substantially cheaper, and I know there is at least one private partnership trying to get the attention of government with extensive expertise in railroads, freight, construction and shipping. They have money to spend. They’re willing to make a commitment, especially on the Surat Basin link from Moranbah to Banana. I don’t understand why, when the government is juggling budget deficits moving forward, it’s proving so hard to get even a meeting about a public-private partnership happening on this alternative route.  

Mr Johnson: Just to be really clear, there are a few things happening there in parallel. Inland Rail Pty Ltd, headed by Nick, are continuing the work around the design of the route that heads over the Toowoomba range to Ebenezer, and working closely with the National Intermodal company on the connection at Ebenezer. That’s what Inland Rail are focused on. I am aware that there is some early business case development for other alternative options—Goondiwindi or Toowoomba to Gladstone—that the Queensland government have had some insight into.  

Senator ROBERTS: So both Goondiwindi to Gladstone and Toowoomba to Gladstone are being considered as alternative business cases?  

Mr Johnson: I have heard that both are. That’s right. I am acutely aware of the private interest that you’ve mentioned, and we’ve made it clear to the proponent—as we would for anyone who was interested in either developing, adjoining or working around the network, given we’re really the national rail network manager—that, when they get to the point that they’re at an EIS, an environmental impact statement, we’d be happy to support what type of views or impacts that would have, in a practical sense, and suggest what they might consider in that input. We have met, so I’m a little bit lost with the statement that it’s hard to get that meeting.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve already been working with them?  

Mr Johnson: We’ve had a couple of meetings about what we can do at different stages, as they progress their development, to offer them whatever practical support we can, as we would for any other adjoining infrastructure manager.  

Senator ROBERTS: So would you be willing to meet with a private investor who’s willing to fund the railroad construction from Surat Basin, from Moranbah to Banana?  

Mr Johnson: We meet with a number of proponents. That one is a long way from our network, but nationally we’ve met with a number of people who are looking at different things, mostly where it’s connected to our network.  

Senator ROBERTS: How about Inland Rail? Would you be willing to meet the investor to consider this?  

Mr Miller: We’d be willing to meet to assist with indicative pricing that we have experienced per kilometre. It’s outside our scope in terms of our current remit. We’re going from border to Toowoomba and then down to Kagaru, and that’s where our focus is, around the environmental approvals and land acquisition, at present.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the vast majority of the cost of Inland Rail—from Toowoomba to Brisbane—as I understand it.  

Mr Miller: It’s a significant part of Inland Rail. It’s not the vast majority.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. We can argue about that at another time. Does the ARTC have any other publicprivate partnerships in place for Inland Rail? By ‘private’, I mean actually contributing private funding to the project.  

Mr Johnson: No. The private partnership contract has ceased.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does the ARTC have any signed agreements in the Queensland leg of Inland Rail? If so, which?  

Mr Miller: Signed agreements?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Miller: With agencies or—  

Senator ROBERTS: Any agreements committing Inland Rail to— 

Mr Miller: Yes, we do. We have multiple land agreements in place. We are well developed with our environmental approvals.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s for the Toowoomba to Ebenezer route?  

Mr Miller: That’s from the border to Toowoomba—the Gowrie route.  

Senator ROBERTS: Across the Condamine?  

Mr Miller: Across the Condamine. We expect to be in a position to go to public exhibition No. 2 in the last quarter of this year with that EIS approval.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the sunk cost of Inland Rail specifically for the Queensland sections? You can do that on notice.  

Mr Miller: I will do that on notice. I can advise the Senate that to date—or to the end of March—we have spent $4.3 billion on the entire program.  

Senator ROBERTS: In Queensland?  

Mr Miller: No, across the entire program.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could I have the—  

Mr Miller: The sunk cost for Queensland?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. The rail line from Ebenezer to the port of Brisbane is constrained. The available capacity on that line does not allow for the volume of freight necessary to ever get the construction costs back. The cost of the tunnel down the mountain is without a doubt $20 million, and it won’t be necessary if the rail line terminates in the port of Gladstone. Are they considerations you’re working on in the back of your mind?  

Mr Miller: Our current scope of work is to take double-stack container trains to Ebenezer, and then they are transitioned to single-stack to Kagaru. That’s our scope.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I don’t understand why this economic reality has not been seized upon to reset the planning towards the Goondiwindi to Gladstone route, with freight destined for the airport at Wellcamp coming down from the Miles intermodal to Wellcamp. Are you considering that as part of the alternative?  

Mr Miller: We’re not considering an alternative, but what we are considering is getting the environmental approvals and land acquisition to Toowoomba as a priority, and we’re continuing with the Kagaru section, with three EISs concurrently in that space.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re aware of the massive concerns about the Condamine crossing?  

Mr Miller: Yes, we are, and we’ve undertaken very significant hydrological studies. Those studies have been to a flood panel and have been accepted as part of the EIS process.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about the foundations for the elevated section of that line, which will be fairly lengthy?  

Mr Miller: Yes, there is going to be an elevated section through the Condamine to improve resilience and reliability during flood periods.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the cost?  

Mr Miller: We are working through the costs. The costs will be subject to the conditions that, ultimately, the EIS from the Coordinator-General’s office in Queensland puts upon us, plus the timeline, in terms of when that’s going to be built with inflation and the like, and the design and geotech that’s going on. We’re also doing some embankment trials in that area to ascertain what settlement impacts there will be, and what that means from an engineering perspective, so we can more accurately define the cost and scope.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the outcome of this review by ARTC and the Queensland government of the Queensland leg, in my opinion, must lead to the abandonment of the Condamine floodplain crossing of this railway line; otherwise the railway line won’t be built. That’s my opinion. I’d like to know your feedback on that. What are you getting in the way of reassurance from Inland Rail?  

Senator Carol Brown: We take our advice from the experts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are they outside Inland Rail or inside?  

Senator Carol Brown: Thank you for your view.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you getting experts from inside Inland Rail, as well as outside Inland Rail, especially on the Condamine crossing? 

Senator Carol Brown: We get our expert opinions from Inland Rail, as well as our departmental people, but thank you for your view. I’ll pass it on. 

/4 Comments/by

Government Can’t Prove What Their Climate Change Policies Actually Do!

,

An independent audit office found that the Government’s Climate Change Department can’t prove how much by, or even if, their policies are affecting the climate.

In my opinion, it’s all a scam designed to transfer money out of the pockets of Australians to wealthy billionaires, while doing nothing with a measurable impact on the environment.

It’s time to abandon the net-zero pipe dream, which has no accountability and zero ability to demonstrate its effect on anything. Thankfully we still have a handful of independent agencies like the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) who are prepared to provide an objective analysis of the government spin.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here today. I want to ask about the performance audit report you did on governance of climate change commitments for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. You concluded in paragraph 12:  

DCCEEW reports annually on progress towards targets, however are unable to demonstrate the extent to which specific Australian Government policies and programs have contributed or are expected to contribute towards overall emissions reduction.  

I asked the department about your conclusion in estimates in February and again yesterday. I’m not sure if you saw that. Did you see it?  

Ms Mellor: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: They were very forceful in saying that they didn’t agree with your conclusion, and they maintain they do measure the specifics. Can you please elaborate on exactly what you found in terms of the specific policies and programs measurement?  

Ms Mellor: Yes. I think we’ve got the relevant audit leader here to do that for you. Ms Horton: As you’ve correctly characterised, within the overall conclusion, we concluded that DCCEEW, or the department, do measure—broadly and overall—Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, but we weren’t able to determine the specific contribution that individual Australian government programs made towards that. So it was reported overall, but that further breakdown below.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not trying to put words into your mouth. I’m just trying to confirm my own understanding and clarify. They have a number that represents what they estimate to be Australia’s overall greenhouse gas production, but they cannot tell anyone what specific contributions from various sectors or various— 

Ms Horton: They do do a breakdown of various sectors, and that’s in ‘International’ under broad reporting that we provide, and that’s provided there. There have been a number of new measures and additional measures that have been announced under the government. We could see some of those had the specific measures broken down underneath but not all of them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are there any specific measures or are they projections based upon calculations?  

Ms Horton: They’re projections.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my understanding around the world.  

Ms Horton: They have projections where they’re looking forward to what we are aiming towards achieving, and they also report on what we have. So they do both.  

Senator ROBERTS: But again, they’re are not direct measurements because it’s very hard to directly measure carbon dioxide coming out of any—  

Ms Horton: There is that broad process we have in our international reporting arrangements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who seeks audits? I’ve been through this before, but I can’t remember. Who asks you to do an audit?  

Ms Mellor: Nobody. People can, but the Auditor-General can’t be directed to do an audit.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, no.  

Ms Mellor: We develop a forward work program. We’re required to consult with the parliament. That’s managed through the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. The Auditor-General’s required to take into account that committee’s view of priorities. My understanding is that that committee writes to other committees and gets views about what’s on the mind of those committees as priorities for audit. Individual members of parliament sometimes write and seek an audit.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve done that, and we’re very happy with the way we were treated.  

Ms Mellor: The program is really at the discretion of the Auditor-General. In deciding to undertake an audit, we do look at the coverage across the sector. We look at the sorts of activities that are being undertaken, whether it’s service delivery or asset management, procurement, grants administration et cetera. And then we have to look at our capacity to do it. Do we have enough people with enough skill in the particular area? Do we need to supplement the skill from elsewhere? So it is all at the discretion of the Auditor-General, and we do seek to get coverage across the sector of a wide variety of policy and program areas.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re continuing your predecessor’s fine habit of being very clear in your answers, so thank you.  

Ms Mellor: Thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is size or potential impact of an error in a department one of the factors for consideration that you would use? In other words, if there’s a huge cost that may be incurred as a result of a mistake in that department, would that be a consideration?  

Ms Mellor: We do take into account risk in different areas, in activities of the public sector. Risk can manifest itself in the size of expenditure, but we also do small things because they’re important and they also provide information to the parliament as well as an opportunity for the public sector to learn from our work.  

Senator ROBERTS: So risk is a consideration?  

Ms Mellor: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re minimising risk—or exposure—to taxpayers.  

Ms Mellor: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s your response to the department rejecting your conclusion that they can’t demonstrate the specific effect of these policies?  

Ms Jago: We actually included in the report at the end of appendix 1 our response to the department’s response to us, where we outlined why we came to a different conclusion than what the department outlined in their response.  

Senator ROBERTS: What was the number of that appendix?  

Ms Mellor: It’s in appendix 1. Ms Jago: It’s at the very end of appendix 1. There isn’t actually a paragraph number. It’s headed ‘ANAO comment on Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water response’.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is important. I’m going to come back to something in a minute. This is discussing understanding or measuring—no, it’s understanding; it’s not measuring, because it can’t be measured—overall emissions reduction. I’m going to come back to another point later that is separate from your report. In the meantime, it’s important to actually know how policies are or aren’t affecting measurable outcomes. Is it right to assume that that’s why you focused on this issue in your report? If not, what was the reason?  

Ms Mellor: It’s typical for us to look at a program. In this case it was a set of activities that are done by the department of climate change et cetera. Then we generally look at the governance, the activity and then the monitoring of the activity. So reporting on the success of a set of activities or an activity is typically what we do, in looking at whether or not the expenditure—the activity—is meeting the outcomes required. It’s not unusual for us to have a criterion that says, ‘Is this being monitored and reported effectively?’  

Senator ROBERTS: But you’ll go beyond that and look at the overall governance of the monitoring and everything.  

Ms Mellor: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: If the actual specific effect of policies isn’t being measured, then surely it’s very difficult to measure success or failure, and that’s what your report found—that the department can’t demonstrate those specific effects.  

Ms Mellor: Our report found, as I think Ms Horton has said, that we couldn’t see that line of sight across each of the measures that it was monitoring and about what the measurement showed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Now I’d like to come back to what I foreshadowed a minute ago. There are two measurements that should be in place, I believe. One is the measurement of the amount of carbon dioxide produced from human activity. That’s one thing. But then surely we should be measuring the effect of that carbon dioxide from human activity on a climate variable such as temperature, snowfall, ocean temperature or whatever. Do you see what I’m getting at?  

Ms Mellor: I can, but it wouldn’t be for me to comment on a government policy on those things, no matter who the government is. It’s our job to audit whether or not people are doing, within that policy, what they said they would do. It wouldn’t be for me to strain to what’s appropriate policy or what’s appropriate measurement. It’s whether or not what’s in the policy is being delivered and being measured.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me just check my understanding there again, Ms Mellor. If the policy said that the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity is this quantity and we need to therefore cut the production of carbon dioxide by this quantity, then you would measure or assess both. But, if they don’t have one of them in there, then you’ll only measure what’s in the policy.  

Ms Mellor: It’s very hard to speculate. In a government policy, we would look at how it’s being implemented; whether the implementation is being monitored; what the monitoring shows; and, if there was an outcome overarching that, how that measurement contributes to that outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t want to engage in a conversation, because that’s not correct nor appropriate for Senate estimates. It strikes me, though, that to be able to have a policy on emissions reduction you need to have the specific effect of those emissions on some climate variable: temperature, rainfall, snowfall, drought, storms or whatever. Then you measure against that. Without that specific effect quantified, it would be impossible to actually assess different alternatives to implementation, different strategies, and would be impossible to assess or track progress towards achievement of the goals. Am I on the right track?  

Ms Mellor: The ANAO can only audit what’s in front of it. If we go in to audit something of that broad nature, we have to look at what’s in place, how it’s being managed, how it’s being reported and whether that meets the outcome—and not whether the outcome is right.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. In your work for various departments, has anyone specified the effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate or any part of climate?  

Ms Mellor: It’s not something we’ve audited, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?  

Ms Mellor: Not specifically.  

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t think so, because no-one has been able to tell me that amount.  

Ms Mellor: Not specifically that we’ve audited.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?  

Ms Mellor: We haven’t specifically audited in that space. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.  

/by

Billions Spent and “Closing the Gap” Remains. Why?

,

At the recent Senate Estimates, I asked Senator McCarthy about her knowledge of the extensive achievements of Indigenous peoples, to which she affirmed her awareness. However, she was unable to explain why the gap remained despite the billions of dollars being spent to achieve this. Senator McCarthy declined to commit to an audit, despite it being evident that the numerous Indigenous agencies were the cause not the solution to the issue.

Senator McCarthy showed no interest in discussing the substantial funds spent by the NIAA in contracts that seemed to make some individuals wealthy yet did not assist in closing the gap efforts. Once more, I called for a proper and thorough audit and review of the massive spending that failed to improve the quality of life for Aboriginal communities.

I reiterated the necessity for funds to be directly paid to communities, bypassing agencies that have essentially become part of the Aboriginal industry, draining much needed resources from Aboriginal communities.

Transcript | Session 1

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you agree with the reality that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are hugely talented? They are top in NRL, AFL, arts, business, science and sports; and, in politics, there is a higher proportion of Aboriginals in federal parliament than across Australia.

Senator McCarthy: I do.

Senator ROBERTS: I thought you would; I was hoping you would. I have driven to all Cape York communities twice, and some three times. I’ve flown or boated into Torres Strait Island communities. Minister, do you agree that people in communities care for each other?

Senator McCarthy: I do. Chair, could I ask about the relevance of this to the budget questioning?

Senator ROBERTS: I am getting to that now. Thank you, Minister. An overwhelming majority of Australians in every jurisdiction, except this Australian Capital Territory ivory tower, disconnected as it is from Australians, voted in the Voice referendum that Aboriginals and islanders already have plenty of voices, in addition to the voices of the fine Aboriginal senators in this room. I note that all of them are women.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am struggling to identify the relevance of this question to estimates.

Senator ROBERTS: Aboriginals and islanders have many other voices. Minister, these include registered Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations, 3,521, including 243 native title bodies; 12,966 charities and not-for-profit commissions providing aid to Aboriginals; land councils, 48, not including state land councils; regional councils, 35; Aboriginal—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you will need to come to a question because you have gone through so much information and opinion that it will be impossible to discern what the question is. Refrain from making a lengthy statement with excessive commentary, and try and put your question. Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, can you consider the possibility that this morass of bodies, often with overlapping, disjointed responsibility, is part of the core problem, not the solution?

Senator McCarthy: No, I don’t, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I hope you agree that patronising paternalism and top-down approaches fail to get buy-in of people on the ground, Minister. Isn’t that why such approaches fail, top-down?

Senator McCarthy: I will say that your question is quite patronising and top-down, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Failing to get buy-in, top-down approaches fail to get accountability. Is that correct?

Senator McCarthy: I’ve answered your question. Your questions are very patronising. There is no question here that is related to the budget, Chair.

Senator ROBERTS: The Closing the Gap annual report is very clear. There is the total failure in closing the gap, with only four of 17 targets being met, or goals achieved, and some actually worsening. I’m sure you would acknowledge that symbolic gestures and overreach promises have not achieved better outcomes for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.

Senator McCarthy: I reject the assertion that symbolism is not important, Senator Roberts. I come from a very strong people, of the Yanyuwa Garrwa people. We’re enormously proud not only of our language but of our history and our current status as artists, dancers and singers. In fact, we have the Malandarri Festival coming up. We celebrate culture and symbolism every day, every year; so I reject your question.

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps I didn’t explain my question clearly enough.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I couldn’t discern a question, apart from the commentary in it. Please come to your question.

Senator ROBERTS: My question was about acknowledging that symbolic gestures are not closing the gap. When I have travelled across communities in Far North Queensland and in the Northern Territory, listening to local Aboriginal people, I found that they know the solution. I was told that there are many people who relied on keeping the gap wide because those people were working the system and their livelihood depended on the ongoing failure of Closing the Gap programs. I recall a Badu Island councillor—I might have told you this before, Minister—who told us that the Closing the Gap campaign ensures that money continues to go into the pockets of consultants, activists, lawyers, bureaucrats, contractors, politicians, academics and advocates, rorting the system of Aboriginal welfare grants and programs to entrench the gap. This hurts the people in the communities. That’s my real concern here—the people in the communities. The Aboriginal industry depends on the gap being maintained, not closed. Minister, are you aware of this?

Senator McCarthy: Senator Roberts, I will say this to you: the whole point behind Closing the Gap is so that the Australian parliament and the Australian community can be aware of the discrepancies between the life expectancy of First Nations people and non-Indigenous Australians, and the unemployment gap, the education gap and the employment gap. That is the whole point of Closing the Gap. There are many levels and many layers of that. The important one that you are a part of is the institution that you are sitting in right now, and that is to hold to account whether Closing the Gap is working or not and whether the gaps can be filled in different ways. Your representation of Queensland as a senator is part of that. Your questions in this Senate estimates hearing to the relevant departments are absolutely critical. I reject outright that Closing the Gap in itself, in terms of our work with the peak organisations, is irrelevant. It is very relevant. It is an imperfect structure, but it is one that is trying to do its best in terms of trying to improve the lives of First Nations people in our country in a collective and transparent way, and it is one that is held highly by this institution called the Australian parliament.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I treat my constituents the same, regardless of their background. I listen to them. Many people of Aboriginal descent are telling me that the system is failing; that the Closing the Gap system, the morass of agencies, is actually hindering the closing of the gap.

Senator McCarthy: Senator, you are here at Senate estimates to ask those very agencies those very questions. You may have an opinion dedicated—

Senator ROBERTS: No, it’s not my opinion; I’m telling you my constituents’ opinions.

Senator McCarthy: You may have a view as a result of your constituents, but your question as to what is happening can go directly to an agency. What is the question that constituent is asking you to ask?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this government has continually refused to authorise an audit of government spending in this sector. The morass of agencies is doing more damage than—

Senator McCarthy: So those are the words of your constituent: the ‘morass’ and the ‘damage’?

Senator ROBERTS: What is being hidden? Why won’t you conduct an audit of these agencies to help the people in the communities?

Senator McCarthy: We have the Australian National Audit Office. In this institution, high levels of audits are constantly taking place. This Senate estimates process, whether you understand it or not, is another form, and a very important form, of transparency and accountability. You have every agency before you. The minister is trying not to speak to enable you the opportunity to directly ask the questions of the agencies. You have the power to represent your constituency and, Senator Roberts, in the couple of minutes in which you are asking these questions, you are failing to do that.

Senator ROBERTS: That may be your opinion, Minister. Let me tell you that in my questioning of the Australian National Audit Office, they don’t do specific audits; they do overall audits of processes, and that’s it.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, come to your question.

Senator ROBERTS: I am just answering the minister. Will this government accept the recommendations of the Productivity Commission to move away from bureaucracy at a high level; in other words, from making uninformed decisions from an ivory tower, and do an audit?

Senator McCarthy: It depends on the Productivity Commission report you are referring to, Senator Roberts. The Productivity Commission is there to give advice on how processes occur. The most recent productivity commission that I recall was on a First Nations area and collaboration, and the voices of First Nations people that need to be heard. The Australian people rejected that at the referendum. We have to ensure that the status quo is better.

Senator ROBERTS: When will this group accept the advice from grassroots Indigenous groups such as Western Australia’s Empowered Communities and its chair Mr Ian Trust as to what works and what does not work based on real life experiences and successes? When will it get away from the top-down, patronising, paternalistic approach of so many agencies and get down to what people need?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you are putting lengthy statements and commentary into questions.

Senator ROBERTS: When will you start addressing the needs of people in the communities?

Senator McCarthy: Senator Roberts, you said as much in your preamble. You have a responsibility to ask questions of the agencies here—

Senator ROBERTS: And the government.

Senator McCarthy: And the government. You used the example of an individual from far Western Australia, but you didn’t state the purpose behind what they raised. Senator, if you really wanted to improve the lives of First Nations people you would ask questions diligently, and you would do so with the agencies that are relevant to that question.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I have faith; why doesn’t the government have faith in Aboriginal—

Transcript | Session 2

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. How much money did the NIAA spend on the doomed voice referendum?

Dr Gordon: Good afternoon, Senator Roberts, I don’t have that exact figure with me, but we’ll be able to get that quickly this afternoon to you.

Senator ROBERTS: If not, I’ll put it on notice. What difference would that money have made if provided directly to local Aboriginal communities to spend on their decisions and actually make a difference?

Ms Guivarra: Senator, although we don’t have the figures with us, you may be aware from previous testimony at other hearings that the majority of the expenditure on the referendum was actually with the Australian Electoral Commission. NIAA received a very small proportion of funding for issues associated with the referendum working group meetings and a civics and awareness campaign. Really, as I said, it was a very small proportion of the overall expenditure on the referendum.

Senator ROBERTS: My concerns are not only with the amount of money spent but with the effectiveness of it. That’s why I asked the question about whether it would be better spent with the communities. Let’s continue. Looking at NIAA figures obtained through freedom of information—seeking moneys that NIAA spent—why are such large amounts provided to particular contractors? Barpa Construction Services has received almost $613 million.

Ms Guivarra: Senator, are you referring to overall expenditure under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, not related to the referendum?

Senator ROBERTS: No, overall money that NIAA has spent. I think the previous man said something like 1,200 grants or 2,000 grants.

Mr Dexter: Senator, I think you might be referring to some information that was released under FOI to do with the Indigenous Procurement Policy over the last several months. The Indigenous Procurement Policy is a whole-of-Commonwealth policy that provides preferential procurement practices for registered Indigenous businesses. Barpa Construction did ring a bell with me as one of the businesses that were released as receiving a certain amount of money.

Senator ROBERTS: $613 million, I’m told.

Mr Dexter: I believe that was an amount that Barpa has received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy, which is not necessarily—in fact it’s Indigenous Advancement Strategy money. It’s a collection. The Indigenous Procurement Policy and the reporting under it is a collection of all of the contracts that organisation has received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what they were paid for? If it’s outside your accountability, that’s fine.

Mr Dexter: No, Senator, I wouldn’t know. That that would need to be directed to the agency that engaged them.

Senator ROBERTS: What about Evolve FM Proprietary Limited, which received almost $497 million?

Mr Dexter: That would be in the same category, Senator. There were a number of FOI requests that were made recently which were asking for the aggregate amounts that Indigenous businesses had received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy over the life of the policy. The Indigenous Procurement Policy is a policy that’s been in place since 2015. It’s resulted in about $9.5 billion going to Indigenous businesses over that period of time. I think one of the questions that we got under the FOI was: ‘What are the top 100 businesses that have received money through that policy?’ Evolve and Barpa were both on that list.

Senator ROBERTS: What about PricewaterhouseCoopers, disgraced consultants, who’ve received almost $50 million?

Mr Dexter: I’d need to check, Senator, but I would hazard a guess that it was not PricewaterhouseCoopers itself but rather PwC’s Indigenous Consulting, which is a separate entity.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you check on both those items, please.

Mr Dexter: I’d be happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total amount of NIAA money spent over the eight-year period to companies providing contract services?

Ms Guivarra: We’ll have to get some other colleagues up for that, Senator.

Ms Broun: Senator, could you repeat that question?

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total amount that NIAA spent over that eight-year period to companies providing contract services? That’s the eight years to January 2024.

Ms Jackson: I don’t know if we’ve got the eight-year amounts with us. We’d have the last couple of years, which we can go into if you like, but otherwise we can take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Take it on notice, thank you. Presumably it’s several millions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars. With that kind of money and other moneys being injected into Aboriginal wellbeing, why is the gap not being closed?

Ms Broun: Senator, clearly the evidence is that there are gaps in outcomes for First Nations people. Closing the Gap is designed and has been designed with our partners, particularly the Coalition of Peaks but all states and territories, to address those gaps. I’m a bit confused by your question in terms of ‘there’s some spending here, so that would have changed the outcomes over there’, because obviously there are different outcomes depending on different areas of government as well. I’d like to be a bit more specific about your question.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned that there’s a huge amount of money being spent, and it’s going through agencies, but it’s not closing the gap. Why isn’t it closing the gap?

Ms Guivarra: Senator, the majority of your questions are related to what we’ve done under the Indigenous Procurement Policy. The original intention of the Indigenous Procurement Policy obviously was to support Indigenous businesses, because we know that in fact Indigenous businesses also have a higher employment rate for Indigenous people as well, First Nations people. As Mr Dexter has said, we’ve had a lot of success with that—over 65,000 contracts with a total value of $9.5 billion worth of business going to First Nations businesses as a result of that Indigenous Procurement Policy.

Ms Broun: You may be aware that in fact the assistant minister launched a review of the Indigenous Procurement Policy back in December. We opened up a consultation process for that review. It closed, I think, around March of this year. We’re going to take the learnings from all of that and see what further improvements we can make to continue what, I think, has been a success story just in relation to the generation of Indigenous business and creation of Indigenous employment.

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re telling me there’s been a review of money given to Indigenous businesses. What I would like to know is: is there a review being conducted, or any idea of a review to be conducted, on spending of all kinds? Could that money instead be going directly to the communities to develop accountability and autonomy? Communities are screaming out for autonomy.

Ms Guivarra: Senator, as I indicated, in fact this review and consultation was really to see how we can further strengthen the Indigenous Procurement Policy because, as I mentioned, it has been very successful in awarding business to First Nations businesses and creating employment opportunities for First Nations people.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I acknowledged that and said: can you extend it to a review of all spending? And specifically can you send the money directly to the communities and bypass the agencies?

Ms Guivarra: The money associated with the Indigenous Procurement Policy is basically services contracted across all of government. Then it’s for each agency to decide whether they’re seeking to procure services from businesses, including First Nations businesses. The Indigenous Procurement Policy has a mandatory set-aside for First Nations businesses as part of that policy, which applies across government agencies. There has been interest in the community more broadly about what can be done to further to enhance that particular policy, and that’s the purpose of the review.

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I acknowledged that twice. But what I’d like to know is: is there any consideration being given to reviewing expenditure across NIAA, not just on procurement?

Ms Broun: Senator, obviously spending on Indigenous outcomes—and this is why we have cross-portfolio here—cuts across all of government to deliver outcomes in specific portfolio areas and specific policy areas. In NIAA we have the IAS, a large part of which has been employment services. Another part is ranger services. To your point, that goes particularly to communities on the ground, so it is focused on those sorts of things. Then there are a whole range of other programs that are supplementary to mainstream funding. But these are services that citizens are entitled to. It depends how you quantify the spending, but the different programs are there to deliver different outcomes for Indigenous people. We could go into the programs that are specifically designed with community and go directly to community, because there are a lot of those sorts of programs as well. They’re not all being delivered through departments, but on the ground as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’ll continue this in the future.

/by

ABS Data Important for Evaluating COVID Response

,

I don’t speak the bureaucratic jargon used in Canberra, so sometimes the bureaucrats struggle to grasp a straightforward question in plain English. It took some time for the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to understand my question, which was about our high migrant intake from a health perspective.

For years, Australians were mandated to get vaccinated. They couldn’t access certain places or participate in activities without being vaccinated. The latest COVID mandates were only lifted for firefighters and healthcare workers just last month.

The ABS is responsible for maintaining official records on these matters, particularly provisional and final mortality reports. I asked whether they have records of the vaccination status of new arrivals so that vaccination rates of all Australians (both new and existing) could be graphed against known health outcomes. I sort of received a response, but the reality is the ABS does not know the vaccination status of the 2.3 million new arrivals, rendering any data they generate inherently inaccurate. This also applies to births by vaccination status, suggesting that new arrivals from countries where vaccination wasn’t pushed have a higher birth rate compared to vaccinated Australians.

This data is really important for two main reasons: first, to understand the harm our COVID response did to Australians and second, to assist in the planning and resourcing of the next response. I will continue questioning the accuracy and relevance of ABS data.

Transcript

CHAIR: I might share the call and come back. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. It’s good to see you, Dr Gruen. Do you know the COVID vaccination status of the 2.3 million new arrivals under the current government? Is that data you’re provided with?  

Dr Gruen: No, I don’t think we know the vaccination status of immigrants—at least, not that I’m aware.  

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t think so. It’s just striking that we locked down the whole population and mandated a shot that’s still experimental—in fact, for some people it’s still mandated—yet we’re letting people in without any question.  

Senator Gallagher: Senator Roberts, there isn’t a mandatory vaccination program now in the country. It’s a voluntary vaccination program.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, there are still some states and employers that are doing it. 

Senator Gallagher: As a requirement of their employment?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Senator Gallagher: Well, the Commonwealth vaccination program is a voluntary program.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not if you’re in the Department of Defence, Australian Electoral Commission or aged care. It doesn’t exist anymore—I accept that—but it was never voluntary. If someone on a temporary visa, people who can be here for 20 years, has a baby, does that count as a domestic birth? 

Dr Gruen: I’m not quite sure. You mean it’s a birth in this country?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’m sorry; I didn’t make that clear. People can be here for 20 years on a temporary visa. If they have a baby while they’re in Australia, does that count as a domestic birth?  

Dr Gruen: I’m not sure that we have a category called ‘domestic births’.  

Senator ROBERTS: So they’re all lumped in?  

Dr Gruen: No, I’m just saying that I’d have to look at exactly what the categories are in our birth data. I haven’t got our birth data with us.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice, please?  

Dr Gruen: Certainly.  

Senator ROBERTS: If we got a temporary arrival in this country who was not vaccinated and had a baby, they could be providing an inaccurate picture of the Australian domestic birthrate post COVID. If there’s a problem—and some gynaecologists are saying that there certainly is—then that would be covering up a decrease in the birthrate.  

Dr Gruen: I don’t think I understand. Most people are free not to get vaccinated if they choose, whether they’re immigrants or whether they live here. 

Senator ROBERTS: There are studies and also anecdotal reports of a significant decrease in birthrate.  

Dr Gruen: I think we’ve had this discussion before, when you were suggesting that the birthrate in December had plummeted, and we explained to you that that was preliminary data. I think I said to you at the time that people who give birth have got other things on their mind than making sure that their reports are up to date with births, deaths and marriages. As we demonstrated to you at the time, there is no decline in birthrate in December. That was simply a function of looking at preliminary data, and, when the data was more complete, that effect went away.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I understand that. But, if we don’t trap immigrants by their vaccination status and they have a baby here, then it could be covering up any decrease in birthrate.  

Dr Gruen: We measure the birthrate.  

Senator ROBERTS: If we’re bringing in foreigners who are having babies her, and we’ve had a domestic decline in birthrates, then that’s covering it up. That’s the reason for my question. How do you categorise people?  

Dr Gruen: We look at the resident population and we also record births. But I don’t understand the implication of whether people are vaccinated or not, because the same statements would be true of people who grew up here and chose not to be vaccinated.  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, but we don’t know because we don’t really have an assessment of the population now because of the inference—  

Dr Gruen: I think I do. We have just as good an assessment as we ever did, I think.  

Senator Gallagher: Births would be captured through state hospital systems that wouldn’t discriminate on visa status.  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. That’s my point. Do you know what I’m getting it?  

Senator Gallagher: Okay.  

Dr Gruen: All the people who usually live in Australia, regardless of visa status, are included in the statistics.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you trap any data by COVID vaccination status—births, deaths, illness, employment—anything at all?  

Dr Gruen: The Australian Immunisation Register records vaccination status for people who are vaccinated, and that data is linked in our integrated data asset, which goes by the name of Person Level Integrated Data Asset. Researchers have done an analysis using the link between the Australian Immunisation Register and other datasets to examine all sorts of questions of relevance. The department of health used that link to find out which language groups in the community had low-vaccination uptake during COVID, and there have been researchers at the University of New South Wales that have looked at mortality by vaccination status. That was a paper published in the Lancet. So the data exists, and it is available to researchers who are doing research that is assessed to be in the public interest, but it’s individual data that has been de-identified and is kept in a secure environment to be worked on. It’s not data that gets published on our website.  

Senator ROBERTS: No. Given the minister said there are no vaccine mandates at the moment—  

Dr Gruen: I think she said there were no Commonwealth government vaccine mandates. 

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. That’s true. I’m taking it from what you’re saying then that you don’t trap data by COVID vaccination status, births, deaths, illness, employment or anything else like that.  

Dr Gruen: The answer would be that you could uncover that by linking the Australian Immunisation Register to other datasets that capture that information. But, for instance, in our labour force survey we don’t ask about vaccination status.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your data on COVID deaths shows deaths by ethnicity, and people were saying that that was very handy to have and it’s significant, with some nationalities having three times the death rate from COVID as the Australian average, as you pointed out.  

Dr Gruen: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I hope our health officials are now trying to work out why they’re different outcomes— and some of them are. I notice, however, that you are removing ethnicity from the 2026 census. How is that helping—  

Dr Gruen: We’re not removing ethnicity from the 2026 Census. We never collected ethnicity in any of the censuses, so it’s not a removal.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, my mistake.  

Dr Gruen: That’s okay.  

Senator ROBERTS: Moving on to inflation—  

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’ll be one of a series. I’m just flagging that I’ll come back to this topic when we come back again. Moving on to inflation, your official interest rate does not agree with the perception everyday Australians have—  

Senator Gallagher: That’s not—  

Dr Gruen: Hang on. The official interest rate is the Reserve Bank; we publish the CPI.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s a correction. Your CPI—  

Dr Gruen: The Consumer Price Index. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your CPI does not agree with the perception everyday Australians have of how much things are going up. Let’s unpack that: the measure you use for inflation is a basket of goods—  

Dr Gruen: Yes, and services.  

Senator ROBERTS: thank you—which changes more frequently than people might realise.  

Dr Gruen: The basket?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, the components in the basket. What’s in the shopping basket?  

Dr Gruen: The basket is enormous. For instance, we capture every item—in a de-identified way—that is sold in the four major supermarkets. It’s a very extensive measure.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the last change of weighting, the category of recreation and culture increased by 16 per cent. That category happened to be one of the leading disinflationary categories dragging down the CPI figure. Are you telling Australians that in the middle of the worst cost-of-living crisis in decades they are spending 16 per cent more on recreation and culture than a year ago?  

Dr Gruen: I don’t have the weights for the CPI in front of me, but I’m happy to take that on notice. Do you mean 16 percentage points or 16 per cent?  

Senator ROBERTS: The weighting of the category of recreation and culture increased by 16 per cent.  

Dr Gruen: We can check that. I can tell you that we update the weights every year so that they are an accurate reflection of expenditure by average households in the capital cities. That’s the point of the exercise. Most of the time, those weights change gradually, but I don’t have in my head the particular weight that you are talking about.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll return to that topic in the next one. 

/8 Comments/by

AHPRA’s Cultural Safety Strategy Draws Criticism

,

I asked the representative of AHPRA about the directive that is written into the Cultural Safety Strategy which requires all registered health practitioners to acknowledge colonialism and systemic racism.

Their response? The policy was to denounce racism. I was critical of their policy, which is directing health practitioners what to think, say or do on political and cultural matters in a health setting.

This approach mirrors the strategy that was employed during the Voice Referendum, which was decisively rejected by the Australian public as being divisive.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Mr Fletcher. What’s going on with AHPRA? Since when did AHPRA take on a role to tell doctors that they must acknowledge Australian colonisation and systemic racism, which impacts on individual and community health, presumably? How? 

Mr Fletcher: I’m not entirely sure what you are referring to there. What’s the particular the document or piece that you’re referring to?  

Senator ROBERTS: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Strategy Group.  

Mr Fletcher: We have had now for a number of years an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and Cultural Safety Strategy. The oversight or guidance for that is led by a strategy group that brings together Aboriginal staff within AHPRA—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander board members as well as the national health Aboriginal group. It also reflects that, in our legislation, we have both objects and guiding principles that relate to the promotion of cultural safety for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the elimination of racism. This is a core part of our guiding principles and objects, and that strategy group, and the unit that we have within, AHPRA leads that work and implements that work.  

Senator ROBERTS: That lines up pretty much with what I was about to go on with. This is a national strategy called ‘cultural safety’, as you said, that’s based on totally unproven propositions of a political persuasion. Is this driven by the same elites, academics and vested-interest holders who pushed for the failed referendum on the Voice?  

Mr Fletcher: I don’t accept the premise of your question. The health and cultural safety strategy is about how we intend to address cultural safety and the elimination of racism for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across all of our work as a regulatory scheme.  

Senator ROBERTS: My question was: is this driven by the same elites, academics and vested interest holders who pushed for the failed referendum on the Voice?  

Mr Fletcher: I don’t know who you’re referring to there.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can answer the question—it is.  

CHAIR: Senator, you don’t need to answer the questions; just ask them, please.  

Senator ROBERTS: Wasn’t that referendum soundly defeated, Mr Fletcher? That referendum result showed that Australians rejected outright propositions that would ultimately divide Australians based on race. You’re asking doctors to treat people differently.  

Mr Fletcher: I can only repeat what I’ve said. In our legislation we have, in our objects and guiding principles, a requirement to promote cultural safety for First Nations people and to address the elimination of racism. So what we’re doing is looking at how we can implement that across all of the work we do as a regulatory scheme.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have it here in front of me on, page 2 from your website—’Definition of cultural safety for the national scheme,’ it goes on. Then it says, ‘Cultural safety definition,’ and ‘principles,’ and then it says, ‘definition,’ and then it says, ‘how to’. These are the instructions: To ensure culturally safe and respectful practice, health practitioners must: • Acknowledge colonisation and systemic racism, social, cultural, behavioural and economic factors which impact individual and community health.  

CHAIR: What’s the question, Senator Roberts?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m getting to the question now. The referendum was soundly defeated. How much is AHPRA spending to enforce this untrue fiction that is of no benefit in closing the gap?  

Senator McCarthy: Point of order, Chair.  

CHAIR: Yes.  

Senator McCarthy: The referendum was only about one question: to have a Voice or not to have a Voice to the parliament. That is totally not within the standing orders, in terms of the questions that Senator Roberts is putting to Mr Fletcher. I just point it out, Chair.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll rephrase the question.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. Before you do rephrase it—I have been listening carefully. Senator Roberts, you know there’s a very broad scope here, but you do need to ask questions within the scope of what Mr Fletcher is here to present on, which is the operations and expenditure of his agency. I also remind you that AHPRA attends voluntarily to our committee.  

Senator ROBERTS: And they push directives on and force doctors and nurses—  

CHAIR: Just come to the question, please, Senator. 

Senator McCarthy: Point of order. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, please come to the question.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much is AHPRA spending to enforce this what I call ‘untrue fiction’ that is of no benefit in closing the gap?  

CHAIR: Can I just clarify for Mr Fletcher that you are referring to a certain guideline? I don’t have it in front of me. Perhaps you could table it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.  

CHAIR: Mr Fletcher, it’s open to you, if you feel able to answer that question, if you understand the relevance of that question to your agency.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s as Mr Fletcher said: the national strategy called cultural safety.  

CHAIR: Mr Fletcher?  

Mr Fletcher: There are probably two comments that I’d make to the question. One is that there was a lot of work done in the development of that health and cultural safety strategy to work with stakeholders around an agreed definition of cultural safety. The second comment that I would make is that we do have a health strategy unit within AHPRA that leads our work on the implementation of that strategy, and that is staffed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much is AHPRA spending to enforce this strategy, as you call it, that is of no benefit to closing the gap? How much?  

Mr Fletcher: Again, I don’t accept the premise of your question, but if you’re asking—we have a range of activities to implement that strategy across our work as a regulatory scheme. I don’t have the figure in front of me of exactly what we’re spending on that, but if you want me to, for example, give you an idea of how much we’re spending in relation to work of the health strategy unit, I can take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Fletcher. What is AHPRA prepared to do to enforce such an edict?  

Mr Fletcher: I can give you examples of some of the work that we’re doing. For example, we’re doing work in the area of continuing professional development, looking at what might be some of the elements of continuing professional development for registered health practitioners around questions of cultural safety and elimination of racism for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We do a lot of outreach with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioners in relation to their registration processes because we have a goal to increase the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across all of the regulated professions. We also have a specific board for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioners who are providing a lot of first-line services, particularly in rural and remote areas across Australia, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and peoples. We support the work of that board also.  

Senator ROBERTS: What would you do if a doctor or a nurse said that they are not prepared to acknowledge systemic racism or other factors? What would you do, because you have told them they must do it?  

Mr Fletcher: We would have a concern if there were any examples of racism in the way that the practitioner was treating an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person—  

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that—  

Mr Fletcher: and that would be looked at in the context of our process for dealing with notifications.  

Senator ROBERTS: Racism is abhorrent. I didn’t mention that. I just said that they refused to acknowledge systemic racism. I didn’t say if the doctor or nurse were racist. I asked: what would you do if they refuse to acknowledge systemic racism because they haven’t seen it or don’t believe that it exists?  

Mr Fletcher: As I said, the concern that would come to our attention, typically, would be if a concern were being raised that a health practitioner had acted in a racist way against an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. We would look at that as a notification in the way that we would look at any concern being expressed to us about a registered practitioner, with reference to the relevant code of conduct for that health profession.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying that only racists need to acknowledge it? I’m talking here about a doctor who is not a racist, who doesn’t believe there’s systemic racism, who doesn’t want to acknowledge colonisation, and he or she refuses to acknowledge that. You’re telling doctors what to think.  

CHAIR: Senator, I am listening to you very carefully. I am finding it difficult to make the link between the question you are asking and the operations and expenditure of AHPRA. I’ll allow Mr Fletcher an opportunity to respond, but I remind you that, although the scope is very broad, it does have to go to the operations and expenditure of the agency which you are questioning. Mr Fletcher, do you wish to respond?  

Mr Fletcher: I think I’ve made the comments that I wanted to make. 

Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, Chair, I talked about what it would cost, what they were prepared to do to enforce this—  

CHAIR: And I didn’t rule that out of order.  

Senator ROBERTS: and then I asked what they would do to enforce such an edict. That’s the question I want answered now.  

CHAIR: There was a lot of preamble, which, to me, bordered very much on matters of opinions, Senator Roberts. I haven’t ruled you out of order, but I’m asking you to keep your comments to the operations and expenditure of AHPRA and give Mr Fletcher some flexibility in the way that he answers that, given where I believe it sits on the spectrum of opinion and operations and expenditure. Senator, you have one more question, then it’s time to rotate the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will this direction extend to 750,000 health practitioners and allied health professionals in Australia?  

Mr Fletcher: The commitment to the elimination of racism and cultural safety for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is in our legislation and applies to all of the regulated health professionals.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will this directive extend to the 750,000 health practitioners?  

Mr Fletcher: Senator, I think you’re referring to a strategy rather than a directive, and the strategy is looking at all of the regulated health professions in Australia.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts—  

Senator ROBERTS: It says health practitioners must—  

CHAIR: I will be passing the call now, Senator Roberts, to the opposition. I’m just confirming that’s Senator Rennick. Just before you do—yes, Minister?  

Senator McCarthy: Chair, if I may, in terms of some of the commentary by Senator Roberts, I would like to point out that within Closing the Gap, the concerns around cultural safety for health practitioners, certainly First Nations health practitioners, is a very real issue. I commend Mr Fletcher and AHPRA for the work that they’re doing in this space to support them. 
 
 

/2 Comments/by

Impacts of Climate Change Policy Unknown

,

The cost of living is skyrocketing, energy prices are going up and the economy is getting worse.

All of these things are being fuelled by the insane net-zero climate policies both sides of government have pursued over decades.

Despite this, an independent auditor has found that the responsible department can’t actually measure how much these economy-destroying policies is affecting anything, except your wallet.

With no measurements or KPIs in place, we’re giving a blank cheque to policies that could well be doing absolutely nothing or making the country worse.

It’s time we abandon the ridiculous net-zero completely. Australians have suffered enough.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. The Australian National Audit Office report by the title Governance of climate change commitments found that you are ‘unable to demonstrate the extent to which specific Australian government policies and programs have contributed or are expected to contribute towards overall emissions reduction’—’emissions’ meaning carbon dioxide from human activity. Last estimates, you said you disagreed with that, yet you agreed with all five recommendations from the auditor, didn’t you?  

Ms Geiger: Yes, we did agree with all the recommendations in the report.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Audit Office responded to you, disagreeing, and said: … DCCEEW does not have a single, structured plan or strategy that links activities being undertaken to the achievement of emissions reduction targets … … As outlined at paragraph 2.26, DCCEEW’s monitoring of the progress of climate- and energy-related work does not include an indication of what contribution measures will make towards emissions reduction targets. Because of this, DCCEEW is unable to demonstrate the impact of its work on climate change targets, as set out at paragraph 2.28 and in Recommendation no.1. That’s the end of the ANAO statement. Do you still maintain that you can demonstrate the specific, quantifiable effects your policies have had on the reduction of carbon dioxide from human activity, despite what the Audit Office said?  

Ms Geiger: We have a range of ways that we measure the impacts of our different climate change initiatives towards the emissions targets. Ms Rowley might be able to talk through the specifics that balance both the forward projections and the contributions that particular initiatives might make to our targets, as well as annual updates of how our emissions are tracking.  

Ms Rowley: As we discussed at the hearing in February, we do have a range of ways that the government tracks the progress towards its emissions reduction targets and quantifies the impact of its most important emissions reduction policies and measures. In our February hearing, I talked you through some of the specific findings from our 2023 emissions projections report, which is one of the key ways that we track progress towards our target, and explained—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me; you’re tracking progress in implementation with a projections report?  

Ms Rowley: We track both: progress to date in our National inventory report, which is published every year and reports on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions from all sources across the economy—that’s a backwards look; and our emissions projections, which are based on a range of assumptions looking forward, look at what current policies deliver in terms of our expected emissions for the future, and they run out to 2035.  

Senator ROBERTS: Just for clarification: are they actual impacts of the reduction of carbon dioxide from human activity or just reductions in carbon dioxide from human activity?  

Ms Rowley: It covers all greenhouse gases, not just carbon dioxide. The projections include detail of the projected impact of some of our major emissions reduction policies and measures.  

Senator ROBERTS: That doesn’t answer the question. What would be the impact of those projected decreases, and what is the impact of the reductions to date? Do we see any difference in temperature? Do we see any difference in rainfall, snowfall, storm severity, frequency, duration, droughts, floods, sea levels? What are the specific impacts? 

Ms Rowley: If you’re talking about the impact of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate, obviously the global climate and the observed impacts of climate change are a function of Australia and all other countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. The key reports that we refer to in our work and draw on are things like the IPCC assessment reports, as well as work done domestically by groups like CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology. That looks at the impacts of climate change to date, which, as I said, are the cumulative effect of global greenhouse gas emissions. It is, I think, rather more difficult to attribute any single change in the tonnes of emissions from Australia to specific changes in the global climate, not least because it is a cumulative effect. But it is also very important to note that the cumulative effect of climate change is reflective of global greenhouse gas emissions and that, with the reduction in the global greenhouse gas emissions, the projected impacts—and, over time, the observed impacts—of climate change will be less, and Australia is contributing to that as part of the global action on climate change.  

Senator ROBERTS: It sounds like the ANAO was right. The Australian National Audit Office was absolutely correct. You cannot measure the impact of what you’re doing, and you’re not.  

Ms Rowley: I think that the ANAO was particularly interested in drawing connections between Australia’s policies and measures and Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. And, as I said, our emissions reports—both backward looking, through the inventory, and forward looking, through the projections—do seek to quantify the impact of policies and measures on Australia’s emissions. As I said, that’s just one of many things that we do to track the implementation and progress. Specific policies and measures, when they’re out for consultation, include analysis of the likely impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. For example, recent consultations on the new vehicle efficiency standard included specific analysis of the likely impact on greenhouse gas emissions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me; that’s not what I’m after. We’ve already discussed that you can project reductions in carbon dioxide, but you can’t tell me what the impact will be. You claim you can. Can you please provide on notice the specific quantifiable effect of each of your policies, since you claim you have that? So let’s have that, please. Can you provide it on notice?  

Ms Rowley: I think perhaps you’re making a different point to the ANAO’s. The ANAO was interested on the impact on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions from our policies and measures. You’re asking about the impact of Australia’s mitigation action on global climate change. Is that correct?  

Senator ROBERTS: No; I’m asking about what the impact is on climate factors like temperature, snowfall, rainfall, drought severity, frequency and duration. We have been told the world is coming to an end—that these things are going to happen. I would like to know the impact of your specific reductions on those climate factors.  

Ms Rowley: As I said, those are intermediated through global emissions and global action.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t provide it?  

Ms Rowley: We can certainly provide, as we have in the past, information about both the global outlook and the impact of global reductions in emissions.  

Senator ROBERTS: No-one anywhere in the world, Ms Rowley, has provided the specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate factor—no-one ever.  

Ms Rowley: Senator, I’m not sure that that’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you can prove me wrong, I would love to have that. If you can take that on notice, that would be great—the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate factors, such as air temperature, troposphere temperatures, stratosphere temperature, heat content of the air, heat content of the ocean, heat exchange and storm frequency, severity and duration. You pick them.  

Ms Geiger: We accept the international science on the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change.  

Senator ROBERTS: I know you do. That’s what bothers me.  

Ms Geiger: We can provide on notice further background on that. But the premise is that we accept—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not interested in further background; I’m interested in hard specific numbers that should be and must be the basis of any policy that is going to gut our energy sector. The specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate factor is what I want to see. That’s what I want to see. I’m happy for you to take it on notice. Let’s move on to the freedom of information request that I put in. The request was LEX76280 and was in relation to the Powering Australia Tracker. You redacted a single measure on page six of that document. What’s that measure, please? 

Ms Geiger: I understand that the freedom of information request was about the tracker. My colleague Dr Mitchell might have that information to hand.  

Senator ROBERTS: The one that was redacted on page six.  

Dr Mitchell: We have provided the response that explains why that line was redacted in more detail. It said that it’s redacted on the basis of cabinet in confidence.  

Senator ROBERTS: Really? Can you take on notice to provide a table with all of the policies in the Powering Australia Tracker, detailing the cost of each of them by year over the past three years and their budget over the forwards?  

Ms Geiger: We can take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let’s move to fuel security. We covered the minimum stock holding obligations for petrol, diesel and jet fuel at some length last Senate estimates. You gave to me on notice, in SQ24000046, that the refineries may also report crude oil and unfinished stock as liquid fuel. Do you have a breakdown of how much of the reported stock holding is actually finished liquid fuel versus crude oil—not a projected conversion of existing crude into future petrol, diesel or jet fuel, but the actual quantities of the four measures, as it exists now?  

Mrs Svarcas: Just so I’m really clear, for the MSO obligation, you’re asking how much of the crude oil do we count as petrol, jet fuel and diesel?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Can you also provide to me the actual amount, right now, of crude oil as it is, jet fuel as it is, petrol as it is and diesel as it is, and not projected conversions of crude oil into those things?  

Mrs Svarcas: I will have to take on notice the projected for crude oil into those things. The MSO does allow, under the reporting obligations, for an entity to effectively say they’ve got a bucket of crude oil, and they will be converting X amount of it through their normal operations—and how much of that is going to be diesel, how much of that is going to be jet fuel et cetera. I would have to take on notice how much of the crude is crude, if you will, and how much is fuel.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’d be good. You explained previously how there’s the domestic minimum stockholding obligation for petrol, diesel and jet fuel put in place by the government then there’s the International Energy Agency agreement for 90 days of crude oil. Last estimates, you told me we were at 55 International Energy Agency days of crude oil. What’s the latest figure for that, and is all of that stock in Australia’s exclusive economic zone here?  

Mrs Svarcas: The actual figure of that today—the last report was from March 2024—is 53 days and that figure captures all of the things. It might be helpful if I describe what’s captured in that. It’s crude oil as crude oil. It’s diesel, petrol and jet fuel. It also includes other refined products. For example, the oil that you would put into your car is included under the definition provided to us by the IEA. It’s those stocks that are on land in Australia and in our domestic waters. But, importantly, the difference between the IEA days and the MSO calculation is that it does not include the product that’s in our EEZ; it’s just the product that’s in Australian waters or physically in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: So is there any double counting then?  

Mrs Svarcas: No, there’s no double counting. There’s a difference between a vessel that is in Australian waters—how it’s included in the IEA days—and stock that is in the EEZ that is counted in the MSO days. It might also be useful, if you’ll indulge me, to explain the difference between the measures that we have in place so that you can get an idea of what we use it for. As I described, the IEA days are one single calculation of all of the fuel and fuel products as defined by the IEA. We also have our consumption cover days. They’re the days that we report every month publicly, and you’ll find those on our website. They are a measure of how long the stock will last. So they give us a really good indication of what we’ve got every month, and how long, based on average consumption, that will last. That’s all publicly available. Then we also have the MSO, which is slightly different, and the purpose of that measure is to set that minimum stockholding obligation to give us the insurance policy of making sure, from our perspective, how much fuel, liquid fuels and things we should have in Australia should there be a market disruption. So the purpose of each of those reportings is slightly different, which is why what goes into them—what we count and how we count them—is also slightly different, because they have different purposes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to the numbers that you’re going to give me. Our strategic reserve—  

CHAIR: If you’ve finished that line of questioning, we will need to rotate. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve just one more question on strategic reserve. You told me at last Senate estimates that Australia has sold all of the oil reserves in the United States’ strategic reserve?  

Mrs Svarcas: That is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was 1.7 million barrels—nearly two years ago—in June 2022. That hasn’t been reported anywhere, as I understand it.  

Mrs Svarcas: No, I believe it was publicly reported. I’ll be happy to table that report.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did anyone at the department announce that the 1.7 million barrels had been sold?  

Mrs Svarcas: Like I said, I believe it was. I’m happy to be corrected if my evidence is wrong but I do believe it was made public at the time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/5 Comments/by

Minister Dodges Accountability as Border Force Grapples with Safety Concerns

,

At the recent Senate Estimates, I inquired with Border Force officials about what was needed to ensure the safety of Australians.  True to form, Minister Watt attempted to shift blame onto the previous government. He mentioned measures like monitoring and curfews, but refused to accept responsibility for detainee-related crimes, and failed to offer a reasonable solution. 

When asked about the government’s legislation regarding the re-detention of dangerous detainees, departmental representatives explained that it was a high bar to meet before requests could be put before a court seeking an Order.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Would you agree, Mr Outram and Ms Holben, that it’s a difficult issue? It’s a challenging issue. You’ve got safety considerations. You’ve got legal considerations—all the things you mentioned a minute ago, Mr Outram. It’s not easy.

Mr Outram: Running borders is challenging.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is, and it’s a fundamental duty of the federal government to keep our borders secure. To make it clearer and easier for us and safer for people, what are your greatest issues? What are the core
issues that you need to have addressed by the government?

Mr Outram: That’s a very wide-ranging question. I could talk for a very long time. Our functions fall into three areas, I suppose. One is the customs function that we undertake, which is of course about collection of duty revenue, management of and administration of the Customs Act, and ensuring that prohibited goods don’t get brought across our border.

Senator ROBERTS: I mean in relation to keeping people safe in this country and keeping our border secure. What do you need on this issue that we have been talking about at length for hours now?

Mr Outram: Preventing prohibited goods from coming in across our border keeps our country safe. So I’d say—

Senator ROBERTS: On this issue—

Mr Outram: the management of cargo is a big area for us. We have, as I said in my opening statement, a 70 per cent projected increase in cargo over the next ten years.

Senator ROBERTS: With respect, I’m trying to help you on this issue, which is about the safety of the citizens of this country and about dealing with hardened criminals, murderers, rapists and domestic violence offenders. I’d like to know: what are your biggest cost components? You’ve talked about surveillance. You’ve talked about so many different measures that you’ve had to do—’unprecedented’. Senator Ghosh was getting at a good point. But what do you need from us or what do you need from the government to fix this?

Mr Outram: As I said earlier on, our budget is sitting at unprecedented levels. There’s a lot of work going on behind the scenes in relation to our civil maritime capabilities. We’re working very closely with Defence and looking at how we put those capabilities on a more sustainable footing going forwards into the future. That will be really important.

Senator ROBERTS: You said that you have to comply with the law. I’m pleased to hear you say that. You said that you’ve got to do it within the legal regime you’ve got. What legal regime would you prefer? What fine-
tuning would you need?

Mr Outram: That’s really a policy question.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what do these people need to solve this problem?

Senator Watt: What was the question?

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve talked about unprecedented cost levels and unprecedented risks. What do we need to solve the problem?

Senator Watt: Sorry, what is the problem that you’re talking about?

Senator ROBERTS: Safety of people, keeping these murderers and other criminals in the country at the moment—how do we get rid of them? How do we protect people’s safety?

Senator Watt: What the government has been trying to do is to keep the Australian people safe. That’s why there are a range of cases that have had their visas cancelled with a view to deportation. Those people have been kept in detention during that time. As a result of a High Court decision and other legal decisions, the government’s attempt to keep these people in detention or deport them has been overturned. What we’ve done is follow the law, comply with the law, which I would hope that you would agree is needed, but we do it in a way that maximises the safety of the Australian people by putting into place—

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve also got—

Senator Watt: Hang on, can I just finish—by putting into place an unprecedented system of protection with electronic monitoring and curfews. We just heard in response to those questions from Senator Ghosh that, in the time Mr Dutton was the home affairs minister, it would appear that dozens of murderers, sex offenders and other offenders were released from detention without a single skerrick of protection like what this government is putting in place. There was not one electronic bracelet nor one curfew, and yet Mr Dutton and his cohorts are out there claiming that this government is not protecting the Australian people when we’re doing more than Mr Dutton ever did as the minister.

Senator ROBERTS: Will Minister Giles rescind directive 99? Will he stop people claiming to be Aboriginal connected to overturn a deportation order, failing character tests? Will directive 99—

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I think the chair has been clear that we’ve dealt with direction 99.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. Why has Labor not applied to redetain noncitizens who pose an unacceptable risk to the community in the last six months since Labor passed legislation specifically aimed at
doing just that? Why have you not redetained people?

Senator Watt: I think Ms Sharp addressed that prior to the lunch break, but she might be willing to give you a summarised version of that again.

Ms Sharp: Certainly, Senator. As I was saying prior to lunch, the Community Safety Order scheme is modelled on the High Risk Terrorist Offenders Scheme. Applications under it need to be made to the court and need to be accompanied by a very substantial set of evidence. The evidence needs to go to all information known to the Commonwealth for why the order should be granted, and also all information known to the Commonwealth for why the order should not be granted. That requires an extensive review of records held by government agencies across the Commonwealth, and the states and territories, followed by the receipt of expert evidence that looks at the risk profile of the individual. That expert evidence is gained through individual assessments, one-on-one with psychiatrists et cetera, to really form up whether we have a reasonable case to demonstrate to the court that the only way to protect the community from a high risk of the person committing a serious, violent or sexual offence is detention. It’s a very high legal bar to cross.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to the recent Palestinian refugees from Gaza given fast-track visas. Why were they given special treatment, where some visas were said to be given with only an hour of scrutiny and
processing? An hour?

Chair: Senator Roberts, officials will probably dispute the assumptions made in your question. I won’t put myself on the other side of the table, but we did have extensive questioning on that earlier—it does relate to
outcome 2 as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Given that 80 per cent of Palestinians support the inhuman terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza, how can these Palestinians be shown not to be a danger to Australians in such a short time?

Chair: Senator Roberts, that relates to outcome 2. Apart from being divisive language, it’s probably not an appropriate question in parliament—

Senator ROBERTS: Last question—when will Palestine be declared a country of concern so that high-risk applicants from Palestine are not able to be considered for a visa?

Senator Watt: I’m not actually even sure if that’s possible, given that Palestine is not a nation.

Senator ROBERTS: So you have to have a nation before you can—

Senator Watt: I don’t know, I’m guessing that’s the way it works, but officials might know better than me.

Senator Reynolds: Yes—

Senator Watt: I’m doing my best to assist the committee, Senator Reynolds!

Chair: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Chair: Thank you, Senator Roberts. Senator Paterson.

/6 Comments/by

World Leading Steel Producers Eager for Iron Boomerang to Begin

,

In July 2022, I was successful in having the Senate conduct an inquiry into the ‘Iron Boomerang’ project. This project aims to build steel mills in Abbott Point Townsville and Port Headland, connecting iron ore from the west with coal from Queensland to manufacture Australian steel of superior quality at a more competitive price compared to other steel producers.

World leading steel producers are eager to construct these mills at their own expense, recognising the undeniable financial and quality advantages of the project. Yet, governments have stood in the way of approvals since the project was first raised in the 1980s.

Now for the first time, all relevant governments needed to approve the project are from the same party, removing the political obstacles that have hindered progress so far.

One Nation has been advocating for this project since 2016 and Minister Ayr’s responses to my inquiries today were encouraging. I appreciate the Minister’s comprehensive understanding of the project and wholeheartedly agree with the numerous benefits it offers.

I look forward to this project receiving approval.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Recommendation 2 of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee inquiry report into the project known as Iron Boomerang reads: The committee recommends the Australian Government commissions and publishes a scoping study on the establishment of a steel plant/s located in Northern Australia. This relates to the proposal for steel plants at Abbot Point near Townsville and Port Hedland in Western Australia with a railway line or ships being used to exchange iron ore and coal backwards and forwards to make the world’s highest quality steel prices that undercut China by at least 10 per cent. This project will generate hundreds of billions of dollars per year in steel and associated products, many fine by-products, and create tens of thousands of breadwinner jobs. The project proponents have advised they have the funding to build this project from leading infrastructure world funds already. This project does not need public money. The land at Abbot Point is already zoned for a steel mill. Minister, my question is, will you call this inquiry and ensure our future really is made in Australia?  

Senator Ayres: I’m advised that the government is considering its response to this inquiry. I can say further that of course iron ore is one of Australia’s largest commodity exports. We have a very capable mining sector, and we also have adjacent to our mining sector vast solar and wind reserves. The Future Made in Australia agenda is looking at value adding in iron and steel, across a range of our critical mineral categories. It offers very significant opportunities for investment in precisely the kind of industrial capability that you are referring to here. I don’t know anything about the actual proponents of these particular facilities, but in the broad, in metals processing Australia has a significant future comparative advantage. This government wants to make sure that we secure that comparative advantage and that investment, I’m sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’m not sure if you’re aware of it, but this project as it stands will significantly—I don’t believe it’s necessary to reduce carbon dioxide from human activity, but you do and the government does. This project as it stands, with the use of conventional rail, conventional ships, will dramatically reduce the carbon dioxide from human activity because there will be no empty backloading. There will be no oneway transport of coal or iron ore, which are currently exported in massive quantities from this country. Instead, they’ll just be shuffled across the country in a very limited transport regime and back load so that there will always be a load.  

Senator Ayres: Much broader than that is our advantage in solar and wind with 97 per cent of our trading partners, including our trading partners in energy and steel production. Think of markets in Korea and Japan. There are very significant opportunities for Australia in both economic development terms and also, as you point to, in emissions reductions terms, to make a significant contribution to the emissions reductions by our partners by producing onshore in a cleaner way than our trading partners do. This is a very significant national interest question for Australia, and the government is working hard to secure future investments in this area. 

/5 Comments/by