I asked officials from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) if they were aware of the second reading amendment, which requires the government to investigate wage theft in the Hunter Valley. This issue could potentially involve up to $1 billion, impacting around 5,000 miners with losses estimated at $40,000 per person per year.
The officials confirmed their awareness but were unable to specify when the minister had been informed or if any plans or discussions had been initiated to advance the investigation.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My first set of questions relates to a recent Senate second reading motion to a Fair Work Act bill. The motion requires the government to conduct an investigation into massive wage theft occurring in the coalmining industry. I will read the motion. The part that is relevant states:
but the Senate:
(b) requires the Government to investigate claims that casual miners working under enterprise agreements in the black coal mining industry are, and have been, underpaid; and
(c) if underpayments are found to have occurred, facilitate the reimbursement of the underpayments;
Ms Yanchenko: Thanks. We’re certainly aware of that motion.
Senator ROBERTS: This is Australia’s largest wage theft case, totalling possibly over $1 billion and involving thefts of up to $40,000 per year per miner, stealing from 5,000 or more coalminers. When was the Senate’s second reading amendment to your government’s latest Fair Work Act amendment bill conveyed to the minister?
Mr Manning: I am not sure, in the sense that we wouldn’t necessarily have conveyed it to the minister.
Ms Yanchenko: We were watching along in real time.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you convey that to the minister?
Ms Yanchenko: I didn’t personally, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it possible to find out when the minister—
Mr Manning: When he first became aware of it?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Manning: We will have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: That is fine. I don’t expect you to know everything; most things, but not everything. I take it then that no discussions have been held between the minister and the department?
Mr Manning: We are still thinking through our advice to the minister; so, no, not yet.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the department received or made any instructions?
Mr Manning: We haven’t yet given advice or a submission to the minister about the motion. We are still working through it.
Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t made any instructions to him or given him any advice?
Mr Manning: Not as yet.
Senator ROBERTS: Has Minister Burke discussed with you the nature of the investigation the Senate required him to make into wage theft involving Central Queensland and Hunter Valley miners?
Mr Manning: No, not yet.
Senator ROBERTS: Have any of your staff raised it with you?
Ms Wettinger: At this stage we haven’t discussed the matter with any of the minister’s staff, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Who do you expect will have a role in the investigation?
Mr Manning: It is too early to say. There is a long history to the matter—
Senator ROBERTS: A very long history.
Mr Manning: So that’s what we are considering in terms of getting ready for those discussions and that advice to the minister.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what would you expect of a fair and independent investigation?
Senator Watt: That it be fair and independent.
Senator ROBERTS: What would characterise a fair and independent investigation?
Senator Watt: I think everyone understands what those concepts mean. I know you have an interest in the conditions of coalminers. Have you caught up on the good news about the first decision or agreement resulting from our ‘Closing Loopholes’ laws?
Senator ROBERTS: I am aware that there is an agreement in application.
Senator Watt: I think there might even be a couple, actually.
Senator ROBERTS: I am aware of two.
Senator Watt: It is good news that we are seeing coalminers receive what they are entitled to as a result of our legislation. I don’t think you voted for that legislation, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll hear more about that. I have already told you why publicly, Senator Watt.
Senator Watt: It is delivering more money to coalminers.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll have more to ask you about that tomorrow, with glee.
Senate Estimates: I asked Senator Watt what was being done to reduce net immigration.
The government’s planned reduction is insufficient. Cutting immigration is not enough. Temporary visa holders need to leave now.It’s time to put Australians first.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are concise and straightforward, and hopefully the answers will be the same—so that the chair is not disappointed! In the context of the mass release from immigration detention of approximately 150 noncitizens awaiting deportation, how many of these detainees were in fact released as a result of the decision in NZYQ?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m very, very sorry: you asked me whether we were talking about migration in outcome 2, and we are, but the matters you’re raising with those questions are relevant to outcome 3, and we’ll be dealing with that tomorrow.
Senator ROBERTS: There you go; you got an early night!
CHAIR: Do you have other questions? I thought there were more general questions about migration numbers. I apologise.
Senator ROBERTS: No.
CHAIR: I’ve listened to so many of your Senate speeches, Senator Roberts. I thought I was pre-empting your questions. But we will be here tomorrow to ask questions of Border Force particularly around those issues.
Senator ROBERTS: And also Immigration, I hope—Home Affairs?
CHAIR: There are other questions that might be relevant to outcome 2. If you want to put them, they might have the officials here for you.
Senator ROBERTS: No, these are to do with the legality of immigration.
Ms Foster: If I can help: because the questions relating to the High Court cover both outcome 2 and outcome 3, we typically try to cover them as a group together so we’re not saying, ‘We can answer a little bit of that and not the rest of it.’ But if there are more general questions on the migration program then we should be able to answer them for you tonight.
Senator ROBERTS: These are more to do with the legalities and what is happening about removing people.
CHAIR: They are related to the same cohort of questions—is that right?
Senator ROBERTS: I think they are.
CHAIR: They are related to the same issues.
Ms Foster: If they are related to the same cohort, it is probably sensible to do them tomorrow as a batch.
Senator ROBERTS: The same cohort and a similar cohort.
CHAIR: It sounds like we will be able to deal with them tomorrow.
Senator Watt: I predict there will be many questions around this issue in the morning. So you will be in good company.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps one might be covered off now—the last one I had. For visas requiring accommodation in 2019 it was 1.9 million people; in 2024, at the start of the year, it was 2.3 million plus students at over half a million, plus a higher percentage of non-productive people. Housing demand has been driven through the roof and prices and rents are skyrocketing. We are in a per capita recession and have been for three quarters. Minister, it appears to a lot of Australians that the government does not want to be tagged as the government who took us into recession so it is flooding the country with migrants to avoid a technical recession. Having said correctly that we’ve had three-quarters of a per capita recession, the government, to me, seems to be uncaring about the plight of Australians. In our state’s capital city there are people living under bridges, in cars and in caravans—and I’m talking about working families coming home with their two kids to sleep in a car. I don’t know where they go to the toilet and where they shower. We’ve got it right up the coast—not just in our capital city but right up the coast. The Labor government must remove visa holders. When will Labor resolve the housing crisis and stop the out-of-control and unsustainable growth of Australia’s population? We had 750,000 come in last year.
Senator Watt: I’m not sure that that 750,000 figure is correct, Senator Roberts. But the point really is that the government does believe that migration levels have been unsustainably high. We believe that that is a direct result of the failures of Mr Dutton and other coalition ministers to manage the migration program correctly. That is exactly why we have dramatically reduced the grants of international student visas and that is why we are on track to halve what is known as the net overseas migration figure by next financial year. If you look at the numbers, where they were when we came into office and post-COVID, we are on track to halve that figure by next financial year. I do not think the 750,000 figure is correct, Senator Roberts. What is known as the net overseas migration—
Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t implying that was net; that was incoming.
Senator Watt: You also have to look at the number of people going out.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct; but 750,000 people coming in is a heck of a lot of people.
Senator Watt: Sure; I agree.
Senator ROBERTS: It is way above the previous record.
Senator Watt: Agreed. As I said, our government believes that migration has been too high. That’s why we’ve taken a range of steps to reduce it, and we are on track to achieve that target. On the point about housing—which is obviously a matter for a different committee—as I pointed out to you before, Senator Roberts, it would really help if we could get your vote in the Senate when we try to spend more money on housing. Unfortunately, so far, you haven’t—
Senator ROBERTS: How many houses have you built, Minister? Zero.
Senator Watt: We have committed about $32 billion worth of funding.
Senator ROBERTS: You have committed how much to housing? You have committed $20 billion to a housing future fund.
Senator Watt: Of the $32 billion that we have committed for housing, $10 billion was for the Housing Australia Future Fund, and unfortunately both you and Senator Hanson voted against that with the coalition.
Senator ROBERTS: We don’t want more bureaucracy; we want tradies to be set loose. That is why we did it.
Senator Watt: But the vote was about creating a housing fund and you voted against it. You voted for less spending on housing.
CHAIR: Senators, I don’t think the question is relevant to—
Senator ROBERTS: How many houses have been built in the last two years?
Senator Watt: You would probably need to go—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, your question—
Senator ROBERTS: Okay; let’s come back to my question, as the chair is reminding us.
CHAIR: Minister, could you assist me in not speaking over me while I give Senator Roberts some direction. The question you have ultimately ended up asking is not relevant to this committee. That is probably why you have received a response of the kind Minister Watt has given you. If you have more questions in relation to migration, this is the outcome to put them. Otherwise, we will back tomorrow with outcome 3.
Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, Chair, this is calling out Senator Watt because he has not answered my question.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you say ‘with all due respect’ and then continue to talk over me when I have given you a direction as the chair to ask a relevant question, or I can give the call to someone else who has relevant questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. The question for the minister is the same: when will the Labor government remove visa holders to ease the pressure on housing in this country?
Senator Watt: Sorry; are you saying that we should have zero migration to Australia?
Senator ROBERTS: We should have negative, until we get the housing pressure and the infrastructure to catch up.
Senator Watt: What do you mean by negative migration? Do you mean forcing people to leave?
Senator ROBERTS: More people who leave than come.
Senator Watt: The government’s policy is to halve the net increase in migration or net migration numbers by next financial year, and we are well on track to do that. We agree that we have a housing shortage in Australia. That’s why we’ve devoted so much money towards that project. We also recognise that we have a range of jobs and there are not enough people to fill them. If you speak to any building firm in Queensland, they will tell you they need more people. We are funding a lot of training of locals, but the reality is that we need some level of migration to fill those jobs. If you go to any aged-care facility in Queensland or anywhere in Australia—and I go to one pretty regularly to visit a family member—you will see lots of migrant workers there. Our aged-care system would collapse if we did what you suggested, which is stop migration. So it’s a balancing act to make sure that we don’t have too much migration in this country—as was occurring under the policy settings we inherited from the former government—while still making sure that we can deliver the workforce that we need.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, isn’t it true that, under John Howard’s prime ministership, immigration was dramatically increased and it has stayed high since then under both parties—both Labor and Liberal and National party governments?
Senator Watt: My recollection is that the major change under the Howard government was a big shift towards temporary migration. I don’t know what the overall figures were under the Howard government.
Senator ROBERTS: I think it went from 80,000 to over 130,000. Then it went up under the Rudd-Gillard, and the subsequent LNP governments to over 230,000 net. What are you proposing for next year?
Senator Watt: We are proposing that net overseas migration next financial year would in the order of 260,000.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s still very, very high.
Senator Watt: It’s about half of what it was a year or so ago.
Senator PATERSON: This year?
Ms Foster: In 2022-23.
Senator ROBERTS: Senator Watt, I could say that you are much taller than me. That’s not saying much!
Senator Watt: A competition of the shortest men in parliament! Let’s put Senator Farrell in there as well. Senator Ghosh, do you qualify?
Senator ROBERTS: My point is that 250,000 is still a lot.
Senator Watt: But we’re big in heart, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: But 250,000 is a lot. It may be half, but it is still very, very high and it is putting a lot of pressure on housing.
Senator Watt: I agree; which, again, is why we—
Senator ROBERTS: Do we agree?
Senator Watt: I agree that migration has been too high and it is putting pressure on housing, which is why we would have really liked your vote for the Housing Australia Future Fund—which is another committee.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to stay on immigration.
CHAIR: Me too.
Senator Watt: There are two parts of the equation. It is about immigration and—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right: you’re driving up the demand for housing.
Senator Watt: If we had more homes we mightn’t have such an issue with migration numbers. But we don’t have the homes and that’s what we’re trying to fix. But we are halving migration numbers. International student grants in April were down 38 per cent on last year’s levels. We’ve taken a whole range of other actions to crack down on some of the rorts in the migration system that were left behind by Mr Dutton and his colleagues. But, equally, as I say, if you want to have people look after your family members in aged care, they are not all going to come locally. If you want people to build the homes, they are not all going to come locally. If you want people to work in hospitals, they are not all going to come locally. If we actually said, ‘Close the door entirely to migration,’ you will have a lot of people waiting to get into emergency departments and into aged-care homes et cetera.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the state our country is in right now. Are you going to build 250,000 new homes next year to accommodate the 250,000 new people coming in?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I have given you direction about whether those questions are relevant to this committee.
Senator ROBERTS: How is 250,000 new net migrants a low number simply because it is half of what the previous one was? It’s not; it is a very high number.
Senator Watt: The departmental officials could probably take you through the work that was undertaken to determine that figure. I would be confident that, in developing that figure, they took into account the need to reduce migration and the pressure on the housing system, but also the workforce needs of hospitals, aged-care facilities, construction firms, et cetera. It would be interesting to know what the opposition did to arrive at the various different figures we’ve heard from them. I don’t know if anyone from the opposition here can tell us what their policy actually is.
CHAIR: They’re not here to give evidence, Minister Watt. They are here to ask questions.
Senator Watt: But a lot of work has gone in from the government’s side to come up with the right figure.
CHAIR: Is that the end of your questions, Senator Roberts?
Some people ask why the union would screw over workers like they have with casual coal miners. One explanation could be the $48 million in payments flowing from the labour hire company to the union.
During this Senate Estimate session, I raised concerns about the complexity of donation laws and transparency issues, citing that the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) received significant money from Abelshore, a subsidiary of coal company Glencore, where the union also donates to the Labor Party. Despite $48 million being transferred, the original source, Glencore, is not visible in the Labor Party’s declarations.
Mr Rogers admitted he had not reviewed the specific return in question but said that it was the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC) role to ensure that current legislation is adhered to. Further, Mr Rogers noted that if there are issues with transparency or adherence to the law, it is the responsibility of Parliament to amend the legislation, not the AEC. He agreed to review the details once they were provided to him.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Maybe you could elaborate on some of the issues faced with getting a clear picture when it comes to donation law, a really complex situation. The returns for the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union for 2022 and 2023 show they donated huge sums to the Labor Party. The CFMMEU has received more than $39 million from a company called Abelshore, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of coal company Glencore. In 2021-22 they donated $9 million, so over two years they donated $48 million donated by Glencoreowned companies to the CFMMEU, to the Labor Party. So you have tens of millions, $48 million as I said, flying from a coal company through a subsidiary, through a union to the Labor Party but the coal company does not show up in the returns to the Labor Party. Can you explain the difficulties in finding out where the money was originally coming from on the returns that are lodged?
Mr Rogers: First of all, I have not seen that particular return, so I would have to take it on notice and have a look but I am not aware that any of that breaches the existing legislation. Our role is to adhere to the legislation, promote the legislation, ensure that agencies are adhering to that. As you know, the whole funding and disclosure issue is the most complex part of the Electoral Act. It is highly technical. As long as those entities are meeting their obligations for transparency under the act, and I have no information that they are not—I would have to look at that specific issue in detail—as long as they are within the legislation, changing that legislation is a matter for parliament rather than the AEC, which I know you are aware of, and it is something we were discussing earlier this evening. I would have to have a look at in detail.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, we will send you a copy. It is on a register from the CFMMEU, I think I said. That is an awful lot of money to be hidden and it is not deliberately hidden. Perhaps it is inadvertently hidden. I think the intent is deliberate because it seems a bit strange that money is going from a coal company to a mining union to the Labor Party.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Rx2EAtaD-Ew/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-12 18:54:482024-08-12 18:54:53Exposed: 48 Million Reasons to Screw Over Workers
In a recent senate estimate session, I raised questions about the massive purchase of 267 million COVID-19 vaccine doses for Australia’s 27 million population. Despite only using a fraction of these doses, concerns remain about transparency and cost efficiency of that purchase.
Bureaucrats state that there was a need for a diverse vaccine portfolio and future supplies, yet exact delivery figures remain undisclosed due to commercial sensitivities. 👂 Listen as they sidestep the questions.
The question remains, was the expenditure justified and how much has actually been delivered.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to continue with the questions that I was asking before. Minister, the purchases of COVID injection doses were, by any measure, excessive—a cost of $18 billion—yet we have only used 37 per cent of Pfizer, 26 per cent of Moderna, 25 per cent of AstraZeneca and one per cent of Novavax. Why did we buy 267 million vaccines for a population of 27 million people?
Ms Fisher: I think that Professor Kelly went through some of the rationale for the COVID purchasing arrangements earlier. But just to recap, I think the most important consideration at the time was to ensure that every Australian would have access to COVID-19 vaccines. Given that it was a new vaccine and a whole new disease, it was necessary at the time to have a portfolio approach to our purchasing, so we had a number of vaccines purchased, and we needed to make sure that they were all going to be safe and effective and that we’d have enough of each of the vaccines to cover the population. I would note that, in terms of the vaccine program, purchasing is carrying through into the future as well. Some of the vaccine numbers that you gave are those that are currently going through the system. Also, we have an acceptable level of waste for the program, which we look into to make sure that it’s an effective and efficient use of public money.
Senator ROBERTS: According to my simple calculations, 267 million vaccines equate to 10 vaccinations for each individual; and that number also covers people who didn’t want to be vaccinated, so it’s even more than 10 person, per Australian, per baby.
Ms Fisher: I won’t question your maths but, going back to my comment about having a portfolio approach— noting that different vaccines, according to the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, have been recommended over time for different groups, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine—it was necessary to have some flexibility in the purchasing arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Were all of the 267 million doses delivered to Australia?
Ms Fisher: Were they, at what time period?
Senator ROBERTS: Have they all been delivered?
Ms Fisher: No. Some of them continue to arrive through our advance purchasing agreements.
Senator ROBERTS: How many have arrived and how many are yet to arrive?
Ms Fisher: Due to commercial sensitivities and the secrecy provisions in the contracts, I’m not able to answer specific questions relating to specific vaccines around that. I am able to tell you how many we purchased of the different vaccines and some of the uptake that we’ve had overall, which is that 71 million vaccines have been administered over the last few years.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s about a quarter of what we bought.
Ms Fisher: Yes, so far, but there are more coming every day.
Senator ROBERTS: So, because of commercial sensitivity, you’re refusing to tell us how many have been delivered?
Ms Fisher: Yes, to date.
Senator Gallagher: And because of the requirements of the contract, the agreements, with the companies.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, Ms Fisher is ‘required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested’, and I’ve requested the number of vaccines that have not been delivered.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t know what you’re reading from there but—
Senator ROBERTS: The standing orders.
Senator Gallagher: within the standing orders, there are also provisions for things like commercial in confidence. But we can tell you how much has been our expend. We can go through how many have been purchased from each company, and I would imagine we could answer by saying that the agreements are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the contract, for example. That’s the transparency, but there are still legitimate reasons before committees that matters remain commercial in confidence or security in confidence for a range of different reasons.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, there’s no privacy, security, freedom-of-information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and Ms Fisher and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. So, if you want to seek indemnity from providing that then you have to submit such a request to the committee.
Senator Gallagher: If you’re insisting that we provide that, I can refer the matter to the minister for health to make a public interest immunity claim, and I’m happy to do that.
The Strategic Shipping Fleet proposes tax incentives for selected shipping owners to flag vessels in Australia and employ Australian crews. The plan aims to ensure these ships remain near Australia for potential repurposing during supply crises to maintain essential goods supply.
One Nation supports this proposal, however the published plan lacks detail, particularly regarding the types of freight that would provide commercial viability while keeping these ships nearby. It appears that implementation of this idea is still far off.
The allocated budget only covers planning for another 5 years, yet the Department indicated that the budget did have an allocation for implementation, but that the details were not for disclosure. Publishing such budget information can help guide tendering companies on bid amounts, but it can also be misleading if funding isn’t actually available.
Despite the Minister’s assurance of implementation within 5 years, I remain unconvinced.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here this evening. I’d like to ask some broad questions on the scoping of the strategic shipping fleet that Labor has announced and that we support. It’s been something we’ve been pushing for a while. Then I’d like to ask a few questions that build on what Senator O’Sullivan’s been talking about. Queensland should be a big winner out of the proposal for a strategic fleet, with a long coastline currently underserved by road and rail transport. A national rail circuit would help that too, and I’ll ask about that later. However, the idea is to encourage private ownership of ships to service the Australian coastline and the Pacific which could then be requisitioned in the event of an emergency, like the next virus or whatever. The report doesn’t go into detail about where the freight will come from, so we don’t know if it’s commercially viable— specifically which companies and how many containers. Do you have any information on where the containers are going to come from to keep container vessels commercially engaged in the scheme? What’s the volume of cargo? Or is it just very early days?
Mr Johnson: The planned approach in terms of selecting the vessels for the strategic fleet is to approach the market, and there are questions for that marketplace about both the capability of vessels they might put forward to join the strategic fleet and the commerciality of those vessels, which really goes to what freight they’re moving currently and how they propose their vessels will fit into the commercial marketplace. That’ll give us the information on the volumes of cargo and those sorts of things that would be moved on a normal day-to-day basis. But the vessel would be Australian flagged and crewed and therefore, as part of the arrangements to join the strategic fleet, would be available for that requisition.
Senator ROBERTS: Am I right in assessing then, Mr Johnson, that it’s very loose, maybe deliberately so— and maybe commendably so—and the arrangement at the moment hasn’t been fleshed out?
Mr Johnson: Part of what we’re looking at in terms of how the fleet’s established is to get the industry to come forward with those views on how that capability might be provided and what’s commercial in the marketplace, rather than us trying to identify what’s commercial. Then the industry would provide that in the proposals put forward to join the fleet, which we would then match up with the capabilities and capacities of the fleet that would suit the purposes for requisition later. So it’d be work with industry to join the two through theapproach to market process.
Senator ROBERTS: The funding in this budget is $21.7 million over five years, which seems enough to keep a small team of bureaucrats busy but little else. Does that not seem to include funding for the tax incentives and other costs in the scheme once operational? Can you confirm whether the funding is pre-operational only?
Mr Johnson: You’re correct; that is the funding to support the administration of the strategic fleet—
Senator ROBERTS: Ongoing.
Mr Johnson: and implementation of the other recommendations in the strategic fleet taskforce report. The amount of funding to actually support implementation of the fleet has been allocated but hasn’t been announced.
Senator ROBERTS: Has been allocated but not announced.
Mr Johnson: Yes.
Ms Purvis-Smith: It is not for publication, and that is so it doesn’t prejudice the government getting negotiations with market players so that we can get value for money.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I know that during COVID our fuel reserves got down to just two days, which is very poor governance in my opinion. This does illustrate why we need a strategic fleet, but the delay worries me. Can you confirm that, within the next five years, there will not be one extra ship with Australian crew operational in Australia as a result of the scheme?
Mr Johnson: The intention is to have the three vessels announced in the budget by the government operational within the next five years.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’ve had the maritime union and a shipping operator on the phone asking for more details—actually asking for a meeting with the department and the minister to see how they can respond to this development and swing freight over to the strategic fleet. Should I tell them to come back in five years or will you meet with them to get the ball rolling on planning new freight routes for container transport?
Senator Chisholm: I’m sure that people would be happy to take a request for a meeting. But, as you heard just then from Mr Johnson, we are keen to get this operating sooner than five years.
Watch as these climate change bureaucrats deflect and squirm when trying to answer basic questions about what their department has been doing.
This session looked at why they sold millions of barrels of oil held in the United States and Labor’s new tax on petrol and diesel cars. Like always, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is completely out of touch with reality while trying to tell you what you can and can’t do.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Can we just continue with this strategic reserve? So Australia sold all of the oil reserves in the United States strategic reserve?
Mrs Svarcas: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: That was 1.7 million barrels, around June 2022?
Mrs Svarcas: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the sale amount? $220 million?
Mrs Svarcas: I would have to take that on notice. I don’t have that in my folder.
Senator ROBERTS: Who was the oil delivered to?
Mrs Svarcas: I would have to also take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How much was paid in seller’s fees, commissions or whatever it is?
Mrs Svarcas: I’m happy to break that down for you on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: How much is the continuing empty lease in the US strategic reserve costing?
Mrs Svarcas: We do have an ongoing contract for that. I will, again, come back to you with the leasing costs on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s all I had there. I’d like to move to the ute tax, please.
CHAIR: I think you’ll find it’s not called that, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?
CHAIR: We don’t have such a thing. Would you like to refer to the correct program?
Senator ROBERTS: Your new car tax.
Senator McAllister: We don’t have a new car tax, either.
CHAIR: No new car tax?
Senator ROBERTS: You know what I’m talking about.
CHAIR: How about you just say it, Senator Roberts, so we can get the right people to the table.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know the new fees for petrol and diesel vehicles.
Senator McAllister: It’s possible you’re referring to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.
CHAIR: Yes, that sounds a bit more familiar.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s another way of saying it. Minister, why were you so secretive about it? You passed it under guillotine with no debate. Yet again, another bill with no debate.
Senator McAllister: The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard brings Australia into line with the very significant majority of the international vehicle market. It’s a policy—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Minister. The people of Australia elected your government to govern. They didn’t elect the United Nations World Economic Forum, the United States, Great Britain, or other global players. They wanted you to govern this country—not on behalf of others.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, could you allow the minister to finish answering the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Chair.
Senator McAllister: The government was very clear and we had extensive public discussion about the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. I believe there were Senate hearings, although I did not participate in them. We discussed it here in the estimates forum and also in the neighbouring committee at the last estimates hearings as well. Officials can talk to you about some of the public consultation that took place, including the position papers that were released. And senators had many opportunities to express their opinions about this particular policy initiative through the course of the Senate’s work.
Senator ROBERTS: So we don’t need to debate anymore in the Senate?
Senator McAllister: We do need debate in the Senate, Senator Roberts. These were important—
Senator ROBERTS: Second reading, third reading and committee stages?
Senator McAllister: I thought you had asked me a question.
Senator ROBERTS: I am! But I was continuing—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to ask you again to allow the minister to answer the question you have just posed and to not speak over her.
Senator McAllister: The government’s view was that this was an important reform, and that there was some urgency to this reform. It was a reform that had been proposed under a previous government, during a previous parliament, and not progressed. The consequences of that were that Australians continue to pay more than they need to at the bowser because the vehicle fleet in Australia is less efficient than it could be, because the range of vehicles available to Australians is considerably less than we expect it will be under the standard. We think it’s an important policy. We wanted to progress it, and we judged that there was a majority of support in the Senate for that, so we brought it on for consideration.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re afraid of letting the people participate through their views, expressed through senators in debates in second reading and third reading and committee stages, and assessing amendments?
Senator McAllister: I wouldn’t characterise it like that at all.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, are you aware, with an increasing amount of smart metres being installed—despite some people saying they don’t want it—and electric vehicle charging happening overnight offpeak, that’s when coal-fired power is supplying most of the electricity. So there’s potentially going to be an increased demand on coal-fired power stations as petrol and diesel vehicles are set aside in favour of electric vehicles. So you’re actually increasing the carbon dioxide intensity of energy.
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I will ask some of the officials to talk you through the expectations that we have for demand on the grid. But the Integrated System Plan, which is produced by the AEMO, includes demand that is predicted to arise from the introduction of greater numbers of electric vehicles into the Australian fleet, along with a range of other changes. It also, as you know, shows a very significant shift to renewable energy, so the emissions intensity of the National Electricity Market is expected to decrease over time, of course.
Senator ROBERTS: So, are they like the projections where you told us we would be having lower power costs, and instead we’ve got far higher?
Senator McAllister: Do you want to talk about the issue that you originally asked me about, or do you wish to move on?
Senator ROBERTS: I just wanted to know what your projections were like and how accurate they are.
Senator McAllister: The Integrated System Plan is a long-established piece of analysis undertaken by the Australian Energy Market Operator. Officials at the table can talk to you about the expectations there and any other information we have of that expected demand on electricity.
Mr Ryan: To start with, I’ll talk about some of the different charging solutions we’re seeing and what impact that’s having. ARENA, who I know will be appearing, will certainly be able to tell you about some of the investment and some of the innovations they’re looking at in charging. You’re right, a lot of charging is done at home—80 per cent, we think—but that’s not just from the grid. A lot of those people—not all, but a lot of them— actually have batteries that charge and store solar energy from during the day. So when they’re charging overnight—it might be from a battery but it also might be from the grid—note that the grid is slowly decarbonising as well. So that’s increasing, day to day. There are other innovations where we’re seeing EV charging being provided at places people visit on a regular basis, whether that’s at carparks during the day or the workplace during the day, whether it’s at the kerbside, at the local gym, at the movies—places where there’s charging, more and more. Sometimes that’s in the evening, but a lot of the time that’s during the day. So we’re seeing some innovation, and there’s certainly been funding—not just from the Commonwealth but from the states and territories—to develop that innovation and look to maximise the solar in there. The last thing I’d say on the projections is that I do know that they take into account the grid and the impact on the grid for the uptake of EVs. So they are in the figures that are provided each year when they do the projections.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you still maintain—
Mr Fredericks: Senator, sorry; could Ms Rowley just give you 30 seconds on that, because it is quintessentially the answer to your question about how all of the emissions impacts are brought to bear.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Ms Rowley: In relation to the annual emissions projections, we look at the change in the vehicle fleet, including the uptake of electric vehicles, which is helping to reduce the direct emissions from transport. But we also take account of the electricity required to meet the growing share of electric vehicles. Just by way of example, for 2030, in last year’s emissions projections, we estimated that there was a seven-million-tonne reduction in transport emissions and a one-million-tonne increase in electricity emissions to meet that additional demand from electric vehicles, so the net effect in 2030 was an estimated six-million-tonne reduction in Australia’s emissions, taking into account both transport and electricity.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure, but I remind you you can’t tell me the impact on climate of that, so you’re basically going with a policy of spending money but not realising the benefit. Minister, do you still maintain—
Ms Rowley: I would note that the new vehicle efficiency standard is projected to save consumers money and reduce the impact of things like health costs on the Australian economy.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you still maintain—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question?
CHAIR: Last question.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you still maintain, Minister, that punishing manufacturers of petrol and diesel vehicles won’t reduce the number of petrol or diesel cars available to Australians?
Senator McAllister: Senator, I don’t accept that characterisation of the policy setting.
The wind and solar billionaires are going to leave a trail of environmental destruction across the country. Coal mines, which are unfairly demonised, have to pay an environmental bond before they put a shovel in the ground. When the mine is finished, that money is used to restore the land to how it was before the mine was ever there. Unlike coal, wind and solar do not have to pay environmental bonds.
We’re going to be left with a toxic wasteland of old wind turbines and toxic solar panels that no one will have the money to clean up. Wind and solar aren’t going to save the environment, they’re going to ruin it.
Transcript
Senator Roberts:I’m intrigued about bonds on solar and wind generators. In the coal industry, for every acre that a surface mine uncovers the coal company has to provide a bond to the government, and then it doesn’t get that bond back until the land is fully reclaimed. Sometimes the reclaimed land is far more productive and far cleaner than the original scrub. What is the bond on solar and wind generators?
Mr Dyer: It’s up to the commercial arrangement between the landholder and the proponent. It’s no different from you owning the milk bar as a commercial landlord down the main street of town. If the tenant defaults and leaves the building, you’re stuck with the bain-marie.
Senator Roberts:So, without a bond, at the end of life, solar and wind generators can just walk away from it? Where are the funds to ensure remediation?
Mr Dyer: Some landholders are quite savvy, and I have seen everything from bank guarantees to bonds being in place, but it’s not across the board. That’s not to say it’s not happening and not being done, but it needs to be a standard practice.
Senator Roberts: There is a standard in the coalmining industry, but there’s no standard in the solar and wind industry?
Mr Dyer: It’s something I’ve advocated for a long time. It’s in section 8 of my report in appendix A, that is, the need to have licensed developers accredited to have the skills to carry out the process, as we are doing in offshore wind, and also that the area being prospected has been sanctioned ahead of time.
Senator Roberts:I want to put on the record that I appreciate Mr Dyer’s frank and complete comments and his openness. It’s much appreciated. Thank you.
In a recent senate estimate session, I highlighted the alarming ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates. Australians from the Middle East died at three times the average death rate, those from Southern Europe twice as high, while sub-Saharan Africans had lower mortality rates.
What’s driving these disparities? The health experts suggest that low vaccine coverage and socioeconomic factors played roles in these differences. As vaccination efforts improved, mortality rates began to align more closely with the general population.
These are just theories, not explanations, and it comes across as a lazy response. There’s no justification for not making an effort to understand the reasons behind such a serious medical issue.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Professor Kelly, you previously brought someone forward to talk about the differences in incidence and severity with a low-socioeconomic profile.
Prof. Kelly: Mr Gould, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Australian residents from the Middle East died at three times the population mean, those from Southern Europe were twice as likely to die and those from North Africa were almost three times as likely to die; however, sub-Saharan Africans were less likely to die. Why are we seeing ethnic differences in COVID mortality in Australia? I understand that ‘ethnic’ is to do with culture.
Dr Gould: Yes. Just talking around the numbers involved, as you say, the ABS has reported, during various stages of the pandemic, mortality rates for people born in different countries and, as you’ve said, there are higher mortality rates for people born in places such as the Middle East. There are a number of potential reasons for that. One of the areas that I discussed in my previous answer, which I think is relevant, is that, for a lot of those communities, initially, vaccine coverage rates were low. So significant work was done during the course of the pandemic to work with those communities to increase the coverage rate, and we really saw quite a dramatic shift during the course of the pandemic in the variation in mortality rates between these communities in the general Australian population; to a large degree, they came into line with the general population experience, so that was a positive outcome. Certainly, there’s an indication that the vaccine rates would have had a role to play. We did talk as well about socioeconomic status. We do know that, for some language groups or groups born in different countries, those rates may correlate with different socioeconomic status as well, so there may be some relationships there.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s an overlap, potentially, in some areas?
Dr Gould: Potentially, yes. It’s not broadly always the case. We find that a lot of recent, skilled migrants live in high socioeconomic areas, so it’s difficult to make a broad generalisation there.
The government’s lies about how many foreigners are buying houses during a housing crisis are coming back to haunt them.
Firstly, the government claims ‘foreign buyers are barely making a dent in the market’. The truth? 11% of new houses in Australia were bought by foreigners (Q4 2023). Secondly, ‘foreign buyers only go for luxury homes’. Reality: the average price of a home bought by foreigners is almost the exact same as the average house price across capital cities. That means foreign buyers are directly outbidding average Australians for an average house. Thirdly, despite saying the don’t make an impact on the housing crisis, the government is now implementing small fines for vacant homes.
Why does the government go through all of this deflection and lying when they could just take One Nation’s policy: BAN Foreign Ownership completely.
That’s just the problems with foreign ownership of housing! Never mind the next topic I asked about: letting a foreign company takeover Australia’s military warship builder…
Does this government understand anything about putting Australians first?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table the transcript of a broadcast by Ben Fordham. Reporting from radio station 2GB indicates that foreign buyers bought 11 per cent of all new housing stock in this country. How are you letting this many foreign buyers snap up houses out of the hands of Australian homebuyers?
Ms Kelley: As we’ve talked about previously, our latest statistics show that foreign investors purchased around 5,360 houses in the 2022-23 financial year.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s been claimed by some that foreign buyers don’t make a material impact on the average Aussie because they’re only buying trophy homes—$30 million mansions down at Point Piper and so on. Looking at the $5.3 billion for 4,700 properties purchased by foreigners, according to these figures, that’s an average price of $1.1 million. The combined capital cities average median house price is $1 million. Those foreign buyers are actually directly competing in the middle of the market, aren’t they?
Ms Kelley: I should note again that the level of foreign investment in residential real estate is under one per cent of the total purchases that occur in Australia. In terms of residential properties with values under $1 million, that accounted for about 78 per cent of the purchases.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, your government is increasing the fines and fees for foreign buyers of Australian houses. You’re acknowledging that it needs to be controlled. Why don’t you just stop fiddling around and ban foreign ownership of Australian houses altogether, like we’ve advocated, like the Canadians are now doing and like the Kiwis are now doing?
Senator Gallagher: We welcome foreign investment in our country. It plays an important role across our economy. But those changes we have announced to foreign investment, both for the application fees and double vacancy fees, are about ensuring foreign investment aligns with our agenda to lift housing supply. It’s aligning it with the other work we’ve been talking about this morning in Homes for Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Working families who are returning home at night to sleep in their car won’t be encouraged by that. But let’s move on. How does the Foreign Investment Review Board treat defence-related companies in its approvals? If a company is producing a defence-related product, how is it treated?
Ms Kelley: The foreign investment review framework takes a case-by-case risk based approach. On 1 May the Treasurer announced a range of reforms to the framework. Under that framework we were very clear about the areas we would scrutinise more strongly. The government has made some decisions around those areas, and we are now actively implementing them.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t sound like being a part of the defence industry enlivens a specific criterion in your approval process.
Mr Tinning: Yes. If it’s a national security business, which includes defence industries, then it’s subject to a zero-dollar threshold under our framework. So all foreign investment approvals—
Senator ROBERTS: So shipbuilding would be part of that, if they’re building defence vessels?
Mr Tinning: Correct. That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Do the current rules ever allow you to approve the sale of a sovereign defence industry asset to a foreign buyer?
Ms Kelley: That would depend.
Mr Tinning: As Ms Kelley said, it’s on a case-by-case basis, so we would need to see a specific application.
Senator ROBERTS: Why would we ever allow that?
Ms Kelley: As the minister has said, foreign investment is essential to our domestic economy and has been for decades. What the framework does is—we assess every foreign investment application in terms of our national interest and in terms of national security.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that the potential sale of Austal to a South Korean bidder, Hanwha, had pretty much fallen off the radar. Then Minister Marles reignited it by saying, ‘I don’t see why there’d be any concerns.’ Does the defence minister’s view factor into your assessment at all—that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem?
Ms Kelley: We take into account a range of factors when foreign investments are assessed, and the national security aspects are very important. We liaise across government for views on the issues associated with a foreign investment application and then the advice is then put forward to the Treasurer for a final decision.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why would the defence minister say that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem? He’s the defence minister and he’s looking at selling a maker of some of our warships.
Senator Gallagher: I haven’t seen those comments, but the defence minister would be very well briefed on all matters relating to that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to the Treasury after the opposition asks questions.
Australia co-operated with the Wuhan Institute and America’s NIH on gain-of-function research on COVID, which led to the COVID pandemic. Subsequently, both of these institutes conducted similar research on bird flu and now we have a mutant bird flu outbreak.
When I asked the Health Department if this was a good reason to discontinue gain-of-function research, their response was NO and instead, indicated a focus on refining messaging to deflect criticism. Even more troubling is the admission that gain-of-function research into pandemic-potential pathogens is being conducted in level 3 labs rather than level 4.
One Nation opposes gain-of-function research and believes that the “scientists” responsible for developing the novel COVID virus should be held accountable for the deaths it caused. Gain-of-function research for pandemic-potential pathogens does not pass a cost-benefit-risk analysis and should be halted immediately.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, China did gain-of-function research in Wuhan on COVID, and we had a COVID outbreak. Then China did gain-of-function research on bird flu, and now we have a bird flu outbreak, so I’m told. Minister, will your government ban Australian involvement in gain-of-function research?
Senator Gallagher: I think Professor Kelly has stated the Australian government’s position in relation to reviews that are underway. I don’t know whether there’s more that he can add to that.
Prof. Kelly: I’d just suggest that be directed to the CEO of the NHMRC, who’s undertaken some of these processes previously, and we’ve had a recent discussion about what else we might need to think about.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Prof. Wesselingh: Gain-of-function research is an important component of genomic research across the board and leads the development of a whole lot of things, like drugs and vaccines et cetera. I think the issue that you’re talking about is the gain-of-function research on pandemic potential pathogens and, obviously, that does need to be closely regulated. Australia has a very strong regulatory environment to do that, particularly through the OGTR, biosafety committees across the country and, obviously, the facilities we have, which are PC3 and PC4 facilities.
Senator ROBERTS: Are they levels or standards for infection security?
Prof. Wesselingh: Yes. PC2 is a sort of standard laboratory, PC3 is additional security and PC4 is very high security.
Senator ROBERTS: And ours are 2 and 3?
Prof. Wesselingh: No. All of the work done on gain-of-function in PC3 and PC4 is on pandemic potential pathogens. We have, I think, a really strong regulatory environment to control gain-of-function research in Australia. But as Paul said, we’ve had some additional conversations between the Chief Medical Officer, the OGTR and the NHMRC, in terms of whether there are additional assurances that we should apply to the very small number of gain-of-function activities that occur with these pandemic potential pathogens. We’re certainly looking at that to see the risk benefit and the public benefit of those aspects.
Senator ROBERTS: Has research stopped while you’re doing that review?
Prof. Wesselingh: No. We did a very big review of gain-of-function activities, and that has been reported to this committee previously. There were 17 projects that were being conducted. Only four were being conducted with pandemic potential pathogens, and they were all conducted under the controls of the OGTR in PC3 and PC4 facilities; none were being done on COVID; and we continue to use the current regulatory processes in regard to that.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the status of gain-of-function research in the United States? I understand that it was outlawed under Obama.
Prof. Kelly: I’m not really able to talk about what may or may not be the regulations in a foreign country.
Senator ROBERTS:Do you do much benchmarking with other countries?
Prof. Wesselingh: I can comment on that. Gain-of-function research still continues in the United States. We have been watching, with interest, recent developments in the United States, and they have developed a system, similar to the one that I was saying we are currently discussing with the chief health officer, where gain-offunction research can continue; but increased assurances, in terms of the risk-benefit and the public benefit of those activities, are conducted through the US agencies. We’re looking at that carefully, and that’s the basis for our ongoing discussions with the OGTR and the Chief Medical Officer
