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.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!
Using your first name