Labor wants to punish diesel and petrol car makers so that you’ll be forced to buy an electric vehicle despite the diesel powered Ford Ranger, a dual cab Ute, still being Australia’s most bought car last year. They continue to claim their new tax won’t impact the car you drive, but that’s nonsense. The DCCEEW has a report sitting in a filing cabinet – a cost-benefit analysis that would likely expose their lies and do not want made public.
So much for transparency and accountability from the Albanese Labor Government. Ditch the ridiculous United Nations/World Economic Forum net-zero targets and let Australians buy and drive whatever car they want.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll tie up some things. Going back to the new car regime, could you please produce the document Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis by GHD and ACIL Allen on notice?
Ms Rowley: You might recall from discussion in this committee at the last round of estimates that, in the committee relating to transport and infrastructure, a public interest immunity claim was made with respect to that modelling. Both with respect to the fact that it speaks to cabinet-in-confidence deliberations and because it includes modelling of market impacts and market outcomes—commercial-in-confidence arrangements—that public interest immunity claim stands, so we are not in a position to table that document.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested. There is no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to give evidence, and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that is also a contempt. If you wish to raise an immunity claim, there are proper processes.
Mr Fredericks: A public interest immunity claim has already been raised—
Senator ROBERTS: Has it been accepted by the Senate?
Mr Fredericks: by the transport minister. As I understand it, it hasn’t been resolved, and we as public servants are bound by that minister’s current claim of public interest immunity.
Senator ROBERTS: So it hasn’t been resolved yet?
Ms Rowley: Senator, apologies. It might be that I misunderstood which document you were requesting because you opened this with reference to the new vehicle efficiency standard. Is it the modelling related to that, or is it about liquid fuels?
Senator ROBERTS: It’s the document entitled Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis by GHD and ACIL Allen.
Ms Rowley: Apologies. I was referring to a different document. I misunderstood because of your reference to fuel efficiency standards.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. We all make mistakes.
Mrs Svarcas: Senator, Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis is publicly available and presents the modelling without the commercial information.
Senator ROBERTS: Where is it?
Mrs Svarcas: It is available online. We can give you the link for that.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, if you can.
Senator McKENZIE: Have you put the ACIL modelling up?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s what we’re talking about.
Mrs Svarcas: The cost-benefit analysis is up, without the commercial information.
Senator ROBERTS: This may have been the document you were talking about, Mr Fredericks. I’d also like you to produce the document Modelling and analysis of a regulated fuel efficiency standard: stage 1 report by ACIL Allen.
Mr Fredericks: Yes, that’s the one I was referring to.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s still in the hands of the minister, who’s claiming immunity.
Mr Fredericks: My understanding is that the minister for transport has made a public interest immunity claim against the publication of that report. I think it is still unattended to by the Senate, so we’re bound by that for the time being.
Senator ROBERTS: The Senate hasn’t attended to it yet?
Mr Fredericks: That’s my understanding. It’s in another department.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. If you make the claim that your car carbon dioxide tax won’t make cars more expensive, Minister, or take away choice, why won’t you produce the reports you have about the costs and benefits? Why the secrecy and the lack of debate? Why the secrecy about the data you have in your possession right now about the effect on Australian cars, four-wheel drives and utes? These are vehicles fundamental to our economy and to many people’s livelihoods.
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, what question are you actually asking?
Senator ROBERTS: Why won’t you produce the documents? Senator McAllister: I think, as the secretary has already explained, Minister King has indicated that she claims public interest immunity over the documents. It’s not my claim—
Senator McKENZIE: You don’t get to say, ‘PII—we win.’
Senator McAllister: Senator—
Senator McKENZIE: You’ve got to actually have a reason.
CHAIR: Senator McKenzie—
Senator ROBERTS: Why are you afraid of people knowing?
CHAIR: We’re talking about a PII claim in a different committee, doing something different. That’s their business. We can prosecute it after the event if it has some relevance to this committee; otherwise, I think we’re just going to go round in circles here.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, let’s move on.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts has the call for another five.
Senator ROBERTS: The Coomera Connector 2 in Brisbane—can you please provide an update on any progress of a referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2 in Queensland, the extension of a freeway?
Mr Fredericks: I’m looking at a lot of blank faces behind me. We might need to take that one on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please. Let’s come to water. I’ve been told in two different sessions in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that this is the spot for my water questions, so here we go. Is your department working with the Queensland government on the $20 billion Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro Project, and, if not, have they asked for federal assistance in planning or financing?
Mr Fredericks: I can tell you that that question belongs in water day, which is—
CHAIR: Friday week.
Mr Fredericks: Friday week. I lose track.
CHAIR: On 2 June. Come on down! Mr Fredericks: I suspect there will be a number of questions along those same lines. That’s on water day, Friday week.
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, is the Coomera Connector a road transport project from Loganholme to Coomera?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Mr Fredericks: I think that’s why we got a lot of blank faces.
Senator McAllister: What was your question in relation to that?
Senator ROBERTS: Can you please provide an update on any progress, because there are serious environmental factors involved there. That’s what I want to know—if you’re involved or not.
Senator McAllister: I see. So your question is: is the department involved in any regulatory process associated with this project?
Senator ROBERTS: My question is: can you please provide an update on any progress of a referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2?
Mr Fredericks: Okay. We’re onto it. Do you mean under the EPBC Act?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I just want to know any environmental aspect at all. Mr Fredericks: All good—that is on tomorrow, in outcome 2, and my officials from that part of the department will be ready to respond to your question. Then the water question belongs in the cross-portfolio water day, which will be held on Friday week.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s come back to an earlier answer that one of your staff gave me.
CHAIR: Two minutes—Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: As to freedom of information request LEX 76280, in relation to the Powering Australia tracker, you redacted a single measure on page 6 of that document. I want to know what the measure is. I was told—I think, by this lady—that that’s cabinet in confidence.
Ms Geiger: That’s right, and I understand we have replied to your request with an explanation about why that information can’t be revealed.
Senator ROBERTS: How can one of six topics—just a title—be cabinet in confidence? Was it supplied because it needs to be in confidence, or was it supplied as part of the package to the cabinet?
Ms Geiger: The individual measure was considered by cabinet, and therefore it’s covered by the cabinet requirements.
Senator ROBERTS: So anything that goes to cabinet is cabinet in confidence?
Senator McKENZIE: [inaudible] supporting any decision that they may or may not discuss.
Senator ROBERTS: You are required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested. There is no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that is also a contempt. If you wish to raise a public interest immunity claim or a cabinetin-confidence claim, there are proper processes around that, and it is up to the Senate whether to accept that, not you or the minister.
Mr Fredericks: That’s fair. So we will take that on notice because at the moment that issue of disclosure is being considered in the FOI context. That can be different to—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m requesting it as part a Senate committee now.
Mr Fredericks: I’m helping you here. That can be a different answer when it’s asked in a Senate estimates context, so we will need to take on notice our capacity to provide you that material, under your request from the Senate committee.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That wasn’t any different from what I asked before. But thank you.
CHAIR: We’re going to rotate now—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.
Hands off our utes and SUV’s. I will buy what I want to buy.
Hi Malcolm.
I agree with all you say in this and other matters raised in this email.
I have but one question. How can a minister raise immunity on a report that is clearly of public interest. This report you seek should enlighten us all on the efficiencies referenced. There is no rational arguement that any immunity should apply. If it’s not in a defence interest and under secrecy provisions then it should be mandatory that it be made public. It is public money funding these reports at great expence and they are of absolute interest to the public.
Commercial in confidence, unless a government procurement ie military, matters not in the term of public information. The public don’t have interest in what corporations do they have interest in what affects them. Go get em.
SACK this government now and open a Royal Commission into the Albanese led Labor party . No sane lateral thinking person with any common sense would screw up as much as these idiots do unless they are doing it all “ ON PURPOSE “ . Yup !!!! That’s exactly what their game is , they are not in the countries interest but quite the contrary .
What else could you expect from a left wing led communist Government, whose major trading partner is China.
The Government of Albanese would rather support China’s economy than look to the benefits of all Australians just as they continue to support the big pharma drug companies pushing Australians to continue getting jabbed with Pfizer’s useless toxic vaccines and other pills found to be nothing more than a fraudulent scam on people world wide. Five (5) USA States – not just people – repeat US States have commenced legal action against Pfizer for fraud over their rubbish useless vaccines and pills and some overseas countries are throwing millions of doses in the rubbish tips and demanding a refund of millions.
What is our ‘pussy cats’ TGA and Federal Government Health and Ageing Department doing? NOTHING except causing further unnecessary health problems by continual pushing and scare mongering about the benefits of the vaccine.
Why don’t you Politicians stand up and demand the TGA and Health Department stop using dangerous drugs and while they are about it demand the TGA ban the sale of rubbish drugs in this country – drugs already banned in USA, UK and Europe but still readily available in Australia.
Please forward this reply to Peter Dutton and the opposition Health Minister and ask for a reply unless they are too busy wallowing in the millions of dollars provided to the party by Pfizer and other Big Pharma companies.