Posts

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.  

/0 Comments/by

Damn the Economy – Net Zero at All Cost!

,

I questioned the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment & Water (DCCEEW) about a recent report from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). The report was critical of the department.

The report from ANAO on Governance of Climate Change Commitments states that the DCCEEW CANNOT demonstrate the extent to which specific policies and programs have contributed, or are expected to contribute towards emissions reduction.

We are turning our entire economy upside down to chase this net-zero lunacy and no one can even say if it’s going to do anything.

Even though it was reported that the department agreed with all five ANAO recommendations, the Minister and staff, in response to my estimates’ questioning, said that they do not agree with ANAO’s findings and read out a long list of projections and guestimates.

I asked again for evidence of human-induced climate change and was told the government is committed to the United Nations 2050 Net Zero. I will continue asking about a cost-benefit analysis on Net-Zero, which appears not to exist. And finally, I will request how much this new Labor Department for Climate Change is going to cost the Australian taxpayer.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. The Australian National Audit Office said in January—this is from its own report: 

DCCEEW reports annually on progress towards targets, however is 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 find that incredible. We see that solar and wind have taken Australia from lowest cost electricity providers to amongst the highest. There are dramatic impacts on cost of living and adverse effects on inflation and grocery prices. Everything is impacted by energy and electricity, including security and international competitiveness. I’ve just come back from North Queensland, where I’ve seen massive destruction of the environment up there. Some of the large solar and wind projects in Western Victoria and in North Queensland are not even connected to the grid, but we’re paying for them. At your behest, the government is completely upending our entire economy. You are destroying the cheap power grid we had. You’re going to make it nearly impossible to buy a new Toyota Hilux. You’re trying to force everyone into electric vehicles. You’re spending $20 billion on Snowy 2 and you can’t tell anyone whether anything the government has done has actually made a difference. I think that is because it hasn’t made a difference. What quantifiable difference have these solar and wind and other so-called policies made? 

Mr Fredericks: Senator, if it’s okay with you, I might take up the ANAO issue. There was quite a detailed response from the department to that. If it is okay with you, I might ask Ms Evans to give you a response. 

Senator ROBERTS: A response to the ANAO findings. I would also like to know the quantifiable difference these policies have made to our country. 

Ms Evans: I will answer both. In the first part, the department disagrees with the finding that you read out from the ANAO report. We do, in fact, have quite a comprehensive way of reporting on policies and programs and what they contribute to our emissions reductions, which Ms Rowley will be able to take you through in a moment. With regard to the overall outcomes, you can see that—in fact, it is part of the same answer—in our annual national greenhouse gas inventory and all of the results that come from that there is a definite decline in Australia’s emissions over the period that we’ve been looking at. Again, Ms Rowley can give you the specific details on that. I think we are up to about 24 or 25 per cent below 2005 levels at this stage. All of those policies that you were referring to have contributed to those reductions in emissions, which are contributing to a global response to climate change. Ms Rowley will take you through the very substantial way in which we track our policies and programs. 

Ms Rowley: Thanks you, Ms Evans. The ANAO was essentially seeking measure by measure modelling and tracking the impact of every policy over time, which we consider is neither practical nor efficient given that different policies and measures interact, particularly as the policy mix changes over time. They are also impacted by structural changes in the economy. However, we evaluate the impact of policies and programs on emissions during their development. That is part of the public consultation on the design of the policies ex ante, so ahead of time. In general, we prioritise policies that are going to have a material impact on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. That analysis then becomes part of the cost-benefit analysis to inform government decisions. 

In terms of reporting on progress, this occurs through a number of channels. The department and government report progress against the 2030 target transparently and independently through channels such as the Climate Change Authority’s annual progress report, the minister’s annual climate change statement to parliament and Australia’s annual emissions projection report. As Ms Evans said, we also report on Australia’s actual emissions over time each year through our national inventory report and every quarter through the quarterly update. Both the inventory— 

Senator ROBERTS: Just a minute. So what you’re saying, as I understand it, is that various other entities report on this? 

Ms Rowley: Other entities, including the independent Climate Change Authority and the department through its work on the national inventory and the annual projections. 

Senator ROBERTS: But they actually report on aspects of it—bits of it, not the whole lot? 

Ms Rowley: No. Particularly documents like the emissions projections, which are one of our signature reports— 

Senator ROBERTS: Emissions projections? 

Ms Rowley: Emissions projections. It’s an annual report. It tracks and projects Australia’s progress towards its 2030 target. I could use that as an example to illustrate how we look at the impact of specific policies. The 2023 projections, which were published in December last year, include detailed analysis of the abatement arising from some of the government’s key mitigation policies. For example, the safeguard mechanism reforms are estimated to deliver just over 50 million tonnes of abatement in 2030. The projections report provides detail, including the projected mix of onsite abatement and the use of credits over time as well as how that policy impact is distributed across the different sectors, which are covered by the safeguard mechanism. It also includes details of the Australian carbon credit unit scheme, estimating that it will grow from delivering 17 million tonnes of abatement last year, 2023, to 30 million tonnes in 2033. Again, the projections provide reports on the types of projects, price forecasts and the sectoral split of activity. 

With the additional measures scenario, which is also part of that 2023 projections report, there are reports on the potential impacts of some of the policies that are still under detailed design and development. For example, the government’s 82 per cent renewable electricity target is supported by measures such as the capacity investment scheme and the Rewiring the Nation program, which is estimated to deliver 21 million tonnes of abatement in 2030. The projections report provides detail across the different electricity grids covered by that target. It also provides quantitative estimates for the fuel efficiency standard for new vehicles, which the government is currently consulting on. Whilst that was a relatively stylised analysis given that the policy is still being designed, we estimated that would deliver a net six million tonnes of abatement in 2030. 

Senator ROBERTS: That is a lot of alphabet soup. Thank you. The point is, though, you have no evidence. The ANAO is not convinced you have any evidence. You can’t demonstrate how a specific policy has made any difference to the production of carbon dioxide from human activity. That is not me saying it; that is the ANAO. 

Ms Rowley: Senator Roberts, you will recall that Ms Evans noted that the department disagrees with that finding. As I outlined, there is a range of analytic work and public reports that the department and other entities across government conduct to ensure that there is a careful analysis of the emissions implications of key policy reforms that have a material impact on Australia’s emissions. I have given you some examples of that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know whether you are aware of it or not, Ms Rowley, Ms Evans or Minister McAllister, but no-one anywhere has been able to provide me with a quantified specific effect of cutting carbon dioxide from human activity on climate. What basis is there for tracking policy when there’s no fundamental foundation for it anyway? So is anyone able to tell me the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of the climate specifically in a quantified way? How are you able to track that when there’s no basis for it? 

Senator McAllister: There are two things. One is that this is a well-worn path between you and me. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yet, Minister, I still haven’t seen that. 

Senator McAllister: Perhaps I can answer. It is a source of fundamental disagreement. You do not accept the science that human activities— 

Senator ROBERTS: Correction. I do accept the actual empirical scientific evidence. 

CHAIR: Okay. Let’s not cut across each other. 

Senator ROBERTS: I want to make sure the minister doesn’t— 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, there is a difference of opinion here, a difference of interpretation of which science is whose. Can we stick to asking the questions and listening to the answers? You can probe it as much as you like. Let’s keep it civilised here. 

Senator McAllister: To assist Senator Roberts, I will put my answer in different terms. This government does accept the science that human activities are inducing global warming. That presents a threat to human systems and the biodiversity that our human activities depend upon. I understand from comments you’ve made previously, Senator Roberts, that is not your position. But that is the government’s position. As a consequence, we are committed to reducing Australia’s contribution to anthropogenic emissions to 2050. That is a position that, as I understand it, is bipartisan. I believe that remains the position of the coalition as well. It is the basis on which we are also committed to that by way of our participation in the processes of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

Senator McAllister: The second point I wish to make is that this is not a feature of the ANAO’s assessment of the department. The question the ANAO sought to answer was whether the department is using its resources well to meet those emissions reduction targets. The evidence that has been provided to you by now Ms Evans and Ms Rowley goes to the way that the ANAO engaged with that question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. Can you tell me or anyone in the department, because you are driving this, the cost per unit of carbon dioxide decrease to our economy? What is the cost to individual Australians? I have never seen a cost-benefit analysis or a business case for this ever. No-one has ever said that they’ve done that. 

Ms Evans: We might take on notice to put down a response that adequately reflects the costs and benefits of climate action in Australia. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Evans. Specifically I would like to know the cost per unit of carbon dioxide decreasing. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to rotate the call. 

Senator ROBERTS: I would also like to know your total annual budget, please. 

Mr Fredericks: Of the department? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Mr Fredericks: Okay. We’ll take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

Audit the election software

, ,

I asked the AEC about the new software they used for counting votes. Concerns have been raised about previous AEC software by cryptologists and the National Audit Office.

The AEC claims to have written new software that fixes all of these problems, but they won’t tell us who audited it and what the results were. An open and transparent audit is absolutely necessary to ensure there is 100% confidence in our elections.

Transcript

Thank you, Miss Jay.

Thanks Senator Sullivan, Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. And thank you for appearing today. My questions apart from the first and third, fairly brief. So the first one, in reference to testimony at the last estimates, and I’ve I’ve got copies of your questions on that, responses to your questions and that is. The AEC bought but did not use the Scytl software. Rather you write your own. To write your own election software is a really impressive feat. We’ve been talking to people, they’re very impressed. May I ask how many staff are on the development team please?

I’d have to take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. What was the total cost of doing that?

I’d have to take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. What testing did you use before deployment now I’d imagine some kind of parallel running or some form of a dry run.

Well, in fact, we did multiple forms of testing and assurance Senator, as I’m sure you would as I’m sure you’d be aware. And look Senator, to be abundantly helpful here, we’re happy to provide you a more detailed personal briefing on this. I’m happy to talk to you about it. It is a complex process. As you’re aware, we’ve been using our audit, our checked software, easy CAAT for a number of years and we’ve redeveloped that that’s effectively what we deployed as part of the 2016 solution. As I think we said last time, the Siedel solution, we got Seidel on board as really as a business assurance process to make sure that we had software that was going to work at 12 week period to deliver it. The software we’re using has been checked, double-checked and assured. And not only that, the important point to note it’s totally in line with the existing legislation and all of the data that we then generate from that software is put online and the results are then replicated by a number of psephologists and political science departments who use that data to replicate the count. And it exactly matches the outcome of their own. So there’s a range of different ways of assuring that this software is fit for purpose.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. Still part of the first question. Were any of the staff involved doctorate or masters degree qualified in a suitable discipline such as mathematics or cryptology?

Senator I’d have to take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts] Could we get their names please? When you provide it a notice?

No.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. And how long did it take?

We had for the 2016 process we had that 12 week periods in Israel, as I’ve said previously.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. And can you provide their qualifications?

Senator again, if you can help me here on letting me know where you’re trying to head, maybe I can provide some more fulsome answers.

[Malcolm Roberts] Perhaps we can, we can go into that in the briefing. I’d love to take you up on that. So did your bespoke solution use any code from Scytl and if so, what percentage?

It did not.

[Malcolm Roberts] None at all. Great. Your software, you intimated has been audited in accordance with standards published by the National Association of Testing Authorities, NADA. That certification does not specify a standard for the auditing of election software. It’s more of a general process for an audit to follow, as I understand it. Having the audit is not a guarantee that your software works within acceptable accuracy levels. Although these issues may come out in an audit who conducted the audit and how much did it cost and what was the result?

Senator as I’ve just said, if you can help me here by telling me where you’re trying to head with this process I would get some of these questions. If somehow the results of this were somehow secret or behind closed doors. We use a piece of software that’s been tested and assured on multiple occasions. The same time, all of the data that this software produces is then publicly published on our virtual teller even on our website, which on election day, as one of the most used pages in Australia, that data is then used by a variety of psephologists and computer and political science experts to replicate those results. It’s intensely public. If you’re trying to indicate that there’s some sort of issue, I just don’t understand why you’d be doing that when there’s been no evidence of that at all.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, we were just concerned about the auditing. That’s all. Because we got some answers from the, I think it was a Nao that didn’t give us the assurance. So let’s go onto some of the physical things then of the 511 polling places in the last election. How many of those had computers or other devices that communicated with the AEC computer system or were capable of doing so?

Senator I’m Jeff Pope, deputy electoral commissioner. I’m not sure what you’re referring to with 511 polling places we had nearly 8,000.

[Malcolm Roberts] Could that be state?

Perhaps you might be referring to–

[Malcolm Roberts] While it is not a mandatory requirement for pre-poll voting centres at the 2019 federal election. 115 of the 511 people voting centres. So pre-poll, sorry, pre-poll. My mistake.

[Man] Right.

[Malcolm Roberts] Had me worried there.

You had me worried.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, just how many have got a physical connection? How many had a physical connection?

For what purpose, Senator?

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, I’m going to go into that in the next few questions.

Many in terms of the role. And–

There are, we have electronic certified lists in every I think in every one of those pre-poll centres last event where citizens names and marked off the roll.

[Malcolm Roberts] No, it’s beyond that. I note from your answer on questions on notice F-O six five on polling place security, that those electronic devices were protected by monitored back to base alarm in only 115 of the 511 polling places. Were any other measures in place to protect the cyber integrity of those devices during the election period? For example were they air gaped, were they turned off at night, was there IP traffic monitoring for the period when they should have been none because they were turned off? That’s what we’re after.

I think all of your thoughts–

[Malcolm Roberts] You think?–

So we’ll take it on notice. But again, we’ve had no issue with any breach of our software or our hardware, with respect to delivery of the election–

At all, and no indicator of any breach and our handling of all of that data. And the physical equipment was in line with relevant Commonwealth guidelines and regulations and the risk assessment that we undertook.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. I’m just doing my job on behalf of my constituents.

I get it Senator. And I’m doing my job.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.

On also defending one of the world’s best and most transparent electoral systems.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well I’m not attacking it. I’m just making sure that–

Fantastic. And so we’re both doing our jobs in terms of making sure that citizens have the information they need to form their judgements.

[Malcolm Roberts] Correct. I’ve only got three questions to go. In your response to questions on notice F-0 six eight, you make the comment, ” All preferences and all Senate ballot papers are reviewed by at least one person at the scanning side.” Does that mean that they compare the scanned ballot with the paper ballot to ensure accuracy? Because that’s the impression your answer gives. Do they compare the actual scanned ballot with the paper ballot?

Senator the process is that a data is both manually entered and scanned and then that’s matched with the automated process–

[Malcolm Roberts] All the ballot papers are manually entered?

Manually entered but all paper is scanned when it first arrives. Then from that image which is an image that data is then entered. And then the scan, the data from the scan is then compared with that to make sure that they match. Where they don’t match, we undertake further processes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Could you explain that in terms of, we have a physical paper ballot that is scanned in–

[Man] Correct.

[Malcolm Roberts] And then–

And then it captures an image.

[Malcolm Roberts] Right. And then what is compared with that image?

That image is then presented to the Data Entry Operator who enters the data from that image–

[Malcolm Roberts] From the image–

Right.

[Malcolm Roberts] So he or she enters it physically.

Correct.

[Malcolm Roberts] So that’s the manual part.

That’s the manual part, then at the same time the data capture process as part of capturing the image is then compared with that manual process. Where that matches, that’s taken to be an accurate match. And that’s included in the count. Where it doesn’t match, we undertake further processes.

[Malcolm Roberts] So that last estimates in October, I asked what percentage of computer records that checked back against the paper record. And you took that on notice, your lengthy answer failed to provide a figure. Is that because it’s a hundred percent?

Which was the question Senator?

[Malcolm Roberts] I asked what percentage of computer records are checked back against the paper record? And you took that a notice, your lengthy answer, which is I think F-068. Hang on, it might be zero eight four. Sorry, zero eight, four. So, as I was saying your lengthy answer failed to provide a figure. Counting ballots is a quantitative exercise. So everything comes down to figures. What percentage of electronic voting cards are compared back to the ballot paper and what is the variance?

I wonder whether we’re talking about different things here, Senator. The process that I’ve just been through demonstrates that every single paper.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.

Yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] Last question . On this topic, anyway. Has the AEC ever run a test batch of a few thousand ballot papers through your system then run those same ballots through a second time and compared the result? Surely any variance between these two runs would give you a figure for system accuracy.

Again, Senator I’d rely on what I’ve just said before that the process that we’re running involves a full manual entry of every single ballot paper compared then to the scanning, capture of the scanned data. So we’re doing that in any case.

[Malcolm Roberts] That that’s what I thought. Okay. Just a final question. Just to lose question. I was thinking as, the senators were asking questions. Voters tell us quite often that they’re then not in favour of being assaulted by a number of how to vote cards distributors being volunteers, distributing how to vote cards when they’re entering a polling booth and some of the premises managers getting to have a bit of strife with it too. I don’t know. I haven’t read the act that covers this, but would there be any possibility or any consideration given to putting the, how to vote cards in the booth or is that fundamentally flawed?

Absolutely not Senator yet. I know what you’re saying that occasionally people do so that. What I’d say in defensive 99.9% of all of the party workers is most people strive to do the right thing.

[Man] Yeah.

We have a few over-excited individuals that really like to get those how to vote cards in the hands of voters. And that can cause some offence but most people do the right thing. We would never put a how to votes in the polling place, because then get confused and think we’re endorsing a particular process and it creates grief.

[Malcolm Roberts] What about if everyone was in there? Every party.

Same thing people then get confused and I’d be absolutely–

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s a fair comment. So if someone’s handing it they can stop them and ask questions about it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Senator Roberts.

/by