Posts

Clean Energy Regulation: Questions on Costs and Market Impact

,

The Clean Energy Regulator is a $115 million dollar agency dedicated to implementing the UN’s Net Zero plans on Australia. I pressed for transparency regarding executive salaries and the total cost to taxpayers, expressing surprise at the reluctance to readily provide this information.

I also challenged the effectiveness and necessity of the carbon market, describing it as a concocted market driven by regulations rather than genuine demand. It’s essentially a made up cost inflicted on Australia. These are the kind of agencies we could simply get rid of and Australian’s lives would get better.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. A similar question to the others in the alphabet soup of climate change and energy agencies: as simply and specifically as possible, what does the Clean Energy Regulator do? Could you tell me the basic accountabilities and the uniqueness of those accountabilities?

Mr Binning: As I stated previously, we’re an economic regulator for the purpose of accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. We do this by administering a range of schemes on behalf of the Australian government.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you say you were an accelerator or a regulator?

Mr Binning: A regulator. We have two outcomes currently within our corporate objectives. The first is to contribute to a reduction in Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions, including through the administration of market based mechanisms that incentivise reduction in emissions and the promotion of additional renewable electricity generation. The second is to contribute to the sustainable management of Australia’s biodiversity through the administration of market based mechanisms.

Senator ROBERTS: Is your uniqueness the latter?

Mr Binning: Our uniqueness is that we manage or administer the various government schemes, particularly where they involve the formation of a market.

Senator ROBERTS: The carbon dioxide market or carbon market?

Mr Binning: Yes, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: How many employees do you have?

Mr Binning: We have around 400.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the breakdown of permanent and employees and contractors?

CHAIR: Are we going to the annual report again?

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know. We’ll find out.

Mr Binning: A lot of that information will be contained in our annual report. Our chief operating officer will just come up. Perhaps if we move to the next question, then she can follow up.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all employees, including casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Ms Pegorer will be able to help you out with that detail.

Ms Pegorer: Can I just confirm your question was with regard to the number or the breakdown of our staff?

Senator ROBERTS: Permanent, casual and contractors, please.

Ms Pegorer: I don’t have that level of detail with me, unfortunately. I do have the number of contracting staff that we’ve had from January this year until October and the number of FTE, but I don’t have the number of casuals or non-ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get them on notice, please?

Mr Binning: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all of those people: permanents, casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Again, we don’t carry that data in that form with us, so it’s best we take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total budget for the Clean Energy Regulator, including any grants or programs you administer?

Mr Binning: Our departmental funding is around $115 million. Our administered revenue associated with the programs that we run is in the order of $37 million. However, I would just note for the record that where we have our greatest impact is actually in the issuance of certificates that then carry value in a marketplace, so both with renewable energy and with the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme we issue certificates that are of material value and which are then financial instruments managed through our registries.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s fair to say, isn’t it, that this is not a market meeting people’s needs; this is a market to meet regulations and global regulations as well—concocted needs, if you like. I’m not diminishing your work.

Mr Binning: No, I probably wouldn’t quite characterise it in that way. We administer schemes that are made by government, so if you take, for example, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme acting in conjunction with the safeguard mechanism, it then forms both the supply and demand side. Safeguard mechanisms are required through the regulations to manage their emissions within their baseline or source unit certificates. Then the ACCU generates a supply of Australian carbon credit units, and they facilitate trade in order to meet their obligations.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no open market as such. There’s no clamouring of citizens for carbon dioxide credits. They’re a concoction of Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt in 2015, just before Christmas, and bolstered by Chris Bowen in September of 2022 with the extension of the safeguard mechanism.

Senator Ayres: I think you are asking the official for, at best, an opinion.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s your opinion?

Senator Ayres: The truth is that these schemes are administered by this agency in the best interests of keeping costs down for Australian electricity consumers and efficiently managing the process of reducing emissions across sectors, and it’s judged by successive governments that, to be in the interests of doing that in the most efficient way possible, that kind of capability is retained in the agency who’s in front of you today.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand that. We’ve got a scheme that’s been concocted that’ll add more cost to energy—

Senator Ayres: It wasn’t concocted.

Senator ROBERTS: Hang on. It’ll add more cost, and now we’ve got a market in place due to regulations to try to bring it down.

Senator Ayres: No, I don’t agree with that.

Senator ROBERTS: Last question, then. No-one can identify a fundamental need of people. There’s no market other than the concocted market, the fabricated market.

Mr Binning: The only thing I would note in addition to the requirement for people to comply with the various government regulatory structures is that there has over recent years been a reasonably strong emergence of a voluntary market both for Australian carbon credit units and for renewable energy certificates. On the Australian carbon credit side we see in the order of a million units surrendered per annum, and on the electricity side we see very significant surrenders of certificates in the order of 10 million over and above the 33 million that is the regulated target. A lot of what has driven that are the various objectives, particularly across corporate Australia, for voluntary emissions reduction and meeting their own targets and the desire to source credible renewable energy of high integrity to do that, so the market is both performing its regulatory functions and facilitating voluntary participation.

Senator ROBERTS: I notice peppered through your statement there—and I thank you for the statement—are the words ‘regulated’, ‘comply’ and ‘carbon credits’—I call them ‘carbon dioxide credits’. These are all to make the best of a concocted market that’s only there because of regulations. It’s only there because nowhere in the world, as I understand it, has carbon dioxide been designated a pollutant. I just make that point. Final question: what is the total salary package of everyone here at the desk, particularly executive level—what band?

Mr Binning: As I think other agencies have done, our executive remuneration is in our annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the complete cost including on-costs?

Mr Binning: That’s the salaries associated with those. If you are seeking other information related to our salaries, we will take it on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: I want the total cost that the taxpayer pays for you, for example, not just what you get in the hand but everything as part of the package.

CHAIR: Again, I would suggest that you have a look at the annual report and, if it doesn’t give you sufficient detail, that you then place a question on notice for further detail from the officials.

Senator ROBERTS: Just one final question, building on the last one: why is there so much reluctance to share the salaries? Surely you would know what you cost.

Mr Binning: We report executive remuneration as part of our annual reporting cycle. That’s the data that I bring to these committee meetings. If there is other information that you’re seeking and it’s information that’s
generally publicly available, we would be delighted to supply it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: But you would know your total costs to the taxpayers?

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, it’s a pretty unfair line of questioning. The official has said—

Senator ROBERTS: What’s unfair about it?

Senator Ayres: The official has said the remuneration details. It’s pretty unfair to characterise it as the official not answering your question, is what I mean.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t characterise it that way. You’re fabricating now, Senator Ayres.

Senator Ayres: What he has said is that information is now publicly available in their report, which you could have read on the way here. In addition to that, if there is more information that he can provide, he will provide it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Senator Ayres: You can’t ask for more than that.

Senator ROBERTS: No, and I made the observation that I’m surprised that people don’t know this or can’t readily divulge it. That’s all. Thank you, Chair.

/0 Comments/by

Doctors Versus The System

,

At the recent senate estimates in November, I spoke with Dr Antonio Di Dio, Director of Professional Review Services, asking why the current system was still biased against doctors. He denied this was the case, even though the agency maintains a 100% conviction rate of doctors in a system that does not allow merit appeals or the ability to challenge the facts used against a doctor.

Dr Di Dio conceded that the agency had not undergone a review, despite it being suggested many years ago during an inquiry. Senator Gallagher added that a review was unnecessary, asserting that the system was functioning well, despite evidence to the contrary.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Thank you for being here. Annual reports of the PSR, directed to the health minister, make no attempt whatsoever to disguise the fact that PSR operates in part as a debt recovery system from doctors of Medicare funds. Given that admissions have earlier been made before Senate estimates that committees are not chaired by a judge, that merit review on appeal is not allowed, and that no cross-examination of the committee’s case ever occurs, why is it not reasonable to conclude that PSR operates similarly to a robodebt scheme for doctors, with doctors who’ve come before it having as little meaningful defence as did robodebt’s victims? 

Dr Di Dio: That’s certainly not my view. When a practitioner is referred to PSR, a small minority of them are referred to a PSR committee. Last year it was 12 out of 109 referrals. When a practitioner appears before a PSR committee, the committee process is one in which peers interview and discuss with the practitioner under review whether or not, in their view, inappropriate practice has occurred. At every stage of that committee process, numerous times per day, the committee may say, ‘We have found preliminary concerns with this matter and invite your response.’ In other words, the entire process is made up of taking into account the practitioner’s response, over and over again. Furthermore, the practitioner, of course, is invited to bring their legal representative. In terms of a merits review, there is no formal merits review process as that term is commonly known. However, there are opportunities during and after the committee process to respond to the committee’s findings. For example, at the end of a committee, despite having opportunities to respond verbally all through the process, the practitioner under review also is invited, either themselves or through their legal representative, to make final comments about anything that has come up during the committee process. Furthermore, after the committee process is completed, there is a draft report issued by the committee to the practitioner under review, inviting comment and submissions to that draft report. So those committee findings are still deemed preliminary findings, because they are still awaiting further response and information from the practitioner under review. 

Senator ROBERTS: That sounds wonderful, but it does not discuss the fact that the PSR’s case cannot be scrutinised in terms of evidence. You omit that. Why do you repeatedly omit that? Every time we come to Senate estimates, you omit that. That’s fundamental to justice. 

Dr Di Dio: The PSR process is one in which, in order to elicit whether or not inappropriate practice has occurred, people’s medical records are reviewed. 

Senator ROBERTS: But your data is not open to scrutiny; your case is not open to scrutiny. The facts cannot be disputed—cannot even be challenged. 

Mr Topperwien: There are no facts found until the end of the committee process. There are no findings of fact until after the committee process, after all of the evidence has come in. Yes, the committee receives billing data from Medicare, but that’s open to inquiry and investigation as to how accurate that is, and that comes up often in hearings as to whether that data is accurate. And it’s open, then, for the practitioner to put on evidence to counter that data. And that happens regularly at committee hearings. The hearing is an investigation. It isn’t a prosecution. So the committee is inquiring into the information that the committee has already received in the way of the billing data and gets the patient records to see how they match up to what’s been billed as to whether the doctor has fulfilled their obligation to keep adequate and contemporaneous notes of what they did, and to then investigate, ‘What was this practitioner’s conduct in connection with the provision of these services?’ It’s only after they’ve conducted a full inquiry investigation, asked lots of questions, and looked at all of the evidence, that they then may find facts, which may show that the doctor has engaged in inappropriate conduct. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back. I don’t want an answer to this just yet, but I want to say that there has never been a comprehensive review of the process, despite a 2011 Senate inquiry saying there should be a comprehensive review within 12 months. So let me continue. Many of the annual reports of the PSR director, to the health minister, contain the assertion that the goals for care planning must accord with the acronym SMART, specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-based—notwithstanding that no explicit allusion to specific SMART goals appears in the care planning MBS descriptor. Given that, essentially, all doctors who appear before PSR committees who do care plans are found guilty, and given that merit review of the committee’s case is never allowed, how can the committee’s finding of all doctors’ care plans as being unacceptable be valid? 

Mr Topperwien: The committee examines random samples, usually, of the practitioner’s care plans. The practitioners who are examining those are practitioners who themselves do care plans. They are experts in what the general body of their specialty or profession do in their practice. And the reality is the law requires adequate records to be kept, and care plans that are meaningful. And, quite often, the sorts of care plans that committees see are blank templates. There’s nothing in them other than the patient’s name with goals that are totally meaningless. And so those sorts of care plans are ones on which they will find, ‘This is not a care plan that’s adequate and of any use to this patient. It is not a clinically relevant service that’s been provided.’ 

Dr Di Dio: Senator, if it helps, I do care plans every couple of weeks in my practice. I could take you through what one should like. But I think what you really want to know is: this is a peer review scheme, and so what the people on committees determine is what the general body of peers would be considering is appropriate or not. 

Senator ROBERTS: This is an apparent peer review scheme, but it’s not. You claimed in the past that it is peer reviewed, and we’ve given examples where it’s not. Your predecessor, I think, offered to have a conversation with me—on the basis that it was not to discuss a specific doctor’s case; he made that clear. I accepted that offer straightaway, and I said, ‘That’s no problem at all.’ Soon after, he left. So we’ve never had that. Would you be willing to give us a briefing and have an exchange on that? 

Dr Di Dio: I think you’ll find that the person who had that conversation with you was me, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, it wasn’t. 

Dr Di Dio: Right. Well, Senator, I can further discuss— 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you willing to have a meeting with us and give us a briefing? 

Dr Di Dio: Senator, in order for me to do that, I need to get the appropriate permissions from my own minister, but, should that be the case, I would be very pleased to discuss with you or anybody else how the PSR system works—on the condition, of course, that it does not discuss any particular case or any particular practitioner. I can refer to some correspondence that I’ve had with you about this in the past, if you wish. 

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. 

Dr Di Dio: We most recently corresponded with you on 21 March of this year and confirmed that we’d offered to meet with you in the context of providing general information about the PSR scheme and would happily provide that general information, and additionally on any questions you may have on procedural fairness. We said the discussion would not be able to include any specific matter or case before us and that I was not able to meet with any other person being reviewed or their legal representative or anyone else. 

Senator ROBERTS: Does that still apply? 

Dr Di Dio: Well, yes, because— 

Senator ROBERTS: Good. Okay, let’s accept it, and we’ll set up a date. 

Dr Di Dio: Well, nice to hear back from you, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: Good. Many doctors, and all the medical defence organisations, complain emphatically that committees routinely make up rules in passing their judgement. Why is this not solid evidence of dysfunction, injustice and systemic injustice? 

Dr Di Dio: I meet regularly with the medical defence organisations, most recently less than two weeks ago, and I present regularly to thousands of doctors in toto, various colleges and representative groups. That is not the impression that I get, talking to hundreds of doctors around the country. We attempt to do what we exist to do, which is to protect the Commonwealth from paying from inappropriate health care and to protect citizens from potential harms from inappropriate health care through a process that we consider to be as fair as possible. 

Senator ROBERTS: And we applaud that. We just want procedural fairness and justice. Minister, when will this government review this broken system? It’s got to be changed. 

Senator Gallagher: Well, I don’t accept that it is broken, Senator Roberts. That’s your assertion. The department provides advice to the minister about the operations of all parts of the health portfolio, and we are very confident in the processes and the leadership that’s being provided through the Professional Services Review system. 

Senator ROBERTS: There’s been no review since the 2011 Senate inquiry saying there should be a comprehensive review within 12 months—no review. Clearly, it was a problem back then. 

Ms Shakespeare: Senator, there have been reviews of aspects of the PSR scheme on several occasions since then. I am happy to— 

Senator ROBERTS: Could I have, on notice, those reviews and the dates, please, and the topics and the scope? 

Ms Shakespeare: Certainly. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/0 Comments/by

Alphabet Soup Agencies: Are Taxpayers Getting Value for Money?

,

The climate division at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is just another part of the alphabet soup of agencies that are dedicated to bringing in net zero goals.

Although no one at the desk wanted to tell me their salaries, the fewer than ten senior executives in the department rake in $4.5 million a year. Secretary David Fredericks, who responded to my question, is on a total package of $907,000 a year. 

Are you getting value for money?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: As simply as possible and as specifically as possible, what do the people responsible for outcome 1 at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water do? What is your basic
accountability, especially in regard to energy?

Mr Fredericks: In many ways, I can’t do any better than our corporate documents.

Senator ROBERTS: How long is that?

Mr Fredericks: Very short. It’s the outcome that we are held to account for by the parliament and ultimately by the ANAO, which is to support the transition of Australia’s economy to net zero emissions by 2050; transition energy to support net zero while maintaining security, reliability and affordability; support actions to promote adaptation and strengthen resilience of Australia’s economy, society and environment; and take a leadership role internationally in responding to climate change.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. That’s exactly what I was after. What is the total salary package of everyone at the executive?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the corporate questions were at 9 o’clock this morning. We’ve released the corporate people.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put these on notice.

/0 Comments/by

One Nation’s Vision for Constitutional Efficiency

,

Next election, Queensland voters will face a clear choice: the Liberal-National and Labor parties’ approach of ever-expanding government, or One Nation’s approach to shrinking government to fit the Constitution.   

When Australia federated in 1901, the Commonwealth Constitution granted the federal government powers necessary to run Australia as a single country rather than six states – which included defence, immigration, currency, and taxation.  Over the past 120 years, bureaucrats have expanded their reach into areas that are rightly the responsibility of the states, such as health, education, housing, and more.   

A One Nation government will close down any Commonwealth department that lacks constitutional authority. This will not affect funding for frontline services. The federal government collects taxes on behalf of the states and One Nation will ensure that funding for schools and hospitals is not reduced. However, billions of dollars in savings will be achieved by eliminating the bureaucracy involved in this duplication of government services.   One Nation in government will shrink the federal government to align with the Constitution and return these savings to taxpayers, allowing you to keep more of what you earn. 

Transcript

As frequently happens, the Senate is dealing with a tangled mess of legislation that is flawed in design and will have unintended consequences. That’s inevitable when pressure groups run the government. It is a process that never involves the word ‘no’. Too many Australians think governments should solve all their problems, and too many in government think they can. One would have thought both would have sooner seen this folly.

When Australia federated in 1901, the state ceded only the powers necessary for the operation of Australia as a single country rather than six states. Today’s twisted, concocted federalism has given overlapping state, federal and local governments a bureaucratic tangle of incompetence and waste with no accountability and no consequences. It has allowed the Commonwealth government acquisition and abuse of power to go beyond anything our wise founding fathers envisaged. One Nation will honour our Constitution, withdraw the Commonwealth from areas that are none of the federal government’s business and return to competitive federalism, as Australia’s founding fathers designed.

This week I’ve called again for the abolition of the Commonwealth Department of Education, a move that will not take a single teacher out of a single classroom. I’ve called for abolition of the national curriculum, which is riddled with woke virtue signalling, victimhood and social engineering. Headmasters should determine and decide what’s best for students, not woke bureaucrats thousands of kilometres away. I’ve called for abolition of the department of climate change, along with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the Clean Energy Regulator, the Climate Change Authority, the Australian Climate Service and the Net Zero Economy Authority. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will be rolled into a people’s bank, and there’s more to come. One Nation will shrink government to fit the Constitution and to serve the people.

/7 Comments/by

Public Service Not Impartial on Net-Zero Policies

,

The Australian Public Service Commissioner (APSC) is tasked with ensuring our bureaucrats are kept in line and are living up to the standards expected by the Australian public.  One of those standards is impartiality.

I raised the issue that government organisations appear to be offering support or endorsement of net-zero policies, rather than simply providing comments on what would be required to implement them.

The APSC doesn’t appear to view this as a problem, based on their responses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I’ve only got two short questions. There seems to still be an abundance of public servants, agencies and departments making submissions outlining explicit support for net zero policies. We visited this before, but I’m still unclear about how that meets the Public Service standard of impartiality. Shouldn’t those submissions not endorse government policy and only talk about the mechanics of implementing it?

Dr de Brouwer: I think it’s also the obligation of public servants to implement government policy, and I’d be reading from what you’re saying around that characterisation that the public servants are implementing government policy, and they’re talking about how to go about that implementation.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my point there. They’re endorsing policies. I can accept that they can discuss the mechanics of implementation, as I said, but not the endorsement of policy.

Dr de Brouwer: I would have to see the material to make any comment on that. Essentially, it is their responsibility to explain that.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go to the second question. I’m interested in when a submission might specifically say, for example, ‘This department supports the implementation of net zero.’ Net zero is a government policy, so I’m still struggling to understand how supporting or opposing a particular government policy meets the standards of impartiality.

Dr de Brouwer: I think you really need to ask that to them, Senator. With my familiarity with cabinet documents, I’ll say that it may be that they’re talking about a particular implementation pathway, and they can see that implementation path as being feasible and practical, and they’re saying, ‘Yes, we can do that.’ The term that officials may use in that is to say, ‘I support that,’ because they can do that, rather than they necessarily agree—

Senator ROBERTS: I can see some merit in what you’re saying, but, as I said, I’m interested in when a submission might specifically say, ‘This department supports the implementation of net zero.’ They’re basically saying the whole department supports net zero.

Dr Bacon: It’s hard to tell in the abstract without seeing the context of what you’re quoting from, but I do wonder if they meant ‘support’ in the sense of deploying resources, expertise, personnel to implement the government of the day’s policy. When we talk about implementation, as Dr de Brouwer said, sometimes we, in a public service setting, use the word ‘support’ to talk about the deployment of personnel, expertise and resources.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, but do you still agree that public servants should not express their opinion about a policy, just the implementation of it?

Dr Bacon: The job of public servants is to implement the policies of the government of the day, and also we have a role in explaining the policies of the government of the day as well. The Australian Public Service Commission has guidance that we issue that steps out how those judgements ought to be made about when it is appropriate for public servants to comment, how public servants might comment and how the code of conduct and the values that are set out in the Public Service Act apply in different circumstances. It is something that is difficult to comment on in the abstract, because it’s a judgement on a case-by-case basis—that’s what our guidance says—taking into account a range of factors that we recommend people apply. That draws on High Court case law, for example.

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t intend to take it to High Court.

Dr Bacon: Sure. These principles have been considered, and we’ve incorporated that into our guidance.

/2 Comments/by

Climate Bureaucrats Squirm When Questioned in Senate Estimates

,

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.

Abolish the net-zero goals.

Transcript

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.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Chair. 

/by

Government Miscalculates Governor General’s Salary

,

This Government is spending money recklessly, treating it as if it were mere monopoly money. This is partly because of their reliance on career bureaucrats for advice, individuals who have enjoyed very high incomes within the Canberra bubble for so long that money has lost its value to them.

They are probably surprised by the public’s outraged reaction to their decision to raise the Governor General’s salary from $495,000 to $719,000.

Such a large salary increase in the middle of a cost of living crisis showed a severe lack of awareness. Canberra bureaucrats aren’t experiencing the cost of living pain felt by the broader population, as they are insulated by their excessively hire salaries.

Rather than meeting the public outcry with a mea culpa and reducing the salary, Minister Gallagher huffed and puffed. She failed to grasp simple maths (an increase from $495,000 to $719,000 is a 43.2% rise), conflagrated the situation by raising the previous Governor General’s military pension and then accused me of misleading Parliament.

In truth, the Government and their bureaucrats were just looking after a mate and got called out for it.

Transcript

The Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 is yet another display of poor judgement from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. To increase the salary of the Governor-General by 43 per cent in a cost-of-living crisis is an insult to everyday Australians who are struggling with the Albanese government’s cost-of-living crisis. 

The salary of the Governor-General is fixed for the period of her term, so the rise by $214,000 dollars to a new salary of $709,000 is the only increase in the next five years. A 43 per cent pay rise suggests that the government knows inflation is going to get much worse. Not only will Ms Mostyn be earning $709,000 but the role also includes two homes: Government House in Yarralumla and Admiralty House in Kirribilli, right on Sydney Harbour. The role includes free travel, free food, servants and a pool. The Governor-General receives a pension which is legislated at 60 per cent of salary or $425,000 for life—not a bad pension. 

The appointment of Ms Mostyn is a controversial choice. The tradition for 124 years has been to select our Governor-General from the ranks of the judiciary, the military, state governors and senior politicians. This reflects the skill set a governor-general needs to lead the Australian people in a time of civil crisis or war. The Governor-General is, of course, commander of Australia’s armed forces; the Prime Minister is not the commander of Australia’s armed forces. Ms Mostyn comes to the role with a background in activism. It’s an appointment which may serve to politicise the role of the Governor-General, and that’s sad to see. 

The Commonwealth of Australia deserves more respect than the Prime Minister has shown with this appointment and with this obscene pay rise. One Nation opposes this bill. 

Transcript

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, if a salary rises from $495,000 to $719,000, what percentage increase is that? 

Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure under which part of the portfolio this comes, but I think it relates to the Governor-General’s salary and the bill that this Senate passed this morning. The point I was making there was that it is misleading to suggest that a salary is increasing from the figure that you have used, Senator Roberts, to that high figure, because what it does not take into account is the other income streams that were available to former Governors-General. So this is an adjustment, yes, but it’s an adjustment being made because the incoming Governor-General does not have a military pension that will supplement the income stream and because the Governor-General’s salary has been traditionally linked to the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court. That salary is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. 

I think the point you were making this morning in debate and the point that Senator Waters, surprisingly, was making in debate was this was some significant pay increase in the order of 43 per cent, when that is not correct. Former Governors-Generals have had two income streams, particularly if they’ve been in receipt of a pension. This legislation we passed today was to ensure that a commensurate salary be provided for an incoming Governor-General who only has one income stream. So it is not accurate to say that a position has had an increase of that order. It is simply not correct. It is misleading, it is disingenuous and it’s seeking a popular headline, which I agree is easy to get if people don’t understand the detail that underpins that decision. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The answer is 43.2 per cent. Governor-General Jeffery’s salary was $365,000. Quentin Bryce, Labor’s last appointment, was paid $394,000, $20,000 less than the then salary of the High Court Chief Justice. General Cosgrove was paid $425,000, and then General Hurley was paid $495,000. Minister, how much was outgoing Governor-General Hurley’s salary reduced for his military pension? 

Senator Gallagher: I don’t have those figures at hand, but I do understand that the salary that has been agreed to and passed by this chamber this morning and by the House earlier in the week is in line with the salary that the current Governor-General has been earning with the income streams available to him. It might be slightly adjusted for the fact that it lasts over five years, because, once the Governor-General commences in the role, no further adjustments can be made to salary. But it is in line with what His Excellency Governor-General Hurley is earning at this point in time. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The incoming Governor-General’s salary is now $70,000 above the High Court Chief Justice’s salary. The Chief Justice gets, as you said, periodic increases to adjust for inflation. The Governor-General does not. Noting that today’s inflation announcement shows inflation increasing again, this huge pay rise seems designed to compensate Sam Mostyn for inflation and has nothing to do with military pensions. Minister, earlier today, did you mislead the Senate to cover up the real reason for this huge pay increase, surging inflation? 

Senator Gallagher: I can assure Senator Roberts that, no, I did not mislead the parliament and I have been clear—indeed, I was clear in the last answer that I gave—that there is some adjustment for future increases based on the fact that the Chief Justice has a salary determined annually by the Remuneration Tribunal. The Governor-General’s salary cannot be increased by that, so there is work done, based on some analysis about what that should appropriately be. But, no, it’s not based on today’s inflation forecast, and it’s incorrect to continue to say that it has nothing to do with the fact that His Excellency currently is in receipt of a military pension in addition to the salary that he draws as Governor-General. The simple reality is that the legislation that passed this chamber addresses the fact that there is one income stream, and this allows them to be paid in accordance with what’s currently being paid. 

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today regarding the incoming Governor-General’s salary. 

Since 1974 the parliament has approved the salary for each incoming Governor-General. The salary level has conventionally been commensurate with that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The last time a Governor-General was paid less than the Chief Justice was in 2008, when Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appointed Quentin Bryce with a salary $20,000 less than that of the Chief Justice. Precedent does call for consideration to be ‘given to any pension received by the incumbent for previous employment’—for the incumbent, not for the person coming after the incumbent. 

The annual salary during Michael Jeffery’s term was $365,000. Quentin Bryce’s salary was $394,000. General Peter Cosgrove was paid $425,000, which included a small reduction because of his military pension. General Hurley was paid $495,000. General Hurley is in receipt of a military pension as a result of his lifetime of military service. Sam Mostyn is not entitled to a military pension for her lifetime of service to the culture wars. The huge increase offered to Sam Mostyn takes her salary to $70,000 above that of the High Court Chief Justice, despite Labor themselves setting a precedent that less can be paid in hard times, such as in 2008, during the global financial crisis. 

In 2024 we have the crisis of the Albanese government’s runaway inflation. The inflation rate has increased again to four per cent, announced a few moments ago. This persistent high inflation gives a hint as to why the incoming Governor-General got such a large wage rise. The government knows what bad economic news is coming for everyday Australians in the next five years and sought to insulate its appointment from that ruinous inflation. This Labor government simply doesn’t know the value of money and is clearly confused when the public call the government out for it. Sam Mostyn has got a huge increase in salary. Her pension is now hugely increased, and she will have that pension for every day of every year of her life. 

Question agreed to. 

/2 Comments/by

Questions Raised Over $430K Government Job

,

Under my questioning, Rob Stefanic, the head of the federal government department tasked with overseeing Parliament House, denied being in a relationship with his deputy, but refused to say whether he’d been in one with her before creating and placing her in a job paying about $430,000 a year. Cate Saunders was also given a $315,000 additional payment to retire, despite being far younger than the retirement age.

Listen to my questioning and tell me whether you believe Rob Stefanic’s answers are worth the $478,000 he is paid by YOU, the Australian taxpayer, as I had to remind him. I also asked about reports of there being a toxic culture at his agency, the Department of Parliamentary Services. Multiple staff have approached me and I am not satisfied with the fobbing off of these concerns.

If you’ve been a staffer in the Department of Parliamentary Services and have a complaint, please contact me confidentially at senator.roberts@aph.gov.au

/5 Comments/by

TGA and Pharmaceutical Interests Are Too Close

,

I questioned the Minister and the Senior Health Department Bureaucrats about the behaviour of former TGA head, Professor Skerritt, who spent 11 years in charge of the TGA before resigning last year and soon after accepted a position on the board of Medicines Australia. This is the peak body representing and lobbying for pharmaceutical companies. The deputy chair for instance is the Head of Pfizer in Australia.

The answers I received in this session highlight that former senior bureaucrats like Professor Skerritt only have one rule to follow—they can’t lobby the Government for 12 months. That’s the only rule applying to former senior health officials. That’s not good enough.

Professor Skerritt and the TGA spent the COVID years dismantling and re-assembling Australia’s drug assessment process to provide drug companies with streamlined approvals, free from the need to provide testing of brand new drugs. Approval has gone from active inquiry to a desktop review of provided literature, before rubber-stamping. This appointment does not pass the pub test.

A Royal Commission must look into the TGA’s behaviour during COVID and the changes made to our drug approval process, without public debate.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again today. Professor Skerritt’s career includes a period as deputy head of the Department of Health and Aged Care and as head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Eight months after leaving the TGA, Professor Skerritt has been appointed to the board of a lobby group, Medicines Australia—in fact, the leading pharmaceutical industry lobby group. The deputy chair of that organisation is the Managing Director of Pfizer. There are other members on the board who are heads of other companies. As head of the TGA, Professor Skerritt introduced the mRNA into Australia and provided authorisation—without testing, as he admitted to me—creating a whole new industry that he is now working in. Does this sound like an appropriate arrangement to you? It sounds like a massive conflict of interest to me. It’s just brazen, like the rules don’t apply to him—or are there no rules?

Mr Comley: I don’t know whether Professor Lawler or Ms Balmanno want to comment. There are rules in terms of former public servants and what they can do, but those rules are largely limited to lobbying activities related to their previous departments. There’s not a broader prohibition on their activity in related areas that they’ve worked in the Public Service.

Senator ROBERTS: He has joined the most significant, powerful lobby group for the pharmaceutical sector, which he was previously regulating.

Mr Comley: As long as he’s not undertaking lobbying activity to us—I think it’s in a 12-month period—that is appropriate.

Ms Balmanno: His obligations in relation to confidentiality of any information gained while in the Public Service continue to apply.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s unpack that a bit further. This is what Medicines Australia’s latest annual report said about Professor Skerritt: After 11 years leadership of the TGA, Prof John Skerrit retired in April Professor Skerritt has been a cornerstone of our health system for many years. … Medicines Australia and member companies worked closely with his Department during the Medicines and Medical Devices Review, and the rapid registration of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. On behalf of our industry, members and Board, we thank him for his service and dedication to Australia. Medicines Australia hired him as a thankyou for tearing up years of prudent drug approval and testing while authorising a whole new mRNA drug industry with no testing. How could you read this any other way?

Mr Comley: I’ll allow Professor Lawler to comment first and then I may come back. I do note the point Ms Balmanno made that the obligations for confidentiality and use of information are still retained even when someone has left the service.

Prof. Lawler: Thanks for the question. I recognise that there are a number of underlying elements to your comments around testing and evaluation that I don’t think are necessarily the main thrust of your question. I would highlight that our interaction with Medicines Australia is predominantly through our very well publicised stakeholder engagement processes. We don’t interact directly with the board. We don’t receive lobbying approaches from board members of organisations. We haven’t received any lobbying approaches from Professor Skerritt. The decision—

Senator ROBERTS: With respect, I’m not talking about the board interacting. I’m talking about a former senior member of TGA—the senior member; the head of the TGA—now being on the Medicines Australia board.

Prof. Lawler: Working on the board. As Ms Balmanno and the secretary have highlighted, there are code of conduct provisions that relate to the lobbying activities of former senior employees. We’re not lobbied by Professor Skerritt. We interact with Medicines Australia as we do—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you do need to allow Professor Lawler to finish his sentences. Professor Lawler, please continue.

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry.

Prof. Lawler: I may be incorrect in this, but I’m taking that there is undue influence being applied to the decisions of the TGA by a former senior leader of that organisation?

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s not what I’m—

Prof. Lawler: Sorry. I would ask for clarification then.

Senator ROBERTS: My question is: is his appointment a reward for work he has done in the past?

Prof. Lawler: Thank you for the question. The decisions that are taken by Medicines Australia on who does or does not sit on their board are questions for them.

Senator ROBERTS: It certainly doesn’t look good. It looks like he’s being rewarded for things he’s done for them in the past when he was head of the TGA. The Chief Executive Officer of Medicines Australia is Ms Elizabeth de Somer. Is this the same person who was a member of your Health Technology Assessment Policy and Methods Review reference committee, which is a paid position responsible for: … ensuring that our assessment processes keep pace with rapid advances in health technology and barriers to access are minimised. That’s from your website. Barriers to the entry of her products. Are we paying the pharmaceutical industry to promote pharmaceutical industry agendas to neuter our approval process? This is not looking good.

Mr Comley: I will ask Ms Shakespeare to comment.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I do ask that you direct things to the officials as questions. It’s reasonable to ask questions of them.

Senator ROBERTS: I did. I said, ‘Barriers to entry of her products’—

CHAIR: My hearing of it was that it was a statement, given how you finished.

Senator ROBERTS: My last words were a statement, but my question was: are we paying the pharmaceutical industry to promote pharmaceutical industry agendas to neuter our approval process?

CHAIR: Followed by a statement. Please continue; I just remind you to please direct things as questions.

Mr Comley: I will throw to Ms Shakespeare, but I’ll make a general comment that, where we, or other departments within government, are supporting reviews of policy matters that affect a range of stakeholders, it’s not uncommon for those stakeholders to be part of that review process. It’s also not uncommon for those stakeholders to be very clear when people declare what conflicts of interest they have and that people be aware of that. But there is a real balance here in having appropriate expertise in the room, including of what will happen on the ground, with making that policy process. Most of those reviews—almost all that I can think of—are never the final decision-maker. They make an input to government decision-making which is informed by their experience on the ground. Ms Shakespeare may have some further information.

Ms Shakespeare: Ms de Somer, who’s the Chief Executive Officer of Medicines Australia, is a member of the health technology assessment review panel. The membership of the review panel was established under an agreement between the government and Medicines Australia, called a strategic agreement. She’s not paid for the work on that; it’s not a paid position. It’s a review led by an independent chair and it has other experts on it, including the Chair of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. It has two consumer representatives, a government representative and also experts in health technology assessment.

Senator ROBERTS: So the government has a—I’m sorry, continue.

Ms Shakespeare: As Mr Comley said, the review is currently underway. It’s going to prepare recommendations to the government, but the government will decide whether or not it implements those recommendations.

Senator ROBERTS: So the government has an agreement with Medicines Australia?

Ms Shakespeare: We have a strategic agreement with Medicines Australia. We’ve got strategic agreements with a range of different groups.

Senator ROBERTS: Where is the talk about ensuring safety across long-term use, which used to keep Australia safe for generations? Now it’s all about, it seems, not costing pharmaceutical companies money and approving killer drugs, like remdesivir and molnupiravir, that would never have been approved on a cost-benefit safety analysis before Professor Skerritt rewrote the rulebook. Are you aware of this?

Prof. Lawler: Sorry, I’m struggling. There were two questions there, and I’m not quite clear on what it is that you’re asking. Are we aware of—

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of Professor Skerritt’s involvement in approving antivirals molnupiravir and remdesivir, which are killer drugs, it seems—they’ve got very bad records overseas. What I’m saying is: rather than putting safety paramount, are the TGA and the department of health removing barriers to pharmaceutical company approvals?

Prof. Lawler: I see. Thank you for the question, Senator. No.

Senator ROBERTS: The patent cliff is a real problem—I’ll explain what that is in a minute—facing the pharmaceutical industry. Billions of dollars of sales are at risk as patents expire around the same time, producing a loss of revenue totalling $200 billion this decade for the pharmaceutical companies. MRNA technology, which has not been tested, will be the saviour of the drug industry, allowing drugs that are now off patent to be replaced with new mRNA drugs. I understand that in America they’re favouring two companies, one of which is Pfizer. That means the new drugs will be subject to patent, meaning profits all around—wonderful!—except for taxpayers.

Minister, has your government—and the previous government—made a deliberate decision to allow patents on these novel mRNA products to save the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry over considerations of safety and financial cost to taxpayers?

Senator McCarthy: I might start with acknowledging that Professor Skerritt did a commendable job in his previous role, and we certainly wish him all the best in what he’s doing going forward I think your questions place a slur on people’s character, and you might want to have a good look at that. People who move on, whether it’s in political life or in other forms of organisations, deserve the opportunity to move on.

Senator ROBERTS: And I want to protect the taxpayer by making sure there are no conflicts of interest. You didn’t answer my question, Minister.

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take your question on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: I will repeat it. Has your government—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you don’t need to repeat it. The minister’s taken it on notice.

/2 Comments/by

CASA Has Loose Ends It “Cannot Recall”

,

CASA’s credibility is in free fall.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is meant to be the authority regulating aviation safety and yet senior executives have free and exclusive access to Chairman’s Lounge and Virgin Beyond Lounge that aren’t available to the public. These exclusive memberships were not listed as gifts or benefits on the register until AFTER I drew attention to them. CASA quietly updated their website with these gift memberships without issuing a clarification.

How is this not a conflict of interest? The behaviour of these senior CASA members is bordering on contemptuous and as the Chair noted during this Estimates session, it’s sloppy.

What else is hidden from the public by Miss Spence and other CASA executives?

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let’s tidy up some loose ends. We’ve got a fresh set of questions coming in May. I asked at the previous estimates whether CASA was aware of all the incidents in relation to Qantas on a list that I circulated. Ms Spence told me that these were all ones that CASA was aware of, yet in the answer to question on notice SQ23003791 CASA clarified it actually wasn’t aware of five of the provided incidents. Can you clarify whether those events were then self-reported or if CASA had to make inquiries to Qantas to initiate those reports? 

Ms Spence: Sorry, I don’t think that was at the last hearings. Was it at the hearing before that you raised those issues? 

Senator ROBERTS: It was October-November 2023. 

Ms Spence: It wasn’t at our last hearings, I don’t think. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the date I’ve got written on the Hansard reference. 

Ms Spence: Sorry, I’ll have to take that on notice. I don’t have the information in front of me. Apologies. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, presumably, the answer, presumably from CASA, says that four of the five incidents—they say in brackets afterwards, ‘this event has now been reported’. So at the time it wasn’t. 

Ms Spence: Sorry, I genuinely don’t have that document in front of me so I can’t— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m telling you what the document says. 

Ms Spence: I know. And it’s very difficult for me not having it in front of me to be able to explain what the context was. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would you like to make a copy of this? 

Mr Marcelja: Sorry, I’m just looking for it as well. 

Ms Spence: I know the document you’re talking about, but I genuinely thought it was— 

Mr Marcelja: A bit further back. 

Ms Spence: My recollection was that you raised a list, and we said we thought most of them would have been covered. The reason we took it on notice was to test which ones we were aware of and which ones we weren’t aware of. And the ones that— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll remind you that I asked you if you’d seen these incidents on the document. Without looking at the document, you said, ‘No, these are not on the document.’ 

Ms Spence: I doubt very much— 

Senator ROBERTS: Then I said, ‘Would you please look at the document before answering?’ How can you have any credibility with me? 

Ms Spence: Obviously I don’t. 

Senator ROBERTS: No, you don’t. You don’t have a lot of credibility with many pilots either. 

Ms Spence: I’m sorry. I just genuinely don’t. I’ll take on notice what it means when we say ‘this event has now been reported’. 

Senator ROBERTS: You also told me that the frequency of incidents on the list that I gave you, before you’d seen it, was not out of the ordinary. If some of the incidents weren’t reported to you then it’s hard for you to say that there isn’t an increase in frequency, correct? 

Ms Spence: That’s correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If you look at the last one there, the October 2022 Perth-Sydney incident, it remained unreported. What is the status of your investigations on this incident? 

Ms Spence: We don’t investigate. The ATSB investigates. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you didn’t chase it up with Qantas? 

Ms Spence: As I said, I’ll take on notice what it means when we say ‘this event has now been reported’ and what we did, but at the end of the day we do not do accident or incident investigations. Unidentified speaker: If I could— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to ask the questions here. That might be the question you’d like me to ask. 

Ms Spence: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Have you inquired about that incident? 

Ms Spence: I just said I’d take that on notice. I don’t know. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on. Do you believe that senior leadership of the agency that is meant to be regulating aviation—that’s your agency—having access to the exclusive Qantas Chairman’s Lounge and Virgin Beyond Lounge creates a conflict of interest? 

Ms Spence: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Not even as a potential perceived conflict of interest? 

Ms Spence: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: In the May 2022 Senate estimates your evidence was that all gifts and benefits were listed on your website under the gifts and benefits register. That wasn’t true, was it? 

Ms Spence: I thought that they all were on the list. I haven’t deliberately misled the committee. If something wasn’t included, I apologise. But everything is certainly on the register now. 

Senator ROBERTS: Now? 

Ms Spence: And has been for some time. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you put it on the register, that means you think it was a gift. But you told me it wasn’t a gift. 

Mr Marcelja: We were pretty clear in our written response that those memberships predated people joining CASA. We clarified that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get to that. That’s clarified in your opinion, but it doesn’t clarify it so far as the Public Service Association is concerned. Senior members of the aviation regulator had been given access to exclusive airline clubs that aren’t available to the public, and this was kept a secret from Australians. Yet you maintain that this doesn’t create even a potential conflict of interest. 

Ms Spence: I don’t accept the premise that it was kept a secret. 

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that one too. This explanation from the Australian Public Service Commission is very important: “… Public confidence in APS agencies and the APS more broadly can be damaged when gifts and benefits that create a conflict of interest are accepted or not properly declared. The appearance of a conflict can be just as damaging to public confidence in public administration as a conflict which gives rise to a concern based on objective facts”. Having gifted access to exclusive aviation lounges is obviously a conflict of interest when you are the aviation regulator—the aviation regulator. 

Ms Spence: No, we’re the aviation safety regulator. 

Senator ROBERTS: This is regardless of whether the benefit predates the official’s employment, and this was not declared. 

Ms Spence: I genuinely don’t recall us not being on the register—of me having Chairman’s Lounge and Virgin Beyond lounge membership. When I was in the department and first received those invitations to join those, it’s always been something that I’ve declared in any of my potential conflicts of interest. Notwithstanding that, I genuinely don’t believe it creates a conflict of interest. 

Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue. It’s very concerning to me that you try to tell this committee that all benefits were declared on the gift register at a time they clearly were not. You made no mention of the fact that you had updated the register with these gifts— 

Mr Marcelja: Senator, we— 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Marcelja, I’m trying to talk! 

Ms Spence: Just— 

Senator ROBERTS: You just quietly updated the webpage and tried to act like those things had been there properly for the entire time, and that’s not the case, is it? The gifts weren’t on the register at the time you gave evidence to this committee that they were. Ms Spence: Senator, I’ll have to take that on notice. I genuinely thought that they were always on the register. If they weren’t, they’re certainly on there now and it has never been a secret that I’ve had those lounge memberships. 

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Spence, it seems that it’s contemptuous of this committee for you to try and just quietly update this information in the secretive manner that you have. Why not alert the committee that the previous evidence was incorrect and issue a clarification, which is what most honest public servants do? 

Ms Spence: As we said in our response to your question, nothing was declared on the CASA gifts and benefits register as no lounge access had actually been provided to CASA executives or board members as a result of their roles in CASA. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a furphy, Ms Spence! They have done— 

Ms Spence: It’s not a furphy, Senator! 

Senator ROBERTS: You’re making out that they had them before they joined CASA. 

Ms Spence: They did—I did. 

Senator ROBERTS: They still have them— 

Ms Spence: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: and they weren’t declared. Then, when you updated it to declare them, you didn’t advise the committee. You just did it quietly. 

Ms Spence: I’m genuinely sorry that you feel that I’ve misled the committee— 

Senator ROBERTS: It isn’t my feelings that matter! It’s the facts that matter— 

Ms Spence: Well, I apologise to the committee unreservedly, but there was never any intention to mislead. As I said, the issue, as far as I can recall, was because you list things as they’re provided to you, and because they were already in the possession of myself and some of our board members prior to them actually being on the board they must not have been listed originally. They’re on there now, and I have nothing else I can say. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, does this— 

Senator ROBERTS: It’s my last question. This brings much of the evidence that you’ve given to this committee into question, Ms Spence, if this is how you deal with answers that you later find are incorrect. We wouldn’t even know this unless someone had trawled back through the internet archives. You have apologised; is there anything else you need to apologise for in our exchanges? 

Ms Spence: No, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t see you as a credible witness with your evidence, Ms Spence. 

CHAIR: What I might do, Senator Roberts, due to the hour, is this. I have kept saying all day that we have that report about behaviour—you know what it is—and you have made your point. Ms Spence, it is sloppy— 

Ms Spence: Yes. 

CHAIR: Let’s get over it. The behaviour of politicians in this building over the last few years is pretty questionable too—but anyway! Senator Roberts, do you have further— 

Senator ROBERTS: I have finished my questions, thank you, Chair. 

/by