Ministers and Senators Behaving Badly Series 4

1

If you can't convince them, then confuse them … 

Contents 

Morrison NZ: ‘hijacked’ NZ tourism review ....................................................................................................... 4 

Morrison-Audit: Where the bloody hell is it? .................................................................................................. 11 

Morrison policies: Policies Scott Morrison's government appears to have abandoned ................................ 18 

Morrison’s Values: look after our mates. ........................................................................................................ 26 

Morrison’s ICAC: Scott Morrison’s gold standard ICAC distractions ............................................................... 31 

LNP Delivered?: Has the Coalition delivered on its spending promises? ........................................................ 36 

Morrison Photo Op: The announcement artist ............................................................................................... 45 

Morrison Accountability: record as PM is one of dodging national responsibilities ....................................... 54 

Morrison’s gold standard ICAC distractions .................................................................................................... 58 

Pre COVID-Debt: 88.4 % of Coalition borrowing was before the pandemic ................................................... 64 

Budget Lies: Lies, Damn Lies and LNP budgets ................................................................................................ 68 

Irresponsible is OK: Frydenberg plans to scrap responsible lending laws ...................................................... 91 

Morrison-Indigenous: Morrison has failed the Indigenous Community ......................................................... 97 

Neglect: Aged Care Neglect: 683 Deaths ....................................................................................................... 140 

Broken Promise-Emergency: $50m Emergency Response Fund Untouched ................................................ 276 

Australia Burns: Morrison Mismanagement of the Bushfires ....................................................................... 280 

Broken Promise-Drought: $7 billion Drought Fund = Untouched ................................................................. 352 

Broken Promise-ICAC: Excuses to establish a federal anti-corruption commission...................................... 369 

No Integrity: How National Integrity Commission lost its way ..................................................................... 396 

No Code of Conduct: Morrison rejects code of conduct for ministerial advisers ......................................... 435 

No Fuel: Australia has less than half required fuel reserves ......................................................................... 439 

Failure: Morrison government has failed on Climate Change....................................................................... 452 

Failure: Morrison government has failed to protect Australia’s environment ............................................. 514 

Failure: Morrison government is sabotaging its renewable energy agency ................................................. 545 

Broken Promise: The Guy Sebastian Art Sector Promise $250m promise - $0 spend .................................. 551 

My Health LNP Failure: Audit finds My Health Record flawed ...................................................................... 560 

Failure-Fair Work on Farms: $1.5m Faire Farms scheme has failed ............................................................. 583 

HomeBuilders Grant ‘is a bank stimulus package by another name’. ........................................................... 590 

Failure-JobActive: JobActive: a potential goldmine for the private agencies ............................................... 607 

Failure-JobKeeper: Flawed ............................................................................................................................ 616 

JobMaker: “just a short-term fix to make the recovery look better than it really is” ................................... 642 

JobTrainer: No new incentives or subsidies to encourage employers to hire apprentices or trainees ........ 667 

NBN Backflip: NBN double costs, triple time ................................................................................................. 676 

Failure-Low Paid Workers: Small Business Bailout Package: encourages employers to discard the lowest 

paid workers .................................................................................................................................................. 694 

Failure-ROBODEBT: Half a million Australians to receive refunds over Centrelink ROBODEBT scandal ...... 698


Broken Promise-Water: $2b Water Infrastructure Fund with $0 Spend ...................................................... 764 

Failure-ABC: SCOMOs death by a thousand cuts .......................................................................................... 768 

Failure: $16m COVIDsafe app identified a total of 17 people ....................................................................... 806 

Failure-Recycling: Coalition's $100m scheme to fund recycled products has spent no money ................... 812 

Failure-Communities: $600 million Community Projects = $0 Spend ........................................................... 824 

Failure-Community Grants: $300M not spent .............................................................................................. 826 

Failure-Energy Efficiency: $61.2m Energy Efficient Communities program - yet to be allocated ................ 828 

Failure-Regions: $206m Building Better Regions Fund – No Project, $0 spent ............................................ 831 

Failure-Safe Communities: $58.2m Safer Communities program – yet to allocate any funding .................. 833 

Failure-Roads: $3.5b Roads of Strategic Importance Initiative = $2.2m Spend ............................................ 837 

Failure-Murray Darling: Murray Darling Basin plan ...................................................................................... 845 

Failure: The think tank behind Australia's changing view of China ............................................................... 880 

Failure: Defence Department is growing more secretive and less transparent............................................ 895


Morrison NZ: ‘hijacked’ NZ 

tourism review 

By Karen Middleton. Chief Political Correspondent for The Saturday 

Paper on 17-23 November 2020 

An audit report covering Scott Morrison’s role in the New Zealand tourism 

office raises serious concerns over transparency and due process. By Karen 

Middleton. 

Scott Morrison. CREDIT: AAP IMAGE / BEN RUSHTON 

Seven years before he was sacked as managing director of Tourism 

Australia – amid serious concerns about his management practices – 

Scott Morrison was the subject of criticism in a New Zealand audit report 

examining his activities as head of NZ’s Office of Tourism and Sport. 

The 1999 report by NZ’s controller and auditor-general examined the 

December 1998 resignations of two heads of the NZ Tourism Board, as well 

as payouts to them that were later found to be unlawful. The report 

criticised Morrison’s role in the lead-up to these events. 

Scott Morrison left NZ’s Office of Tourism and Sport in 2000, a year after 

the audit report was published and a year before the end of his contract. 

The reasons for his early departure have never been fully explained.


The NZ auditor’s criticisms of Morrison – who is named in the report – are 

similar to some of those the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) would 

make nine years later in its own report examining the management of 

Tourism Australia. 

In general terms, they included non-consultation, making unilateral 

decisions, not observing due process and restricting board access to 

information. 

Until details of the ANAO investigation were published in The Saturday 

Paper last weekend, the reasons for Morrison’s 2006 sacking from Tourism 

Australia had never been confirmed. The audit report had sat unexamined 

for a decade. 

Morrison has declined to respond to questions The Saturday 

Paper submitted to his office on November 8 relating to his stewardship of 

Tourism Australia and the ANAO findings, despite repeated requests. 

The Saturday Paper also submitted questions this week to Education 

Minister Dan Tehan, who worked as chief of staff to Fran Bailey, the tourism 

minister who fired Morrison. 

The questions asked what Tehan knew of Bailey’s concerns about 

Morrison’s stewardship of Tourism Australia and the reasons for Morrison’s 

dismissal. They also covered whether Tehan had discussed this with 

Morrison and why Tehan had chosen to vote for Morrison in September’s 

Liberal leadership ballot against challenger Peter Dutton, when Tehan has 

been a regular at Dutton’s Monkey Pod lunches for conservative Liberals, 

so named for the room in which they meet. 

Tehan declined to respond. 

Following The Saturday Paper’s report on the Australian audit, which 

revealed the Howard government’s concerns about irregularities in Tourism 

Australia’s handling of $184 million in contracts, questions were raised in 

parliament about Morrison’s time at the authority. 

“Mr Morrison’s explanation came as a surprise not only to Mr Winter and 

board members but also to the minister himself,” the auditor found.


Government senate leader Mathias Cormann initially took Labor’s 

questions on notice and then tabled a one-page response, which said: “I 

can confirm that the performance requirements for the prime minister’s 

contract were fully satisfied.” 

Opposition senate leader Penny Wong demanded: “So why was he sacked 

– unanimously sacked?” 

Asked in parliament on Wednesday about the NZ audit findings, Cormann 

said: “The Labor Party are clearly getting more and more desperate. They 

can see that Prime Minister Morrison is somebody who gets results.” 

The NZ Office of Tourism and Sport was established in July 1998 and 

Morrison was appointed as its inaugural director. 

As head of the office, he reported directly to the then NZ tourism minister 

Murray McCully. Morrison’s office was supposed to collaborate with the 

Tourism Board, a separate and independent government entity. 

The NZ auditor-general’s report said Morrison commissioned a review of 

the NZ Tourism Board’s operations without informing its board members 

fully or allowing them input. 

He then used the report, which asserted the board was operating “in a 

tactical rather than a strategic way” – a description the board disputed – to 

demand its chairperson be sacked. 

“We were surprised by the vehemence and timing of this advice,” the NZ 

auditor-general said. 

The report criticised Morrison’s review process and described how he had 

presented alternative grounds for sacking the chairperson – over what the 

board described as a technicality – when legal advice cast doubt on his 

original judgement. 

The report found that a month into the job, Morrison told the minister he 

had “serious misgivings about the board”, with which McCully was already 

clashing. 

The picture that emerges is of a power struggle between Morrison’s office 

and the board, and between the board and the minister, in which Morrison 

sided with the minister.


As director of the NZ Office of Tourism and Sport, Morrison oversaw the 

adoption of the successful “100% Pure New Zealand” campaign with 

advertising agency M&C Saatchi – the same company that would later be 

contracted for Tourism Australia’s “Where the bloody hell are you?” 

campaign. 

Morrison was advising McCully as he negotiated a new “purchase 

agreement” with the Tourism Board that would set its budget and 

operational rules. 

Relations between McCully and the board, already strained over the 

restructure that had created Morrison’s office, worsened during these 

negotiations. The minister suggested unless the deadlock was broken, the 

chairperson and possibly other members might have to go. 

The audit report also describes the strained relationship between 

Morrison’s office and the board, with Morrison acknowledging he “did not 

consult the board” in the course of developing his office’s role and mission 

statements. 

The auditor says board members complained that their functions 

“appeared to overlap in several respects”. 

The final purchase agreement provided for undertaking an “independent 

review” of the Tourism Board. 

Morrison commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to undertake a limited 

review – but he did not make these limits clear to the board. 

From the outside, it appeared to be the independent review to which the 

board had agreed, with the same two to three weeks’ duration. 

But Morrison stipulated the PwC review must be undertaken “quietly and 

discreetly”. Within the terms of reference – which he later modified from 

those originally put to the board – was a letter saying the review was to be 

conducted with the board’s “co-operation”. 

However, Morrison told PwC that while it could interview a select group of 

the board’s staff, it must not consult the board members themselves nor its 

chief executive, Paul Winter; the minister; the minister’s office; nor 

members of another advisory body, the Tourism and Sport Ministerial 

Advisory Board, which was established to support Morrison’s office.


Morrison would later tell the NZ auditor-general that the PwC review was 

“not in fact the independent review referred to in the purchase agreement” 

but his office’s “contribution to that review”. 

“Mr Morrison’s explanation came as a surprise not only to Mr Winter and 

board members but also to the minister himself,” the auditor found. They 

had assumed this was the independent review. 

The auditor-general queried the authority of Morrison’s office to 

commission its own private review. 

PwC had also been told not to show the draft report to either Winter or the 

board. 

“Mr Morrison, on the other hand, did have access to the report in the 

course of its preparation, and made both written and oral comments on it,” 

the auditor-general found. “It is apparent that these comments influenced 

the shape of the report.” 

When the report went to the minister, Morrison’s covering letter said it had 

identified “extremely serious” shortcomings and urged the minister to take 

“direct and immediate action” to rectify them. 

He recommended the minister, Murray McCully, give the chairperson seven 

days to provide satisfactory reasons as to why the chairperson should stay, 

or “he should be dismissed”. 

Later, the PwC consultant told the auditor-general that “in his view, the 

report did not justify the recommendation”. 

PwC did not object to the conditions Morrison placed on its work at the 

time, but later told the auditors it was “uncomfortable with … the 

requirement to produce a report in these circumstances, without giving 

either the members or the Board’s staff an opportunity to comment on it”. 

When the staff who had been interviewed for the PwC review saw the 

report, they protested unanimously that it “misrepresented” them, 

especially on governance. 

“Board members felt justifiably aggrieved that their performance had been 

criticised without foundation or an opportunity to comment,” the audit 

report said.


“They came, understandably, to the view that the process agreed with the 

Minister in the purchase agreement had been hijacked.” 

Legal advice the NZ Office of Tourism and Sport received subsequently 

from the Crown Law Office – which appears to have warned against 

proposing dismissal – “caused it to recommend a more cautious 

approach”. 

But separate to the PwC review, Morrison had advised McCully of another 

matter which in his view “gave grounds for the [board] members’ removal 

from office”, relating to an alleged rule breach in the handling of its lease 

renewal on premises in Hong Kong. 

The board disputed this, describing it as a “technical” breach, but some 

members decided McCully appeared so determined to sack at least one 

and possibly all of them that the only way to resolve the impasse was for 

the chairperson to resign. 

They persuaded him to do this – without accepting any culpability and with 

an assurance details would stay confidential – and his deputy agreed to go, 

too. 

Both negotiated substantial payouts. 

The auditor-general accepted that all involved in the events had sought to 

act in the best interests of the tourism industry but its April 1999 report 

nevertheless found the payments were unlawful because they were made 

without appropriate authority. McCully resigned the same month. 

Scott Morrison left his NZ tourism job the following year. 

Responding to questions from The Saturday Paper, the Prime Minister’s 

Office provided the following statement: 

“These matters were canvassed and addressed in relevant reviews and New 

Zealand media at the time. 

“Mr Morrison decided to return home to Australia in 2000 to take up a 

position in the private sector following the change of Government in 1999. 

He did so after assisting in the transition process for the new Government 

following discussions with the incoming Tourism Minister. 

“He did not receive any separating payment as he departed by choice.


“During his time in New Zealand, Mr Morrison was instrumental in the 

establishment of Tourism New Zealand that succeeded the New Zealand 

Tourism Board. 

“Tourism New Zealand proceeded to create the 100% Pure New Zealand 

campaign that set a new benchmark in international tourism promotion, as 

well as coordinating NZ’s Millennium Celebration Events and the 

establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency, securing an inaugural 

Directorship for NZ.” 

Asked again whether he would respond to last week’s questions about the 

ANAO report’s findings, Morrison’s spokesperson said government senate 

leader Mathias Cormann had dealt with the matter. 

He said the “Where the bloody hell are you?” campaign had contributed 

$2.1 billion to the tourism industry. 

Citing statistics showing a boost in tourism under Morrison, Cormann also 

suggested Labor’s shadow tourism minister, Martin Ferguson, had not 

complained at the time and in fact had supported Morrison. 

When the ANAO report was published in August 2008, Labor was in 

government and Ferguson was tourism minister. Why he did not examine 

its findings further remains unclear. 

Morrison won Liberal preselection for the New South Wales seat of Cook a 

year later. He’s been rising ever since. 

Source: 

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2018/11/17/morrisonhijacked-nz-tourism-review/15423732007158


Morrison-Audit: Where the 

bloody hell is it? 

Did Scott Morrison lie about the report that saved his bacon at 

Tourism Australia? 

by Jommy Tee | Government | Michael West Media 

on November 18, 2020 

Scott Morrison was sacked as managing director of Tourism 

Australia in 2006 with a year left to run on his contract. For 14 years 

the reason for the sacking has remained one of the best kept 

secrets in Parliament. 

Now, FoI documents accessed by Jommy Tee reveal the PM either 

lied about a critical probity report, or numerous government 

departments and agencies are so incompetent that all of them – 

together, coincidentally, jointly and severally – lost it. 

Scott Morrison was sacked as managing director of Tourism Australia in 

2006 with a year left to run on his contract. For 14 years the reason for the 

sacking has remained one of the best kept secrets in Parliament, with the 

Liberal tourism minister at the time, Fran Bailey, never revealing what led to 

the sacking of the man who went on to become Prime Minister of 

Australia. 

There has been considerable conjecture, but it is clear that the lack of 

transparency and accountability surrounding the $180 million tourism 

campaign – the oft-ridiculed “So where the bloody hell are you?” – and the 

awarding of a contract to M&C Saatchi played a key part. 

The campaign’s tender process was heavily criticised by the advertising 

industry, with players bemoaning that the tender criteria were skewed 

towards a particular agency.


Following repeated calls by the opposition for more probity, word leaked 

to the media that KPMG had been called in to conduct a “probity 

audit”. The Age declared that KPMG had been hauled in to “give an 

impression that the selection criteria is kosher”. 

No media release announcing KPMG’s appointment as probity auditor 

exists in the archived websites of Tourism Australia, the department of 

industry, and that of the minister, Fran Bailey. 

However, the plot has thickened considerably with FoI documents obtained 

this week by Michael West Media revealing that the probity report 

supposedly conducted by KPMG, a report that Scott Morrison repeatedly 

used to shield himself from attacks over the awarding of the $180 million 

contracts, cannot be found anywhere. 

Moreover, Tourism Australia was unable to find any emails, briefings or 

tender documentation associated with a probity audit into the M&C 

Saatchi contract. 

What Morrison told the Senate 

Morrison, in his role as managing director of Tourism Australia, told Senate 

estimates on 2 November 2005 that the KPMG probity audit was “an 

internal document that has been provided to our Board. I am sure there are 

the usual provisions for making requests for those types of documents”. 

Morrison said he would take on notice the request to provide the report – 

subsequently, he said that the “report is considered commercial in 

confidence”. 

The same month, the Senate committee looking into government 

advertising also requested Tourism Australia table the KPMG report. 

Tourism Australia on 25 November 2005 responded: “Tourism Australia 

requested internal auditors, KPMG, to undertake a review of the tender 

evaluation process to assist the Board with their review of the 

recommendation to be received from management. The report is 

considered to be commercial in confidence.” 

Michael West Media contacted KPMG and numerous government 

agencies to hunt down the mysterious probity report, but it simply cannot 

be found.


This leaves us with two possibilities. 

or 

• Numerous government agencies and departmental officials either 

misplaced, lost, misfiled or destroyed this key document associated 

with the $180 million advertising spend of taxpayers’ money; 

• The document never existed and Scott Morrison concocted its 

existence, thereby lying to Senate estimates and a Senate inquiry – 

more than justifiable grounds to explain his shock sacking. 

The search for the probity report 

KPMG 

KPMG advised Michael West Media that it did not comment on “client 

deliverables”. However, it added: “This reference goes back many years and 

while we can confirm we have provided services to Tourism Australia, we 

cannot confirm we completed the report.” 

KPMG advised Michael West Media to approach Tourism Australia. 

Michael West Media then lodged numerous freedom of information (FoI) 

requests with government departments seeking access to the probity 

report. 

Tourism Australia 

Tourism Australia advised that no probity audit document could be 

located. The agency advised it was “satisfied that there were no documents 

within the scope of your request in the possession of Tourism Australia”. 

Tourism Australia even contacted the National Archives of Australia, which 

confirmed that no such document existed in its archives. 

A subsequent FoI seeking all briefings, emails and tender documentation 

associated with the probity audit drew further blanks. The only records that 

Tourism Australia found dealt with KPMG’s appointment in February 2005 

as Tourism Australia’s internal auditors for a 12-month period, and that the 

board of Tourism Australia was informed of the appointment in April 2005.


Department of Industry 

The industry department, after a thorough search, refused our FoI request 

on the basis that document could not be found. 

The Minister puts her foot down 

The M&C Saatchi contract term was for three years but it had to be 

reviewed annually. Tourism Australia’s tender process fell behind schedule, 

meaning that by the time it was finalised, the Liberal minister, Fran Bailey, 

was virtually shoe-horned into signing off on the first tranche of the 

contract. If she had not done so, Tourism Australia would have had no 

international marketing presence in 2005-06. 

Due to the significant criticism surrounding the awarding of the contract, 

Bailey demanded greater accountability for the second tranche of 

negotiations. She wrote a blistering letter to Tourism Australia on 29 June 

2006 seeking reassurance and copies of any internal assessments: 

“I need to be reassured that the taxpayer is receiving value for money with 

these substantial investments. I understand that an internal evaluation of 

performance is under way at the moment, but will not be complete until 

mid-July. I also understand that no independent evaluation has yet been 

undertaken. In order for me to make a properly informed decision on these 

contracts for the full 2006-07 financial year, I request Tourism Australia 

provide me, by 31 August 2006, with: 

• a fully completed internal assessment of the 2005-06 contracts with 

M&C Saatchi and Carat; 

• an assessment completed by an independent expert on whether or 

not the creative and media buying activities for 2005-06 represented 

value for money; and 

• detail of mechanisms instituted by Tourism Australia to manage the 

contract for 2006-07 – particularly how Tourism Australia will ensure 

that purchases made by M&C Saatchi and Carat represent value for 

the taxpayer’s dollar.”


Given that Bailey wanted the independent evaluations within two months it 

came as a surprise when four weeks later, Tim Fischer, Tourism Australia’s 

chairman, announced on 26 July that Morrison would be departing the 

organisation, having been sacked. 

National audit confirms the document never was 

The tender process of the $180 million advertising contract was the subject 

of eight internal and external reviews, including one conducted by the 

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in 2008 – three years after the 

contracts were awarded and two years after Morrison was sacked. 

The audit did not reference the KPMG probity report and indeed the ANAO 

found that no probity adviser was engaged for the creative development 

and media procurements (successful bidders: M&C Saatchi and Carat 

respectively). 

Tourism Australia told the ANAO that “no probity inquiries were 

undertaken for these procurements” as part of the request for tender 

process. 

As part of the evaluation process for the tender the ANAO states a probity 

adviser was appointed, following intervention by the Department of Prime 

Minister and Cabinet. Bailey had raised her concerns about the tender 

process with DPM&C. However the role was filled internally, by a Tourism 

Australia manager, and not an arms-length organisation. 

The ANAO was highly critical and scathing of the tender process run by 

Tourism Australia when Scott Morrison was in charge, finding among other 

things: 

• a lack of transparency in evaluating tenders; 

• a lack of performance information to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

campaign; and 

• the board not adhering to conflict of interest procedures.


Morrison’s KPMG connections 

The national audit office’s concerns over conflicts of interest appear valid 

as the engagement of KPMG represented a significant potential conflict of 

interest for both Scott Morrison and the deputy chairman of the Tourism 

Australia board, Tony Clark. 

Morrison had a short-lived stint in 2000 at KPMG Consulting, although this 

is not listed on his parliamentary biography, but archived internet 

records show that he worked for KPMG’s tourism and leisure division. 

Tony Clark was KPMG’s long-time NSW managing partner (he stepped 

down in 1998). Clark was simultaneously serving as deputy chairman at 

Tourism Australia, a position he had long held at TA and its predecessor 

the Australian Tourist Commission. 

Clark also headed up the Tourism Australia’s audit committee, which FoI 

documents reveal made the decision to appoint KPMG as Tourism 

Australia’s internal auditors in February 2005. 

Carbon copy criticism 

What the national audit office found was a carbon copy of the criticism 

that a 1999 New Zealand audit report had levelled at Scott Morrison when 

he was head of NZ’s Office of Tourism and Sport. 

Morrison had moved to NZ in 1998, reporting directly to the NZ tourism 

minister, as the inaugural director of the office. The NZ minister, Murray 

McCully, and Morrison were locked in a power struggle with the 

independent NZ Tourism Board. 

The NZ audit office report devoted a whole chapter to Morrison’s 

deceptive behaviour, which involved changing the focus of a consultant’s 

review to align it with Morrison’s political agenda and without conferring 

with the board or his minister. 

Morrison mysteriously departed the NZ Office of Tourism and Sport one 

year before the end of his contract term.


Morrison’s disdain for transparency and the shirking of accountability, 

so evident during his tenure at Tourism Australia, persists to this day, 

with his continual deflecting and “move along, nothing to see here” 

attitude to journalists asking questions. 

Given the importance of the KPMG report the question can surely be posed 

“So where the bloody hell is it?” 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/where-the-bloody-hell-is-it-did-scott-morrisonlie-about-the-report-that-saved-his-bacon-at-tourism-australia/ 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR 

Jommy Tee 

Jommy Tee is a long-time career public servant, having worked in the policy 

development field for 25+ years as well as an independent researcher 

interested in politics, current affairs, and Nordic noir. You can follow Jommy 

on Twitter @Jommy_Tee.


Morrison policies: Policies Scott 

Morrison's government appears 

to have abandoned 

What happened? 

By Paul Karp, Amy Remeikis and Ben Butler 

for The Guardian


What happened? The policies Scott Morrison's government 

appears to have abandoned 

By Paul Karp, Amy Remeikis and Ben Butler for The Guardian 

on 28 December 2019 

Action to protect LGBT students, a payday lending crackdown and an 

integrity commission are among the Coalition’s lost causes 

The prime minister, Scott Morrison, and the treasurer, Josh Frydenberg. The 

Coalition has been accused of implementing just six of the 76 recommendations 

from the banking royal commission. Photograph: Daniel Pockett/Getty Images 

Governments should be judged not just on what they do with their time in 

office but also on what they don’t do. 

There are only so many hours in a day, and so many parliamentary sitting 

weeks in a year (there were just 10 since the May election). Nevertheless it’s 

important to know not just what the top priorities are but also what’s been 

pushed to the backburner. 

In 2019 the re-elected Morrison government prioritised income tax cuts, 

which passed parliament in the first week of July, the repeal of medical 

evacuation provisions for people in offshore detention, which passed in the 

last week of parliament, and drought relief. 

But what were the reforms that were promised or proposed which have 

dropped off the political radar, stalled, or the government is accused of 

doing too little too late?


LGBT students in religious schools 

What was promised: Discrimination law amendments so that no student 

at a private or religious school can be expelled on the basis of their 

sexuality. 

When it was announced: On 13 October 2018 – one week out from the 

Wentworth byelection – Scott Morrison suggested parliament could deal 

with the issue in the next fortnight after Labor started a push to change the 

laws. 

Why it is late: The reform stalled when the Coalition refused to agree to 

Labor and the Greens’ plan to protect LGBT students from discrimination 

unless the current legal exemptions were replaced by other protections for 

religious freedom. 

Where is it up to: The Morrison government referred the question to the 

Australian Law Reform Commission in December 2018 while announcing its 

response to the Ruddock review of religious freedom. 

Payday lending 

What was promised: To lower the cap on small amount credit contracts 

and introduce a new cap on total payments on a consumer lease. 

When was it announced: In November 2016, the then revenue and 

financial services minister, Kelly O’Dwyer, committed the government to 

the reforms. 

Where is it up to: The government released legislation for consultation 

but never introduced it to parliament despite Malcolm Turnbull promising 

in August 2018 it would progress within a year. In February, Labor 

introduced a private member’s bill mirroring the Coalition’s proposal. 

Why is it late? The delay occurred after a backlash from the Nationals MP 

George Christensen and other backbenchers. The assistant treasurer, 

Michael Sukkar, said the government was trying to get “the right balance” 

between consumer protection and the “important role” of small amount 

credit contracts in the economy. “The government will progress the 

reforms further early in the new year.”


Federal integrity commission 

What was proposed: Labor, the Greens and the crossbench – prompted 

by public incredulity there wasn’t one already – called for a federal anticorruption 

body “with teeth”. 

The attorney general, Christian Porter. His department says the 

federal integrity commission is still coming. Photograph: Paul Braven/AAP 

What was promised: The Coalition was dragged to the promise and it 

showed – the integrity commission it put forward wouldn’t have the power 

to make corruption findings against MPs, or their staff, and investigations 

in the proposed public-sector division would remain secret until the end of 

any resulting court case. 

When was it announced: In December 2018. And then again in 

August, and then again in November. An exposure draft was promised by 

the end of the year and still hasn’t popped up – certainly not in time for 

parliament to do anything about it. 

Where is it up to: The attorney general’s office promises it is coming. But 

even if it does come out in the next week, it is likely to get little notice in a 

textbook case of taking out the trash in the quiet Christmas/new year 

period. 

Why is it late? Because everyone, including members of the government, 

like Queensland backbencher Llew O’Brien, hate it.


Aged care 

What was proposed: In an interim report in November the aged care royal 

commission called for more home care packages to reduce the waiting list 

of 120,000. 

What was promised: Later in November the government promised an 

extra $496.3m for 10,000 home care packages. 

Where is it up to: The royal commission is due to report by 12 November 

2020 but there might be more for aged care in the 2020 budget before 

then. 

Why is it late: The aged care minister, Richard Colbeck, has said home care 

packages have grown from 60,000 to 150,000 since the Coalition was 

elected but it doesn’t want to “created a circumstance for shonky providers 

to come into the market” by ramping up the program too quickly, as 

occurred with Labor’s home insulation scheme and vocational education 

loans. 

Banking royal commission 

What was promised: By the end of the year more than one-third of 

commitments arising out of banking royal commission recommendations 

will be implemented or before parliament; with 90% implemented or 

introduced by mid-2020 and all commitments at least introduced by the 

end of 2020. 

When was it announced: The treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, unveiled the 

roadmap on 19 August 2019. 

Where is it up to: In early December, Labor’s shadow assistant treasurer, 

Stephen Jones, accused the government of implementing just six of 76 

recommendations of the royal commission. 

Some commitments are already behind – the Coalition promised to 

introduce legislation to remove claims handling exemptions for insurance 

by the end of 2019 but it hasn’t been seen. 

Labor is also concerned that even on its own timetable the Coalition will 

not take action on hawking or compensation schemes until 2020.


Why is it late: This is a substantial part of the government’s agenda and 

just takes time (says the Coalition); or the government was just never that 

committed to fixing the sector to begin with (says Labor). 

Beneficial ownership register 

What was promised: A register publicly listing the identities of people and 

entities which own shell companies and benefit from trusts to increase 

transparency and crack down on multi-national tax avoidance. 

When was it announced: April 2016, when the then financial services 

minister, Kelly O’Dwyer, said the government wanted to help meet its G20 

transparency commitments, and then again in December 2017, when Stuart 

Robert told Guardian Australia the government remained committed to the 

promise. 

Where is it up to: In February, Treasury said there was never any 

commitment to introduce the register. No legislation has been 

forthcoming. In December this year, in response to questions in Senate 

estimates, the government recommitted to the spirit of the original 

promise – “improving the transparency of information around beneficial 

ownership and control of companies”. 

Why is it late? That too remains unclear, although Sukkar told Guardian 

Australia the government wants to avoid placing an “unnecessary 

regulation” burden on business.


Money laundering and terrorist finance laws 

What was proposed: Broadening anti-money laundering and counterterror 

finance laws to take in real estate agents, lawyers and gem dealers. 

When it was announced: The move, known as “phase 2” in AML CTF 

jargon, was recommended in a review by the attorney general’s 

department that began in 2013 and finished in 2016. In November 

2017 the government committed to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. 

Where is it up to: After consultation closed in January 2017, nothing has 

happened since. 

A spokeswoman for the home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, said the 

Morrison government was “committed to continually improving” the laws 

but “any potential future reforms will be reviewed in a careful and 

considered way”. 

Why is it late: Not clear, although the changes are bitterly opposed by 

lawyers, who say it interferes with their ethical responsibilities towards 

clients.


Director identification numbers 

What was promised: A unique identifier for company directors to help 

combat the scourge of phoenixing, a business practice in which directors 

wind up companies to avoid paying workers’ entitlements and other debts. 

When it was announced: The government announced it would consider 

the measure in August 2017 and opened consultation for a bill to 

implement it in October 2018. 

Why it is late: The bill lapsed at the 2019 election. 

Where is it up to: Sukkar reintroduced the bill on 4 December 2019 – the 

second last day of the parliamentary sitting year. In the mid-year economic 

and fiscal update the government allocated $60.6m to modernise the 

Australian Business Register and introduce the director identification 

number. 

Charities donation reforms 

What was proposed: Nationally consistent regulations for not-for-profit 

and charitable fundraising activities. 

When it was proposed: In February 2019, the Senate select committee on 

charity fundraising in the 21st century – including two Liberal senators – 

recommended the reform be delivered within the next two years. 

Where is it up to: On 2 December the assistant minister for charities, Zed 

Seselja, told the Senate the government is “still considering and consulting 

with stakeholders on the report’s recommendations” and is “not in a 

position” to table a response. 

Seselja also said the government is “finalising its response” to a separate 

Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission legislation review that 

dealt with fundraising. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/28/what-happened-thepolicies-scott-morrisons-government-appears-to-have-abandoned


Morrison’s Values: look after our 

mates. 

… Scott Morrison, September 6 2018 

When 'looking after our mates' is your foundational 

value, those who work for you will get the message: 

taxpayer funding is there for the taking. 

It’s OK to use taxpayer money and taxpayer-funded 

positions, for your own benefit, and the benefit of your 

mates, and for the benefit of your party; and that there 

are no consequences for failure and scandal, unless 

political calculation necessitates them. 

The tone and example set by governments has impacts 

that ripple outward. First to the bureaucrats who serve 

governments, then businesses that work closely with 

government, then the broader business community and 

then, eventually, the whole community. 

By Bernard Keane for Crikey Inq


Mates first policy: Scott Morrison’s No. 1 value is seeing the 

country rot from the head down 

By Bernard Keane, Politics Editor for Crikey Inq on October 27, 2020 

When 'looking after our mates' is your foundational value, 

those who work for you will get the message: taxpayer funding 

is there for the taking. 

Remember, my value is: we look after our mates. 

Scott Morrison, September 6 2018 

(IMAGE: AAP/MICK TSIKAS) 

Everywhere you look in the Morrison government, you see sleaze and selfinterest, 

if not outright corruption. Merely itemising the current scandals on 

foot is an arduous task. 

The million dollars paid to a Liberal mate for government advertising 

without the inconvenience of a tender. Christine Holgate’s spending habits 

at Australia Post, all approved by a Liberal-stacked board. The expenses 

scandal at ASIC that has already cost that regulator a deputy chairman and 

is likely to cost it the chairman. The ongoing investigation into the 1000% 

mark-up on the Leppington Triangle for a Liberal donor.


The festering sore of the Community Development Grants program, 

a scandal 10 times bigger than sports rorts. The soft pedaling of the 

ACLEI’s investigation into Home Affairs and Liberal donor Austal. The longrunning 

harassment and prosecution of Witness K and Bernard Collaery for 

exposing the corruption of the Howard government in Timor-Leste. 

Allowing executives of fossil fuel donors to write energy policy. 

And, of course, the now years-long wait for even a pale shadow of a federal 

anti-corruption body. 

Of all of these, Scott Morrison only confected high dudgeon about 

Holgate, his marketing skills having alerted him to the toxic combination of 

the words “Cartier” and “not taxpayers’ money”. Otherwise, his moral 

compass remains unmoved. 

A number of the scandals have their genesis in the Abbott and Turnbull 

governments; Morrison only inherited some; others are of his own creation. 

But all reflect two themes that have run through this government from day 

one in 2013: that it’s OK to use taxpayer money, and taxpayer-funded 

positions, for your own benefit, and the benefit of your mates, and for 

the benefit of your party; and that there are no consequences for 

failure and scandal, unless political calculation necessitates them. 

Those themes are potent indeed. Governments do not operate in a 

vacuum. The tone and example set by governments has impacts that ripple 

outward. First to the bureaucrats who serve governments, then businesses 

that work closely with government, then the broader business community 

and then, eventually, the whole community. 

When a government appoints scores of former Liberal MPs and staffers to 

publicly funded offices like the AAT; when it hands a million dollars to 

Liberal-connected pollster without process; when a deputy PM creates a 

taxpayer-funded job for his new girlfriend; when it gives over $440 million 

to a tiny Great Barrier Reef charity run by people connected to the Liberalallied 

Business Council without process; when it carefully spends taxpayer 

money to service its electoral needs; when it hands tens of millions of 

dollars to its mates at News Corp without process — it sends a clear signal.


Taxpayer funds are there to help you and your mates. And looking 

after mates is the explicit foundational value of the Morrison 

government. 

The message has filtered out to the bureaucracy. To Australia Post. To 

ASIC. To someone in the department in charge of valuing land in Western 

Sydney. To the Health Department, which looked the other way rather than 

do anything about Bridget McKenzie allocating grants without any legal 

authority. 

It has filtered out to one of the government’s favourite consultants, KPMG, 

and every other major consulting firm that has latched firmly onto the 

taxpayer teat in recent years while delivering what ministers want to hear 

rather than quality policy advice. To its shipbuilder Austal. And it filtered 

out to the Leppington Pastoral Company plenty good. 

And when ministers are caught out lobbying for their family’s business 

interests, or pedalling forged documents without consequence; when a 

department like Home Affairs can be repeatedly assessed as incompetent 

in the use of its powers and its expenditure of billions of dollars without 

any repercussions for its secretary or minister; when over a hundred 

thousand Australians can be targeted by an illegal scheme like robodebt 

without a single bureaucrat or minister suffering any consequence; when 

forensic independent reports by the auditor-general are dismissed by 

senior bureaucrats and the funding of the Australian National Audit Office 

is cut, when those who seek to hold the government up to scrutiny are 

raided, rather than rewarded, that too sends a signal. 

Accountability doesn’t matter. You don’t need to fear the consequences of 

misuse of taxpayer funding. 

“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept,” David 

Morrison famously said. For the Morrison government, it hasn’t merely 

accepted the low standards that have mired federal politics in sleaze, it has 

actively promoted them. 

This is the result. 

Source: 

https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/10/27/scott-morrison-government-corruption/


Bernard Keane 


POLITICS EDITOR @BERNARDKEANE 

Bernard Keane is Crikey's political 

editor. Before that he was Crikey's 

Canberra press gallery correspondent, 

covering politics, national security 

and economics


Morrison’s ICAC: Scott Morrison’s 

gold standard ICAC distractions


Scott Morrison's gold standard ICAC distractions 

by Michelle Pini, Managing Editor for Independent Australia 

on 29 October 2020 

It's both comical and disconcerting to see the Prime Minister huffing and 

puffing over a few, admittedly expensive, gold watches. 

As news of Australia Post CEO Christine Holgate's up-market gifts for her 

senior executives surfaced this week, Morrison was apparently incensed. 

The PM bellowed that he was "appalled", he was "disgusted" with the 

"abuse of taxpayers' money" and that it was "disgraceful", before the 

suitably theatrical finale of, "And it's not on!". 

It's firstly comical that the PM can say the words "gold watch" with a 

straight face, given another gold watch fiasco a few years back. 

During that particular gift bonanza, it was Coalition ministers who 

received gold watches. Worth $250,000, those Rolexes were worth ten 

times as much as the "bargain basement" ones Holgate bestowed by 

comparison. One of the recipients of those earlier and classier timepieces 

was also Stuart Robert - a senior minister in the current Morrison Cabinet. 

This, however, Morrison was neither shocked nor appalled to discover. 

Morrison's confected outrage over Holgate's gifts to executives is even 

more disconcerting when you consider that it is his hand-picked Australia 

Post board that approved these particular gold watches in the first place. 

Yet, in his characteristic, "let's-find-a-scapegoat" style, it is only the current 

CEO who has warranted the PM's furious displeasure. 

The Coalition protection racket: Why Tudge won't budge? 

Tudge, Colbeck and Fletcher are the latest Morrison Cabinet ministers to 

be mired in scandal, but no one is responsible for anything in this 

Government. 

And Communications Minister Paul Fletcher jumped on the outrage 

bandwagon faster than you could say "Western Sydney Airport land deal".


Fletcher contributed: 

Holgate, who also scrapped $7 million in executive bonuses this year, said: 

In an added twist, hundreds of post office licensees across the country are 

each mailing Prime Minister Scott Morrison a $5 note in a show of support 

for the Australia Post CEO. 

Licensed Post Office Group executive director Angela Cramp said: 

According to Cramp, the watches were "minuscule in the face of $100 

million in savings each year for five years" and a fraction of the money 

Holgate has saved Australia Post licensees and taxpayers. 

The Morrison Government: When rorting became sporting 

The more we learn about the sports rorts controversy the more it 

becomes apparent how deeply embroiled in it the Prime Minister is. 

Areas that should warrant some of the outrage the PM found for the 

watches but apparently do not, include, but are not limited to: 

• the Leppington airport land purchase; 

• the ASIC expense scandal; 

• the sports rorts fiasco; 

• the water buybacks scandal and almost everything involving Angus 

Taylor; 

• his Government's unlawful treatment of its own citizens under 

• the Robodebt scheme; 

• the Home Affairs Austal investigation; 

• the aged care negligence; 

• the Ruby Princess plague ship; 

• giving Foxtel money from COVID recovery funds, without process; 

• jobs for Liberal Party mates to run energy policy; 

• money for jam to party donors ostensibly running a "charity" to save 

the Great Barrier Reef


Turnbull, the #Reefgate rort and Rupert 

The Reefgate rort may be the biggest scandal in Australian political history 

- but is just the latest in a long line of taxpayer cash splashes from Turnbull 

to his cronies, including the Murdochs. 

Then there are the CEOs still raking in the mega bonuses while 

claiming JobKeeper handouts and even sacking staff, such as: 

• Star Entertainment Group CEO Matt Bekier, who received an $800,000 

share bonus, laid off 90 per cent of staff and raked in $64 million in 

government handouts; 

• SeaLink Travel Group CEO Clinton Feuerherdt, who received $504,000 

in short-term bonuses, paid shareholders $18.9 million in dividends 

and received $8.6 million in JobKeeper payments; 

• 1300 Smiles managing director Daryl Holmes, who will get around 

$2 million out of the total $3 million shareholder dividends paid and 

received $2 million in JobKeeper payments. 

If we extend the scope of Morrison's dubious moral compass to include 

state premiers, it seems incongruous that his "gold-standard" 

premier, Gladys Berejiklian, whose deeds have her mired in alleged 

corruption, have, by contrast, only inspired the PM to pledge his absolute 

support. 

Lastly, if none of the above warrants Morrison's immediate attention or 

outrage, then his Government's growing list of failed promises should at 

least warrant ours. 

Here are a few that come to mind: 

• the $2 billion Bushfire Recovery Fund where just 291,000 of the 7.1 

million people impacted by the 2019-20 bushfires have received 

disaster recovery payments and some of which may be pilfered for 

other projects; 

• the HomeBuilder scheme which currently has 11,367 applications but 

of which only 780 have been funded; 

• the $100 million recycling fund that has yet to invest in any recycling 

projects;


• $600 million promised for community projects to boost the economy 

which has failed to materialise; 

• the $2 million COVIDsafe app (and additional advertising costs) which 

managed to identify a total of 17 people; and 

• the promised 450,000 jobs to be generated by JobMaker now 

revealed to only be 45,000. 

It's easy to brag about gold standards and make promises you have no 

intention of keeping; as easy as feigning outrage over four gold watches 

while billions are being pilfered. 

Instead of the endless PR and diversion tactics, it is time the Morrison 

Government was held to account. Perhaps Scotty from Marketing 

needs to invest in a good time-keeping mechanism to help him find 

the time to finally organise a Federal independent commission against 

corruption. 

Source: 

https://www.sydneynews.net/news/266820318/scott-morrisons-gold-standard-icacdistractions#


Fact check: 

LNP Delivered?: Has the Coalition 

delivered on its spending 

promises? 

By Paul Karp for The Guardian


Fact check: 

has the Coalition delivered on its spending promises? 

By Paul Karp for The Guardian on 2 November 2020 

Labor maintains the government is ‘there for the photo op, not for the 

follow-up’. We examine some of the pledges where the speed of delivery 

has been questioned 

Prime minister Scott Morrison speaks to military personnel at the opening of 

Rheinmetall Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence in Redbank, Queensland 11 

October 2020. Photograph: Glenn Hunt/EPA 

Just two weeks after returning from a disastrous holiday in Hawaii in the 

middle of the summer bushfires, Scott Morrison announced a new agency 

and $2 billion to recover from the emergency. 

The policy was the first of a string of announceables after a tone-deaf tour 

of bushfire affected areas, which included victims refusing to shake his 

hand in Cobargo. 

With incidents like that in the rear-view mirror, it was easier for the prime 

minister to project that he was present and hard at work by doing what 

governments do best: bringing the cash and coordination to solve 

problems like the recovery of bushfire affected communities.


In public policy, announcements come fast and delivery comes slow. 

Governments can be assured a day’s good press for having the right idea, 

but proving the program wasn’t all it’s cracked up to be can be the work of 

months or years for the opposition. 

Labor has spent much of 2020 constructing that narrative, first with 

bushfires and then with Covid-19, that Morrison is “there for the photo-op, 

not for the follow-up”. 

Two weeks of Senate estimates scrutiny have helped Labor frame Morrison 

as the ad-man who has failed to deliver. Here are the major promises 

the Coalition has made and where they’re up to. 

Budget surplus 

One of Morrison’s most notorious unmet promises was his claim before the 

2019 election that the Coalition was “bringing down the first budget 

surplus for next year”, a projection that never materialised. 

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg during the budget delivery in the House of 

Representatives on 6 October 2020. Photograph: Sam Mooy/Getty Images 

Of course the deficit in 2020 was necessary to boost an economy battered 

by Covid-19, but the Coalition was chipped for the certainty with which it 

claimed Australia was Back in Black. Mugs emblazoned with the slogan 

were removed from the Liberal store.


In October, Josh Frydenberg delivered a budget with $98 billion of new 

spending and a deficit of $214 billion. 

When the government is on the wrong side of popular opinion, sometimes 

a backdown is in order. At times it has announced an intention to fix a 

problem, but the solution gets stuck on the backburner. 

In December 2018 Morrison announced it would create a commonwealth 

integrity commission and had been working to do so since January. 

No legislation has been introduced, despite a draft being ready in 

December 2019, a fact the government is now blaming on Covid- 

19 despite other non-Covid priorities being delivered in 2020. 

Bushfires 

Remember that $2 billion fund? Labor’s Murray Watt went on the attack 

after discovering in estimates that the Bushfire Recovery Agency said it had 

spent $1.2 billion but, of that, $717 million was spent by the 

commonwealth and the rest by states who will later be reimbursed. 

Andrew Colvin, the head of the recovery agency, rejected Watt’s claim this 

was “dishonest”. 

A fire rages in Bobin, 350km north of Sydney in November 2019. 

Photograph: Peter Parks/AFP via Getty Images


“In my travels I’m yet to have someone ask me what the accounting 

treatment is behind the money that’s in their account,” Colvin said. “They’re 

interested that the money has been given to them.” 

There’s also a separate $4 billion emergency response fund legislated in 

October 2019, an endowment intended to pay out up to $150 million a 

year for emergency response and recovery and $50 million for mitigation. 

Marc Ablong, the home affairs department’s deputy secretary of national 

resilience, told Senate estimates that none of the $4 billion has been spent. 

Ablong said “there may be” Australians still living in caravans after the 

summer bushfires – it isn’t in his knowledge – but the legislation states the 

department can’t release emergency response fund money while other 

sources of funding are available. 

Recycling fund 

In May 2019, the Coalition promised a $100 million Australian recycling 

investment fund to provide concessional loans of $10 million to large-scale 

recycling projects. 

The chief executive of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Ian 

Learmonth, told Senate estimates that no recycling projects had been 

approved for loans despite “a very active pipeline of transactions and some 

active negotiations with proponents”. 

Covid-19 economic response 

The Covid-19 response didn’t get off to as slow a start as the bushfire 

response, but it has still produced programs that critics claim doesn’t do 

what they say on the box. 

There was a $1 billion “relief and recovery” fund for the hardest hit 

industries including aviation, agriculture, fisheries, tourism and the arts. 

Spending in the tourism sector was limited to transport links such as 

airlines and airports, and major attractions such as supporting zoo animals. 

Margy Osmond, the chief executive of the Tourism and Transport Forum, 

told the Covid-19 committee in August there was “considerable concern” 

tourism operators missed out and it is an “ongoing bone of contention that 

it was not spent extensively in the industry”.


Coalition MPs have lobbied the government to do more for travel agents, 

and on Tuesday Morrison conceded in the party room they may need a 

new package of support due to the “unique pressures” they face 

processing refunds. 

According to new figures provided by assistant treasurer, Michael Sukkar, 

the homebuilder program has had 14,599 applications. 

Earlier in October, just 1,022 applicants had received their money, because 

the program requires applicants to buy a house and land or conduct 

substantial renovations then claim in arrears. But treasury officials 

confirmed the program is on track to reach estimates of 27,000. 

The arts 

It was the photo op par excellence, when singing star Guy Sebastian was 

on hand to help Morrison announce a $250 million support package for 

the arts in June. 

Communications department officials told Senate estimates $50 million has 

been spent, and all of that has gone to Screen Australia to help 20 film and 

television productions. 

With 80% of the money still unspent, Sebastian said his heart “breaks” for 

the industry. Sebastian has followed up with the prime minister’s office to 

find out how the money will be spent. 

'Why is he standing about like a fool behind Scotty?' Viewers criticised Guy Sebastian 

for attending Scott Morrison's arts funding announcement on Thursday 

Daily Mail Australia


JobKeeper shrinkage 

It was the $130 billion wage subsidy program designed to keep Australians 

attached to their jobs. Until, suddenly, it became a $70 billion program. 

People queue outside a Centrelink in Bondi Junction, Sydney, 24 March 2020. 

Photograph: Joel Carrett/EPA 

First, Treasury overestimated how many people needed to claim the 

JobKeeper payment. Then the tax office took until late May to advise its 

figures were also inflated because some businesses were mistakenly 

entering the value of payments they were claiming instead of the number 

of eligible staff. 

The lower cost was spun as a good thing – fewer Australians needed the 

payment than first thought and debt would be lower as a result. Still, the 

government refused to extend JobKeeper to millions of workers who had 

missed out including short-term casuals, visa-holders, and employees of 

public universities. 

In July, JobKeeper was extended but the payment rate was cut from 

September, with lower rates particularly for part-time workers. 

Treasury had warned the government against cutting rates because it was 

“not clear that the net benefit of these changes would be positive for such 

a time-limited program”. 

The program has already paid out $69 billion and is estimated to cost a 

total of $101 billion by March.


Morrison described it as like sunscreen because nobody should leave home 

without it. But despite more than 7 million downloads, the Covidsafe app 

has detected just 17 close contacts of people with coronavirus not 

discovered by contact tracers. 

The acting chief medical officer, Paul Kelly, has said Covidsafe is “a very 

useful tool when used correctly and integrated into a well-functioning 

system of contact tracing”. 

People in Melbourne’s CBD as coronavirus restrictions were eased, 28 October 2020. 

Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images 

Health minister Greg Hunt claims the app’s data was also used to identify 

an “unrecognised exposure date” at Mounties in New South Wales, 

resulting in an additional 544 contacts being found. 

Budget 2020 and beyond 

The 2020 budget contained $73 billion over four years in new jobmaker 

measures – including income tax cuts, business tax concessions and youth 

wage subsidies. 

We have not evaluated these because it’s too soon to compare delivery 

with the announcement.


On 9 October Morrison said the government wants to enable investment in 

the private sector, “to bridge [the] gap during the course of this Covid-19 

recession”. 

“We don’t see government as the solution forever.” 

Perhaps the private sector will take up the incentives in the budget to bring 

forward investment and hiring. 

Or perhaps the estimates of how many jobs will be created will be a further 

rod for the government’s back as Labor hammers the announcement 

delivery gap. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/01/fact-check-has-thecoalition-delivered-on-its-spending-promises


Morrison Photo Op: The 

announcement artist 

By Nick Feik, Editor for The Monthly


The announcement artist 

By Nick Feik, Editor for The Monthly – October 2020 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison. © Dan Himbrechts / AAP Images 

Scott Morrison is good at promising but not at delivering 

The prime minister’s leadership in the wake of the bushfire crisis was widely 

regarded as reactive, evasive and inept. By the end of February, six months 

after the fires started, only five farmers and small businesses had received 

anything from the Bushfire Recovery Fund – $400,000 in payouts from 

a promised $2 billion – and hundreds of thousands of Australians felt 

abandoned. Stung by the criticism, and facing the new coronavirus threat, 

Scott Morrison changed tack. 

In future, he wouldn’t hide, or blame the states. The prime minister would 

be proactive, collaborative, present: all the things he’d failed to be during 

the blackest summer. 

He switched to an announcement-based approach to leadership, and it 

made complete sense. In the current environment, there are no 

disincentives for doing so.


Press conferences are held at short notice with details postponed until 

later, and inconvenient questions are easily batted away, well after 

headlines have established an underlying narrative. Outlets rush to break 

the news first, follow-ups are negligible, corrections are buried, and 

the media as a whole paints the picture you would expect from an 

ecosystem increasingly dominated by supporters of Morrison and his 

government (most notably in the News Corp stable). 

It’s all working for the prime minister – he’s a self-styled practical dad, an 

optimist taking care of business. If there are objections or uncomfortable 

revelations, he doesn’t accept the premise of your question. Next, please. 

And tomorrow he’ll have another announcement. 

The first sign of Morrison’s new approach came in February, when his 

government released a coronavirus emergency response plan. It said that 

while the states and territories would be responsible for public health and 

hospitals, “the Australian Government will be responsible for 

residential aged care facilities”. 

But there’s a big difference between announcing things and delivering on 

them. This 56-page document, for example, turned out to be so useless 

that at the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety in August, 

the senior counsel assisting, Peter Rozen QC, disputed there even was a 

plan. There was no evidence of one: the sector had been suffering for 

months from under-resourcing, lack of planning and the underpayment of 

staff, and, following the deaths of hundreds of aged-care residents, 

minister Richard Colbeck was stripped of his COVID-related responsibilities. 

Morrison announced an initial stimulus package in early March, to 

cushion the economy from the likely impact of the pandemic, 

including a $1 billion fund for tourism. The fund never appeared, or at 

least not for tourism operators. 

Delving into it in the Senate's Select Committee for COVID-19 in late 

August, Labor senator Murray Watt questioned several tourism industry 

representatives: Were they surprised that the “fund has ended up being 

used for airfreight support, campaigns on eating seafood and securing 

forest resources? … That a $1 billion tourism fund has been used for a 

range of things that are not related to tourism?”


“It is an issue of considerable concern to the industry that the $1 billion 

fund became a ‘not tourism’ $1 billion fund,” replied Margy Osmond, 

head of the peak industry group for the tourism, transport and aviation 

sectors. 

In mid-March, Morrison announced that international borders would 

be closed and no cruise ships would be allowed into Australian ports, 

other than four exceptions including the Ruby Princess. 

There would be “bespoke arrangements that we put in place directly 

under the command of the Australian Border Force to ensure that the 

relevant protections are put in place”. The “bespoke arrangements” 

were never introduced. 

Instead, a chaotic chain of command resulted in the disembarkation of 

hundreds of COVID-positive passengers from the Ruby Princess. 

Also in March, Morrison oversaw the formation of the National 

COVID-19 Coordination Commission, a hand-picked board led by mining 

executive Neville Power to advise on the economic recovery effort. (“Nev, I 

need you to serve your country,” said the PM.) 

The long-term impact of the commission is hard to gauge because its 

deliberations have been kept secret from the public under the guise of it 

being a cabinet committee (a contention disputed by constitutional law 

experts). One thing we do know of this unelected group populated with 

resources executives is that it has endorsed a plan for government to 

underwrite new gas pipelines. Funny that. 

On March 30, Morrison announced JobKeeper, at $130 billion the largest 

stimulus package in the nation’s history. At this point, with infection 

numbers low, there was nothing but praise for the prime minister’s new 

approach, and why not. Announce today, deliver later; everyone likes 

decisive leadership. Courtesy of a $60 billion “administrative error”, 

JobKeeper also became the nation’s biggest ever accounting mistake.


On April 2, free childcare for all! That ended in July after barely two 

months, when childcare workers were also left high and dry – most were 

excluded from JobKeeper. 

The federal government’s smartphone app for tracing the spread of 

infection, COVIDSafe, was launched on April 26 with the heartening 

message from the prime minister: “The more people who download this 

important public health app, the safer they and their family will be, the 

safer their community will be.” 

The app was dutifully downloaded more than 7 million times. As for its 

actual effectiveness, in the first three months of its use in Victoria 

authorities didn’t identify a single potential COVID-19 exposure that wasn’t 

already picked up by manual tracing. 

At the height of the second wave, the data was so unreliable that they 

ceased bothering to use it. And no wonder: on many iPhones, for 

example, it didn’t work most of the time. New South Wales authorities 

reported that they eventually found two positive cases indirectly via the 

app, but this was dwarfed by the number of people who, due to a glitch in 

the app design, received false positives. 

Emails obtained by Guardian Australia under freedom-of-information laws 

revealed that alarmed people were presenting to clinics brandishing their 

phones simply because while installing the app they’d clicked on a banner 

that asked, “Has a health official asked you to upload your information?” 

This click took them to a page that stated, “You have tested positive for 

COVID-19.” 

At the National Press Club a few days after the JobKeeper accounting 

bungle was revealed, and probably not coincidentally, Morrison unveiled 

JobMaker. 

The prime minister, a ready schemer and born marketer, had learnt 

how easy it was to shape the news cycle, and he began to exploit it 

ruthlessly.


JobMaker was an entire agenda, a whole-of-government effort “supporting 

small, medium and large businesses through skills, affordable and reliable 

energy, research, access to finance, more efficient taxes, less regulation and 

workplace relations reform”. 

This “historic joint effort between the Commonwealth and states” was 

nothing of the sort. In fact, it was hard to gauge what it was, other than 

that it also encompassed initiatives that came under another glib Morrison 

moniker, JobTrainer. 

Labor senator Katy Gallagher followed it up with officials from the 

Department of Education, Skills and Employment in the Senate COVID 

committee three months later. 

If JobMaker was a coordinated whole-of-government initiative, she 

asked, who was the lead agency? 

“I’m not sure that there is a specific lead agency,” Deputy Secretary (Skills 

and Training) Nadine Williams replied. 

“Surely someone’s in charge of it.” 

“I would say that Prime Minister and Cabinet would be the appropriate 

agency,” said Deputy Secretary (Employment) Nathan Smyth soon 

afterwards. 

“Have any cross-government arrangements been put in place for 

JobMaker, such as interdepartmental committees or working groups, that 

you would be a member of?” Gallagher asked Smyth. 

“Not specifically under the name of JobMaker, but there are a number of 

interdepartmental committees …” 

“Okay, but on the JobMaker program there’s no set infrastructure.” 

“Not classified, as I said, under that specific term; not that I’m aware of.” 

It sounded very much like there was no JobMaker scheme, just a grab 

bag of talking points collated for media consumption.


Later, responding to a question on notice, it was revealed that the first 

time the Department of Education, Skills and Employment heard of 

JobMaker was the day the prime minister announced it. 

The other major announcement Morrison made in May was the 

introduction of the national cabinet, which replaced the Council of 

Australian Governments (COAG) but essentially comprised the same 

people. 

Unlike COAG, the deliberations and outcomes of national cabinet 

meetings – and those of a related assembly of Commonwealth and state 

chief medical officers – are also now considered cabinet-in-confidence. 

(“Less paperwork”, promised the PM.) 

The national cabinet unfortunately did nothing to usher in a new era of 

federal cooperation. Within weeks, premiers and Commonwealth ministers 

were taking pot shots at each other over border closures, the prime 

minister’s office was backgrounding journalists with stories blaming 

the Victorian government for the new COVID outbreak, and aged-care 

and quarantine responsibilities were universally disavowed. 

Sometimes Morrison didn’t even need a carrot to make an announcement, 

because a stick – or a China-based scare – worked just as well. 

In June, Morrison’s portentous press conference prompted a credulous 

media to launch a hundred headlines about a “CYBER ATTACK”, even 

though there was no particular incident of cyber-hacking or even a rise in 

hacking activity to report, let alone new security measures to declare. 

HomeBuilder was also announced in June, “to support the 140,000 direct 

jobs and another 1,000,000 related jobs in the residential construction 

sector”. Expected to support 27,000 applicants, by mid-August it had 

received only 247 applications and had not paid out a single cent. 

Negotiating the eligibility criteria was like threading the eye of a needle. 

But at least HomeBuilder had criteria.


Morrison also announced a $250 million arts rescue package in June 

but it didn’t have guidelines or application forms until mid-August, and no 

money would be disbursed until November at the earliest – nine months 

after most arts organisations started haemorrhaging. Even then, $90 million 

of the promised $250 million was in loans. 

At the height of the Victorian second wave in early August, Morrison 

announced a $1500 pandemic leave payment for workers without sick 

leave – initially for Victorians, but “if other states or territories want to 

enter into a similar arrangement, then I’ll be making that offer to the states 

and territories,” he told Seven’s Sunrise program. Yet when other states 

requested to join the scheme, they were rebuffed. The announcement had, 

yet again, been seriously over-egged. 

But perhaps the apotheosis of Morrison’s strategy of great announcements 

was this one: on the morning of Tuesday, August 18, media outlets 

reported that Morrison had “locked in a coronavirus vaccine deal” with 

AstraZeneca and planned to provide it free to all 25 million Australians. 

Morrison was everywhere: in the headlines, on morning TV, giving radio 

interviews, appearing at a pharmaceutical laboratory in a mask nodding 

sagely with experts. As if it already existed, he would make the vaccine “as 

mandatory as possible”. It was a great news story and a triumph for the 

prime minister. 

It took a few hours for the truth to emerge. It wasn’t a deal, but rather a 

letter of agreement so loosely worded that AstraZeneca’s local 

spokesperson thought there must be some mistake. “AZ was so perplexed 

by the PM’s comments,” reported Christine Spiteri in Pharma in Focus later 

that day, “they even suggested the government may have been referring to 

a different vaccine developer.” 

While other national governments had signed multiple deals with 

pharmaceutical companies, for the production and delivery of vaccines 

now in development, our prime minister was touting a letter that 

amounted to an agreement to let Australia produce its own vaccines under 

proprietary licence, if the government managed to find its own 

manufacturer, if that manufacturer agreed to work in this way, and if a 

successful vaccine was actually developed by AstraZeneca.


All of which, at that point, was still theoretical. No signed deal, no 

vaccine, no manufacturer, and no certainty a manufacturer could be 

secured with the capacity to make a vaccine in the necessary high volumes. 

(The next day, facing a backlash from anti-vaxxers, Morrison declared the 

presumptive vaccine wouldn’t be compulsory either.) 

Morrison re-announced an Australian vaccine deal in September, when 

supply and production agreements were apparently reached, for an 

unproven vaccine. 

Needless to say, there have been other announcements too; more 

promises and inspirational platitudes about getting the economy back on 

track and Australians back into work. 

But in reality, there has been no “historic joint effort” on job creation or 

skills and vocational training, no industrial relations overhaul, no broad tax 

reform and no new infrastructure program, just a reheating of the same 

handful of ideas the Coalition’s been pushing for years. The economy is 

heading down the S-bend and public relations exercises won’t help. 

Australians have a great piece of vernacular once commonly applied 

to someone who talks a big game but never delivers on it. They’re 

called a bullshit artist, but it’s a term we don’t use so much anymore. 

Source: 

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2020/october/1601474400/nickfeik/announcement-artist


Morrison Accountability: record 

as PM is one of dodging national 

responsibilities 

by John Hewson for The Canberra Times


Why Scott Morrison is likely to be mugged by reality 

By John Hewson for The Canberra Times on 29 October 2020 

RECKONING: Scott Morrison's record as prime minister is one of dodging 

national responsibilities. Picture: Mark Jesser 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison is obviously a devotee of former US 

President Harry Truman, who once said: "If you can't convince them, then 

confuse them." 

Morrison is increasingly defined by his theatrics, rather than leadership or 

policy substance. 

His focus is mostly on the "big announcement", not on delivery. 

He doesn't seem to understand nor accept responsibility. 

He relies on spin and hubris, and is quick to shift the blame. 

He readily attempts a political stunt to distract, but not always achieving 

the desired outcome. 

In recent days, he has been exposed for governing to the conspicuous 

benefit of his mates - promising a gas-led recovery; paying 10 times the 

value for a piece of land at the Badgerys Creek airport; turning a blind eye 

to employers gaming JobKeeper; and to some wealthy owners of private 

aircraft exploiting assistance to the aviation sector. 

He has attempted to cover this up by cutting funding to the Auditor- 

General and by resisting a promised national integrity commission, in 

particular failing to release draft legislation that has sat on his desk since 

the end of last year.


Morrison has consistently ducked his clear national responsibility for 

quarantine and aged care in his response to COVID, hoping to be absolved 

by claiming that in both cases "he was working through the states" - a 

lame attempt at blame shifting. 

Ignoring these responsibilities, Morrison and his team have incessantly 

bagged Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews over his handling of Victoria's 

second wave of COVID and emphasising the drag of lockdowns on the 

national recovery. 

Yet he simultaneously boasts the recession is over and our economy is 

already recovering, somewhat faster than expected. 

Morrison has also attempted a couple of stunts in an attempt to distract 

from much of this. 

For example, his attack on Australia Post chief executive Christine Holgate, 

for paying bonuses in the form of luxury watches rather than cash. 

I say stunt because if the bonuses had been paid in cash, they would have 

gone pretty well unnoticed. 

He also confined his criticism to Holgate, ignoring the overarching board 

responsibility for such a decision. 

Again, he was protecting mates - four LNP luminaries on the board - able 

to avoid public comment and the scrutiny of Senate estimates. 

Similarly, Morrison's recent calls to some world leaders were another 

hoped-for distraction. 

However, this too didn't quite go as planned when UK Prime Minister 

Johnson focused on our inadequate response to climate. 

As released by a Downing Street spokesperson, catching Morrison 

somewhat off-guard, Johnson urged Morrison to take "bold action" on 

climate stressing the need for "ambitious targets to cut emissions and 

reach net-zero". 

Johnson noted: "The UK's experience demonstrates that driving economic 

growth and reducing emissions can go hand-in-hand."


This comment exposed the fallacy of what has been an LNP position since 

the Howard assertion that responding to climate must cost growth and 

jobs. 

It doesn't have to be a choice. Indeed, the transition in key sectors such as 

power, transport and agriculture creates new markets, industries and jobs. 

Similarly, the additional fallacy reflected in the slogan "technology not 

taxes" is the suggestion that this, too, is a choice. 

No. Technology will certainly be important in an effective transition to a 

low carbon Australia, but it would only be helped, indeed accelerated, if 

there were to be a price on carbon. 

Transition would be facilitated if those doing the polluting, from coal and 

gas fired power stations, or petrol- and diesel-powered vehicles, were to 

be penalised for the pollution they create, that contributes so significantly 

to our carbon emissions, and impacts so heavily on health in our society. 

Morrison continues to ignore that important trading partners - China, 

Japan, Britain and South Korea - have all adopted net-zero targets, some 

threatening to impose climate tariffs on laggards in trade deals. 

Indeed, he obfuscates with false arguments about "sovereignty", threats of 

higher prices, and ability to carry forward Kyoto credits. 

In all this, Morrison is setting his government up to be mugged by reality. 

I fear that while 2020 was a tough year, both economically and socially, 

2021 could be even tougher as we transition out of recession, with 

government phasing down assistance and challenges such as climate 

becoming even more urgent. 

Source: 

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6989731/why-scott-morrison-is-likely-tobe-mugged-by-reality/ 

John Hewson is a professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, 

and a former Liberal opposition leader.


Morrison’s gold standard ICAC 

distractions 

by Michelle Pini | Independent Australia


EDITORIAL Scott Morrison’s gold standard ICAC distractions 

by Michelle Pini | Independent Australia on 28 October 2020 

Cartoon by Mark David / @MDavidCartoons 

It’s both comical and disconcerting to see the Prime Minister huffing and 

puffing over a few, admittedly expensive, gold watches. 

As news of Australia Post CEO Christine Holgate’s up-market gifts for her 

senior executives surfaced this week, Morrison was apparently incensed. 

The PM bellowed that he was “appalled”, he was “disgusted” with 

the “abuse of taxpayers’ money” and that it was “disgraceful”, before the 

suitably theatrical finale of, “And it’s not on!”. 

Indeed, Morrison was almost as animated as that time he 

entered Parliament brandishing a lump of coal.


It’s firstly comical that the PM can say the words “gold watch” with a 

straight face, given another gold watch fiasco a few years back. During that 

particular gift bonanza, it was Coalition ministers that received gold 

watches. Worth $250,000, those Rolexes were worth ten times as much as 

the "bargain basement" ones Holgate bestowed. One of the recipients of 

those earlier and classier timepieces was also Stuart Robert — a senior 

minister in the current Morrison Cabinet. 

But those particular gold symbols of obscene wealth were from a Chinese 

billionaire and they were given to government ministers, not government 

employees. Thus, they were accepted with thanks, before eventually being 

returned once news of the inappropriate gifts became public. This, 

however, Morrison was neither shocked nor appalled to discover. 

And it’s disconcerting that Morrison can muster such disappointment 

about four watches worth 20K in total when he couldn’t be bothered to 

even hang around and feign interest while the entire nation was on fire. Or, 

indeed, to be offended as the breadth of corruption engulfing almost every 

Federal Government sector becomes evident with each passing day, 

but more about that below. 

Morrison’s confected outrage over Holgate's gifts to executives is even 

more disconcerting when you consider that it is his hand-picked Australia 

Post board that approved these particular gold watches in the first place. 

Yet, in his characteristic, "let’s-find-a-scapegoat" style, it is only the current 

CEO who has warranted the PM's furious displeasure. 

And Communications Minister Paul Fletcher jumped on the outrage 

bandwagon faster than you could say "Western Sydney Airport land deal". 

Fletcher contributed: 

"I was as shocked and concerned as everybody else to discover this … I have 

asked the chair [of Australia Post] to provide the full support of the company 

for this investigation, and I have also asked the chair to inform the chief 

executive that she will be asked to stand aside during the course of this 

investigation."


Interestingly, Holgate’s predecessor, Ahmed Fahour, walked away with 

$10.8 million after quitting amid community uproar over his fat pay deal. 

Fahour was paid $6.8 million in the 2017 financial year plus an additional 

$4 million in long-term incentives. 

But Holgate is a woman and so her remuneration has a fixed base of only 

$1.37 million and a maximum of $2.75 million. 

And Holgate, who also scrapped $7 million in executive bonuses this 

year, said: 

"I have not used taxpayers’ money. We do not receive government funding. 

We are a commercial organisation … It was a recommendation from our 

chair that these people get rewarded.” 

In an added twist, hundreds of post office licensees across the country are 

each mailing Prime Minister Scott Morrison a $5 note in a show of support 

for the Australia Post CEO. 

Licensed Post Office Group executive director Angela Cramp said: 

‘"There's a huge groundswell of support for Christine Holgate." 

According to Cramp, the watches were "minuscule in the face of $100 

million in savings each year for five years" and a fraction of the money 

Holgate has saved Australia Post licensees and taxpayers. 

Areas that should warrant some of the outrage the PM found for the 

watches but apparently do not, include, but are not limited to: 

• the Leppington airport land purchase; 

• the ASIC expense scandal; 

• the sports rorts fiasco; 

• the water buybacks scandal and almost everything involving Angus 

Taylor; 

• his Government's unlawful treatment of its own citizens under 

the Robodebt scheme; 

• the Home Affairs Austal investigation; 

• the aged care negligence;


• the Ruby Princess plague ship; 

• giving Foxtel money from COVID recovery funds, without process; 

• jobs for Liberal Party mates to run energy policy; and 

• money for jam to party donors ostensibly running a “charity” to save 

the Great Barrier Reef. 

Then there are the CEOs still raking in the mega bonuses while claiming 

JobKeeper handouts and even sacking staff, such as: 

• Star Entertainment Group CEO Matt Bekier, who received an $800,000 

share bonus, laid off 90 per cent of staff and raked in $64 million in 

government handouts; 

• SeaLink Travel Group CEO Clinton Feuerherdt, who received $504,000 

in short-term bonuses, paid shareholders $18.9 million in dividends 

and received $8.6 million in JobKeeper payments; and 

• 1300 Smiles managing director Daryl Holmes, who will get around $2 

million out of the total $3 million shareholder dividends paid and 

received $2 million in JobKeeper payments. 

If we extend the scope of Morrison’s dubious moral compass to include 

state premiers, it seems incongruous that his “gold-standard” premier, 

Gladys Berejiklian, whose deeds have her mired in corruption, have, by 

contrast, only inspired the PM to pledge his absolute support. 

Lastly, if none of the above warrants Morrison’s immediate attention 

or outrage, then his Government’s growing list of failed promises should at 

least warrant ours. 

Here are a few that come to mind: 

• the $2 billion Bushfire Recovery Fund where just 291,000 of the 

7.1 million people impacted by the 2019-20 bushfires have received 

disaster recovery payments and some of which may be pilfered for 

other projects; 

• the HomeBuilder scheme which currently has 11,367 applications but 

of which only 780 have been funded;


• the $100 million recycling fund that has yet to invest in any recycling 

projects; 

• $600 million promised for community projects to boost the economy 

which has failed to materialise; 

• the $2 million COVIDsafe app (and additional advertising costs) which 

managed to identify a total of 17 people; and 

• the promised 450,000 jobs to be generated by JobMaker now 

revealed to only be 45,000. 

It's easy to brag about gold standards and make promises you have no 

intention of keeping; as easy as feigning outrage over four gold watches 

while billions are being pilfered. 

Instead of the endless PR and diversion tactics, it is time the Morrison 

Government was held to account. Perhaps Scotty from Marketing needs to 

invest in a good time-keeping mechanism to help him find the time to 

finally organise a Federal ICAC. 

Source: 

https://independentaustralia.net/members-area/member-article-display/editorialscott-morrisons-gold-standard-icac-distractions,14461


Pre COVID-Debt: 88.4 % of 

Coalition borrowing was before 

the pandemic 

… says Jim Chalmers 

• At the end of September 2013, shortly after the Coalition 

came to power, net debt stood at $174.6 billion. 

• By the end of January 2020, at the start of the pandemic, 

net debt was $430.2 billion, an increase of $255.6 billion. 

• Over the next four months to the end of May 2020, net 

debt increased to $463.6 billion, an increase of $33.5 

billion. 

• That suggests that Coalition borrowing undertaken after 

the onset of the pandemic accounted for just 11.6 per cent 

of the total increase in net debt under the Coalition, 

compared with 88.4 per cent before the pandemic.


Jim Chalmers says two-thirds of the debt in the budget was 

borrowed before the start of the pandemic. Is he correct? 

RMIT ABC Fact Check 13 August 2020 

Shadow treasurer Jim Chalmers says two-thirds of the debt in the budget 

was borrowed before the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

(ABC News: Tamara Penniket) 

The claim 

Both the Coalition and Labor have in the past argued that paying off 

Commonwealth debt is a benchmark of economic success in Australian 

politics. 

But Treasurer Josh Frydenberg recently warned Australians that his July 

budget update was going to contain "eye watering numbers around debt 

and deficit", saying: "The coronavirus has required the Government to 

spend unprecedented amounts of money to support people in need". 

The following day, in an interview with ABC News Breakfast, shadow 

treasurer Jim Chalmers said the Government must not be allowed to 

"pull a swiftie" by pretending the red ink in the budget was a 

consequence of the virus when the vast majority of the debt had piled 

up beforehand.


"Something like two-thirds of the debt in the budget was borrowed by the 

Government before this outbreak of COVID-19," Mr Chalmers said. 

What do the records show? RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates. 

The verdict 

Mr Chalmers is correct. 

When the Coalition came to power in September 2013, gross debt stood at 

about $280.3 billion. 

That level of debt was largely the consequence of borrowing undertaken 

by the former Labor government to help cushion Australia from the global 

financial crisis, which according to the Reserve Bank began around mid- 

2007. 

By the end of January 2020, as Australia began to record its first cases of 

coronavirus, gross debt was $568.1 billion. 

On July 22, 2020, the day before Mr Chalmers made his claim, gross debt 

stood at $723.4 billion. 

The increase in gross debt since the pandemic hit Australia — $155.3 

billion — represents 35 per cent of the $443.1 billion of debt borrowed by 

the Coalition since it came to office. 

This is consistent with Mr Chalmers's claim that something like two-thirds 

of the debt was borrowed by the Government before the outbreak of 

COVID-19. 

For completeness, Fact Check also examined net debt figures, which factor 

in offsetting financial assets. 

Although the net figures provide a better indication of a country's financial 

position, in terms of assessing Mr Chalmers's claim, these figures are of less 

use as they only extend until the end of May, leaving out more than oneand-a-half 

months' worth of borrowing. 

Bearing this in mind, the net debt figures indicate that an even smaller 

proportion of borrowing — about 11.6 per cent — was undertaken after 

the start of the pandemic.


Only one-third of the debt in the budget was accrued during the pandemic. 

(AAP: Darren England) 

Government borrowing 

At the end of September 2013, shortly after the Coalition came to power, 

net debt stood at $174.6 billion. 

By the end of January 2020, at the start of the pandemic, net debt was 

$430.2 billion, an increase of $255.6 billion. 

Over the next four months to the end of May 2020, net debt increased to 

$463.6 billion, an increase of $33.5 billion. 

That suggests that Coalition borrowing undertaken after the onset of the 

pandemic accounted for just 11.6 per cent of the total increase in net debt 

under the Coalition, compared with 88.4 per cent before the pandemic 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-13/fact-check-budget-debt-coronaviruspandemic/12545628 

------------------------------ END ----------------------------


Budget Lies: Lies, Damn Lies and 

LNP budgets 

Federal Budget 

2020 / 2021


Lies, Damn Lies and LNP budgets 

Budget blues: 

‘derisory’ support for women but welfare for business 

by Michael Keating | Government | Michael West Media 

on October 8, 2020 

Josh Frydenberg delivers Budget 2020. Courtesy ABC 

While the government’s pragmatism and its willingness to abandon 

its past ideological railing against debt and deficits is welcome, 

Scott Morrison appears to be returning to his core beliefs in lower 

taxes and smaller government, plus favouring welfare for 

business. Michael Keating reports on Budget 2020. 

The headline news is that the budget deficit this year will be a record 

$213.7 billion – equivalent to 11% of GDP. The government’s total support 

since the onset of the pandemic amounts to $507 billion, more than half of 

which is direct economic support. 

Yet the additional stimulus in this budget, beyond what was in place at the 

time of the previous budget update in July, amounts to only another $74.8 

billion, significantly less than the extra $100-$120 billion recommended by 

the highly respected independent analysts at the Grattan Institute.


Given the present exceptional uncertainties in forecasting, the government 

should be prepared to review and, if necessary, increase the fiscal support 

if that proves necessary. 

But more important than the amount is how effective it will be. 

Tax cuts 

The government has not jettisoned all its ideology, with the budget 

showing the government will now be relying more on tax relief and less on 

government spending to support the recovery. Tax relief now accounts for 

as much as 56% of the total cost, over this year and next, of all the new 

initiatives since July. 

The instant asset write-off for new investment is the most expensive ($26.7 

billion). However, generally business will not invest unless they are 

confident there will be a demand for their extra product, although because 

this incentive is time-limited it may have some effect. 

The second most expensive initiative is bringing forward Stage 2 of the 

personal tax cuts. Contrary to pre-budget speculation, the government has 

decided to retain the low- and middle-income tax offset for one more year, 

and consequently these tax cuts will be spread fairly across the income 

distribution. However, there are continuing doubts about how much will 

actually be spent. 

As a number of economists have proposed, providing households with 

time-limited vouchers would arguably be much more effective. The 

vouchers could be targeted in areas affected by restrictions, such as 

tourism and the arts, and areas that would help get people back into work, 

such as training/retraining and childcare. 

Infrastructure investment 

A major ideological predilection of this government, and especially the 

pork-barrelling Nationals, is their support for more infrastructure 

investment. True to form, the budget announced a further $10 billion to 

the infrastructure pipeline, taking it to $110 billion to be spent over the 

next 10 years.


What the government doesn’t seem to appreciate is that: 

• The construction industry has been booming, with government real 

expenditure increasing at an average annual rate of 8.5% over the 

past four years. Earlier this year COAG ministers expressed their 

concern about cost over-runs caused by too much demand. 

• Most of the money is to be spent on mega infrastructure projects 

costing $5 billion or more, but these projects employ relatively little 

labour, and that labour is mostly males with specialised skills. 

However, this recession, unlike all previous recessions, has mainly hit 

women and young people who are not going to get jobs on these 

projects. 

• The vast majority of the projects do not have business cases when the 

governments commit to them. The choice is dominated by politics, 

and the reason for no business case is because most do not represent 

value for money. 

Financing a substantial increase in social housing, where there is a real 

need, would have been a much better response. 

Support for jobs 

Another $15.6 billion has been provided for the JobKeeper program, which 

has provided a lifeline for many businesses and their employees. However, 

it is scheduled to end in March, to be replaced with a JobMaker Hiring 

Credit, which it hopes will give businesses the incentive to take on new 

employees. However, it is limited to only people aged 16 to 35. In addition, 

young people will benefit from a new 50% wage subsidy to support 

100,000 new apprentices and trainees. 

And given the much greater impact of this recession on women, the 

provision of $240 million through the Women’s Economic Security 

Statement might well seem derisory. 

Support for essential services 

While the government repeated its commitment to funding essential 

services, its track record shows this commitment has not always been met, 

with critical shortfalls in the following services in particular:


• Aged care: While the government has announced $1.6 billion for 

23,000 additional home care packages, this will fund less than a 

quarter of the waiting list for packages, which stands at 100,000. 

• Vocational and technical education: There has been a welcome 

increase in funds for apprenticeships and the number of training 

places. But again, all is not as the government would like you to 

believe. Although spending is budgeted to peak at $2.2 billion in the 

current fiscal year, it is programmed to fall to $1.6 billion in 2022-23 – 

a fall of almost 30% and less than the spending before the pandemic 

of $1.7 billion in 2018-19. 

• Arts and culture: This sector has been especially hit by the Covid 

lockdown but there’s no real increase over the next four years 

compared to pre-pandemic levels of funding. 

• Universities: the universities claim that funding per student will fall, as 

will funding for research, given the extent that it was cross-subsidised 

by foreign students. In addition, the government has determined to 

more than double the fees for the humanities and significantly 

increase the fees for other social sciences. The government argues 

that increased fees can be used to drop the cost of degrees in what it 

alleges are degrees that better meet the needs of the labour market, 

but there is not a shred of evidence for this. 

Important areas ignored 

JobSeeker assistance: There is almost universal agreement that the level 

of assistance to people who are unemployed should not return to Newstart 

levels of $40 per day. When the government says it will review the level of 

assistance towards the end of this year it seems to imply they want to take 

account of the state of the labour market before making their decision, but 

this is irrelevant. 

The level of assistance should be the amount unemployed people need to 

enjoy an austere but reasonable standard of living and the government 

should permanently lock in the present level of assistance under JobSeeker 

now.


Rental Assistance: It is widely recognised that low-income people who are 

renting are distinctly worse off financially than people on the same income 

who own their homes. Again, these people do not seem to figure among 

this government’s priorities. 

Childcare: Reducing the cost and increasing the provision of childcare is 

likely to significantly increase female workforce participation. Especially 

given the lack of other support for working women in this budget, child 

care should have been a priority. 

The above article was republished with permission from 

Pearls and Irritations. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/2020-budget-blues-welfare-for-business-derisorysupport-for-women/ 


Michael Keating 

Michael Keating is a former Head of the Departments of Prime Minister & 

Cabinet, Finance, and Employment & Industrial Relations. He is presently a 

Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University.



Michael Pascoe: 

Josh Frydenberg’s whirling dervish Budget – spin and faith 

By Michael Pascoe, Contributing Editor for The New Daily 


Treasurer Josh Frydenberg was in whirling dervish spin mode on Tuesday. 

Photo: AAP 

This is the 41st federal budget I’ve had some journalistic interest in, the 

38th that I’ve had detailed responsibility for covering. 

None has come anywhere near the spin and marketing BS of Josh 

Frydenberg’s second. 

To attempt to pass off this year’s tax cuts as roughly double their actual 

size is close to fraudulent. 

The attempt to hide the fat tax increase the government is proposing for 

most Australians next year is outrageous. 

And such is this government’s media management talent – its biggest 

apparent talent – they largely got away with it.


Not for the first time, it points to the issue of trust: 

Can the Morrison/Frydenberg government be trusted to be honest 

with people, to be straight with us instead of treating every 

announcement as a marketing stunt? 

In the inevitable search for a title to summarise Tuesday night’s effort, I 

propose “Frydenberg’s Whirling Dervish Budget”. 

If you know your whirling Dervishes, you’ll realise that they’re all about 

spinning and faith. 

Listening to the budget speech, I at first thought the Treasurer had made 

an embarrassing little blunder when he seemed to be comparing this year’s 

income tax with that of 2017-18. Surely nobody could try to multiply the 

stimulus required this year by adding on the rather lacklustre impact of 

2018’s tax cuts. 

But Mr Frydenberg did: “As a proportion of tax payable compared to 2017- 

18, the greatest benefits will flow to those on lower incomes – with those 

earning $40,000 paying 21 per cent less tax, and those on $80,000 paying 

around 11 per cent less tax this year,” he said. 

“Under our changes, more than seven million Australians receive tax relief 

of $2000 or more this year.” 

If 2017-18 didn’t quickly register, you were misled. As Josh Butler 

explains, this year’s tax cuts are about half or less of what the 

Treasurer was trying to claim. 

But why stop at 2017-18, Josh? Why not go back to 1970 or 1960 to get an 

even bigger figure? If you say it quickly, maybe you can play more people 

for mugs. 

There was worse news tucked away in the spin. The vast majority of 

Australians getting a little tax cut this year won’t be receiving it from the 

phase two of the government’s fabled tax revolution. 

Their reduction only comes from the extension of the low-to-middle 

income tax offset (LMITO). Note carefully the way the Treasurer framed 

that announcement: “We will also retain the Low- and Middle-Income Tax 

Offset for an additional year.”


The LMITO is not part of the legislated phase two. Mr Frydenberg is only 

saying it will be extended for this year. 

The Guardian’s graphmeister Greg Jericho wasn’t fooled by the 

government’s attempts to spin. He knocked up two graphs that show 

very clearly (1) how much less tax you will pay this year compared to last 

year i.e. the extra money people with jobs will have in their pockets. 

And (2) how much less tax you will pay next financial year compared with 

last year.


What Josh Frydenberg, spinning hard, doesn’t want people to 

notice is that the vast majority will cop an effective tax increase 

next year as the LMITO disappears. 

The phase two and – even more so – the legislated phase three tax cuts are 

not for ordinary people, but for those on six-figure taxable incomes. 

The median full-time Australian wage is about $60,000 a year. The 

“millions” of Australians Mr Frydenberg was spinning about are getting 

stiffed. 

This budget is supposed to be about jobs, jobs, jobs – but it remains highly 

doctrinaire, an animal of neoliberal faith. 

As he demonstrated on the ABC’s 7.30 on Tuesday night, Mr Frydenberg 

was not capable of being honest with the nation and fessing up to a dozen 

years of Coalition rhetoric demonising debt and deficit being political lies.


Necessity has forced the government’s hand to spend and spend big – but 

beyond the programmed-to-expire JobKeeper and JobSeeker safety nets, 

that spending is primarily an experiment in subsidising business to create 

demand. 

A brave decision, minister. A courageous one. 

We’re yet to see a successful example of tax deductions creating 

investment demand on the scale necessary to overcome recessionary 

uncertainty and somehow create consumer demand. 

Remember that Mr Frydenberg is forecasting household consumption 

will somehow soar by 7 per cent next financial year despite 

population growth stalling, unemployment being around 7 per cent 

and real take-home wages going backwards with an extra kick from a 

tax increase. 

To see that would take all the spin and faith the most devoted whirling 

Dervish might manage. 

Tim Colebatch, former Age economics editor, makes a case for this being 

the budget business wanted, for having a touch of the Trumps. 

The problem with the perfectly good idea of immediate tax write-offs as a 

stimulus tool is that they only make sense if you’re making a profit you 

want to minimise. 

In uncertain times, a business will tend to only invest if it can see more 

profit will quickly result – not for the sake of a tax deduction. 

The tax write-back policy – effectively averaging past years’ profit over a 

current year loss – is a better tool, but standby for the two policies to be 

exploited. 

Hot tip for a business with not much profit this year: Buy yet another new 

Hilux with the immediate write-off being enough to show a loss, enabling 

your accountant to grab the tax write-back to help finance the acquisition. 

Somehow, for all the faith and spinning, this budget doesn’t add up to the 

sort of credible stimulus the nation needs, never mind the lost 

opportunities.


There’s plenty of talk about an early election next year. A government 

doesn’t go the polls a year early if it really believes the economy will 

dramatically improve the following year. 

Keep spinning. 

Source: 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2020/10/08/michael-pascoe-josh-frydenbergwhirling-dervish-budget/



Don’t think ‘eye-watering’ debt means the government 

is doing enough: Chalmers 

by Euan Black, Finance Editor for The New Daily on October 14, 2020 

Shadow treasurer Jim Chalmers says the budget was a missed opportunity. 

Shadow treasurer Jim Chalmers says the federal budget wasted the chance 

to transform “this crisis into a turning point for Australia” to become a 

stronger and fairer society. 

In a lunchtime address that pitched Labor’s proposal for a government-led 

recovery against the Liberals’ business-backed budget, Dr Chalmers said 

the “eye-watering” government debt should not hoodwink Australians into 

thinking the Coalition is doing enough to fix the economy. 

He told the National Press Club that “the real story of last week’s budget 

[was] opportunity cost – and opportunities lost”. 

Despite $98 billion of new spending measures, Dr Chalmers said 

“unemployment is still expected to be too high for too long” and “too 

many Australians are still left in the lurch”. 

“Unusually, this budget was defined more by what’s not in it than what is,” 

the shadow treasurer told the press club.


Nothing for childcare, or cleaner and cheaper energy. Nothing 

for social housing, no plan to tackle insecure work or to address 

the crisis in aged care. 

“Nothing to advance equality for women, leaving a gap that shreds the 

credibility of this government.” 

Noting that the budget forecasts unemployment to remain above pre- 

COVID levels for at least another four years, Dr Chalmers said the Treasurer 

has failed to announce enough job-creation measures. 

He said another 160,000 Australians were expected to lose their jobs by the 

end of the year and the government would cut support before many of 

them regained employment. 

“When unemployment gets back below 6 per cent – around its peak during 

the GFC – government policy officially snaps back to austerity,” Dr 

Chalmers said. 

“They want to slam on the brakes before the recovery even gets into 

second gear.” 

Dr Chalmers argued there was nothing wrong with spending big to lift the 

economy out of recession, so long as “every borrowed dollar” provides 

good value for money. 

“The immediate challenge is to ensure stimulus is cost-effective – 

maximising the economic activity for each dollar invested,” he said. 

“This is what economists call the fiscal multiplier. A high fiscal multiplier is 

important not only because debt must ultimately be repaid, but because it 

helps create more jobs.” 

Citing work by the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and the Grattan 

Institute, Dr Chalmers said the personal income tax cuts – parts of which 

Labor leader Anthony Albanese has hinted at repealing – would only 

deliver 50 cents in GDP for every dollar invested. 

Meanwhile, every dollar of direct government spending would return at 

least $1 in GDP, he said.

If you can't convince them, then confuse them …


“Direct government spending often has a bigger fiscal multiplier, and its 

impact can be several times larger when interest rates are close to zero,” 

the shadow treasurer told the press club. 

“This only bolsters the case to make government investments in things like 

social housing, as Labor is proposing. 

“To create the most jobs we also need policies that support the most 

labour-intensive sectors, which are often found in the care economy. 

“This is one of many compelling reasons for the government to focus on 

aged care, in childcare, and in hard-hit areas like arts and hospitality.” 

The National Press Club speech comes after Labor leader Anthony 

Albanese used his budget reply speech on Thursday evening to commit a 

future Labor government to $6.2 billion in childcare reforms. 

Mr Albanese proposed to raise the childcare subsidy from 85 per cent 

to 90 per cent of costs, to scrap the annual subsidy cap ($10,560), to 

soften the taper rate at which support is reduced, and to increase the 

subsidy cut-off from $353,680 in household income to $530,000. 

Before the budget, economists called for higher childcare subsidies and 

greater investment in health and social care to make up for female jobs 

lost during the lockdowns – with the Grattan Institute claiming that a $5 

billion investment in child care would deliver a $11 billion boost to the 

economy through higher workforce participation. 

Mr Albanese dressed up the changes as an economic reform rather than a 

welfare measure. 

But Prime Minister Scott Morrison described the plan as a work of “fiction” 

that would mostly benefit higher-income earners. 

“What I do know is that someone who is in the top 10 per cent of incomeearning 

in this country are the big beneficiaries of that plan,” he said. 

“When we announced our childcare changes, it was focused on those lowand-middle-income 

earners.” 

Sources: 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2020/10/14/budget-reply-jimchalmers/



The budget is blokey … 

because Morrison's 'core values' make it so 

by Ross Gittins, Economics Editor for The Sydney Morning Herald 


I'm sorry to have to agree, but Grattan Institute boss Danielle Wood is right 

to say this is a "blokey" budget. As are those who add it's a blokey budget 

from a blokey government. 

Scott Morrison is offended by the charge, but the trouble is, the blokier 

you are, the harder it is to see what's blokey and what's not. Women see it 

sticking out, but blokes often can't. 

Illustration: Simon Letch 

The simple truth is that, over the centuries, what economists call the 

"institutional arrangements" that make up the economy have been 

designed by men, for the convenience of men. This was fine when the 

great majority of the paid (note that word) work was done by men, but not 

so fine now women are better educated than men and make up 47 per 

cent of the paid workforce. 

It's because the blokiness of the way we've always managed the economy 

is so deeply ingrained in the way we've always thought about the economy 

that so many men can't see it. Outsiders can; insiders can't. To steal a 

phrase from the feminists of my youth, it's now the men who need the 

"consciousness raising".


(Of course, it's nothing new that people can see their own point of view – 

and their own vested interest – far better than they can see other people's.) 

The first place a bias in favour of men is hidden is the division we make 

between the production of "goods" (by the agriculture, mining, 

manufacturing, utilities and construction industries) and the production of 

"services" by every other industry. 

Kevin Rudd's declaration that he didn't want to be prime minister of a 

country that didn't "make things", and Morrison's similar noises recently, 

are manifestations of the truth that, in general, jobs in the goods sector are 

held in higher esteem than those that involve performing services. 

Would it surprise you to learn that 79 per cent of the jobs in the goods 

sector are held by men whereas, in the almost four-times bigger services 

sector, 54 per cent of the jobs are held by women? 

Would it surprise you that jobs held by men tend to be more senior and 

higher-paid than jobs held by women? Even within the services sector – 

which, of course, includes a lot of highly paid occupations, such as prime 

ministers and premiers, managers, doctors, dentists and lawyers. 

Over the past 50 years, almost all the net growth in jobs has been in the 

service industries. This is because the production of goods has become 

increasingly "capital-intensive" (more of the work is done by machines), 

whereas the services sector is, by its nature, labour-intensive. 

It's no accident that most of these extra service sector jobs have been filled 

by women, returning to the workforce or never really leaving it. Much of 

this growth has been in what the National Foundation for Australian 

Women's latest Gender Lens on the Budget report calls the "caring 

professions" – nursing, childcare, aged care and disabled care. 

Would it surprise you that caring jobs are done mainly by women and tend 

to be low-status and low-paid? Surely it's obvious that being in charge of 

an expensive machine is a far more responsible role than being in charge 

of children, the elderly, the sick or disabled? 

Although the corona cession is unusual in having its greatest effect on 

service industries, the budget sticks to the standard script of directing most 

stimulus to the goods sector: construction, energy, manufacturing and 

road and rail projects.


The concession to encourage more business investment in equipment 

favours capital-intensive goods industries over service industries. The tax 

cuts will go more to men than to women, especially after the middleincome 

tax offset is withdrawn next financial year. 

But there's where the budget aims its stimulus and where it doesn't. No 

economic modelling should be taken as gospel truth, but modelling by 

Matt Grudnoff, of the Australia Institute, finds that bringing forward stage 

two of the government's tax plan will create only between 13,400 and 

23,300 jobs – depending on how much of the cut is saved or is spent on 

imports. 

By contrast, Grudnoff estimates that splitting the same $13 billion 

evenly between service industries – universities, childcare, healthcare, 

aged care and the creative arts – would create almost 162,000 jobs. 

Modelling commissioned by the women's foundation from Dr Janine 

Dixon, of Victoria University, has found that redirecting government 

spending from infrastructure to the provision of greater care for 

children, the aged or the disabled would yield significantly greater 

benefit to the economy and jobs. 

So why did Morrison and his Treasurer choose not to spend more on 

services sector jobs? Because this didn't fit with the "core values" that 

guided their choice of stimulus measures: "lower taxes and containing the 

size of government". 

Although these days most of the heavily female-performed childcare, 

healthcare, aged care and disabled care has been contracted out to the 

community and private sector, its cost is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. 

I bet it's never crossed Morrison's mind that his commitment to Smaller 

Government is biased against women and the further growth of female 

employment. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/the-budget-is-blokey-becausemorrison-s-core-values-make-it-so-20201020-p566qd.html



Budget unanimity – a spending feast of least resistance, 

devoid of ideas and vision – and little ingenuity 

by Kim Wingerei | Economy & Markets | Michael West Media 


Imagery courtesy of Australian Government 

A few days after the “budget to beat all budgets” was announced, what is 

most noticeable is not the expected magnitude of spending, deficit and 

debt, but the consensus among commentators, analysts and economists. 

“Underwhelming”, “opportunity missed” and “hope and a prayer” have 

been the descriptions most used. 

The Government plans to spend $127.8 billion more than last financial year, 

while receiving income of $5.6 billion less, for a deficit for the year of 

$213.7 billion to be added to the national debt burden. According to 

treasury estimates by the end of FY 2023-24 Australia’s net (Federal 

Government) debt is expected to nudge just shy of $1 trillion ($966 billion).


Big, scary numbers. So scary that even the masters of spin cannot quite 

conceal the horror. 

If Messrs Morrison, Frydenberg and (soon to retire) Cormann were 

hoping for a pat on the back they would have been disappointed. 

Beyond the bastion of Coalition sycophants at Sky News, the 

reactions range from lukewarm to highly critical. The Australian and 

the Financial Review have been less than enthusiastic, and even The 

Spectator decries “too much spending, too little reform”. 

It is definitely a budget for business, with a headline initiative allowing 

companies (with revenue of less than $5 billion) to deduct the full value of 

depreciable assets at the time of purchase instead of over time. The 

Government’s hope is that it will turbocharge business investment. 

As the Sydney Morning Herald’s David Crowe quipped: “It is the kind of tax 

incentive that sells a lot of utes.” 

And while it is headlined as a $27.8 billion incentive, buried in the details is 

the fact that it will increase tax revenue in subsequent years and the net 

effect over five years is a mere $3.2 billion. 

As Michael Pascoe points out in his acerbic desecration of the budget 

(“Josh Frydenberg’s whirling dervish budget”), of the 41 federal budgets he 

has covered, “none has come anywhere near the spin and marketing BS…”. 

Although not an actual budget item, the $4.5 billion additional investment 

by the NBN announced two weeks ago is being thrown into the bag of 

goodies again – under the evocative heading of “A Digital Australia” – 

without mentioning the bad decisions of years past that cost $14.5 billion 

more than budget and necessitated the additional spend. 

And of course there had to be another program with a catchy slogan. 

JobMaker is designed to bring more young people to work by subsidising 

businesses who employ people under 35. The Government claims it will 

“support around 450,000 positions for young people”. As many 

commentators have said, it may serve to serve to further increase the 

casualisation of the workforce; as well as literally enable ageism by 

favouring casual young workers over older permanent hires.


Under the heading of “Lower taxes for hard-working Australians”, the 

budget is delivering (or more precisely, bringing forward) $17.8 billion in 

personal income tax relief already planned. For low income earners some 

of that relief will only come as a rebate on next year’s tax return. 

Economists generally agree that the effect of tax cuts are uncertain at the 

best of times, which these are not. And for the many without income, tax 

cuts have no effect whatsoever. For higher income earners tax cuts may 

well go to savings instead of spending. 

The broad consensus is the lack of direct support for those most in 

immediate need as the pandemic continues to wreak havoc. Tax cuts and 

JobMaker may work, but why phase out JobKeeper, which has been an 

immediate and largely effective way of supporting existing jobs? 

The past seven months have uncovered systemic problems with our health 

sector, and in particular aged care. The budget offers no new solutions or 

initiatives to tackle those issues. This is just one of the myriad (job creating) 

opportunities lost. 

Universities have lost billions of dollars in revenue from disappearing 

international students. We already know the pandemic has and will 

accelerate changes in how people work, and what new skills will be 

required in the future. Yet education spending is almost $8 billion less than 

last year! 

The $10 billion in extra infrastructure spending is welcome. But the absence 

of any substantial initiatives to accelerate investments in renewable energy 

and combating climate change in general, while not surprising, is still 

distressing. 

The almost universal view of this year’s federal budget is that it is devoid of 

new ideas, bereft of vision, without contingencies and based on spurious 

assumptions. All budgets are based on a forecast of what the future will 

bring, and the Government appears to have put all its eggs in the vaccine 

basket, hoping that one will emerge before the end of 2021. 

What if it doesn’t? 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/budget-2020-commentary-analysis/



Kim Wingerei 

Kim Wingerei is a businessman turned writer and commentator. He is 

passionate about free speech, human rights, democracy and the politics of 

change. Originally from Norway, Kim has lived in Australia for 30 years. 

Author of ‘Why Democracy is Broken – A Blueprint for Change’. 

------------------------------ END ----------------------------


Irresponsible is OK: Frydenberg 

plans to scrap responsible lending 

laws 

Former Liberal leader John Hewson has opposed the changes. 

Dr Hewson said although the reforms might improve the 

recovery by boosting spending in the short term, they would 

create a “debt monster”.


Michael Pascoe: Do you want banks to run your life? 

By Michael Pascoe for The New Daily on September 26, 2020 

Overly cautious banks dull our economic dynamism, writes Michael Pascoe. 

Here’s an unpopular view with the Labor Party and some fine 

commentators: I don’t want banks running my life, telling me what I can 

and can’t do with my money. 

The government’s announced intention to repeal elements of Labor’s 

responsible lending laws, to make the provision of credit easier, has drawn 

harsh criticism for allegedly heralding another subprime debt crisis as 

greedy vampire bankers swoop on innocent Australians to first engorge 

them with bad loans and then suck them dry. 

It is by no means that black and white. 

For a start, Australia didn’t have a subprime debt crisis when lending 

standards were easier, back before the Hayne Royal Commission cracked a 

big whip over the hitherto sleepy financial watchpuppies. 

We did have examples of a bad commission-driven sales culture that 

resulted in some fraudulent loan applications and overselling with terrible 

consequences – but they were few in the general scheme of lending.


We did have some dodgy property spruikers and dud financial advisers 

talking people into taking out loans for bad investments – but when the 

investments turned sour it was suddenly the banks’ fault, not the shonks’ or 

the punters’. 

In the way that the regulation pendulum swings from one extreme to the 

other, the reaction to the Hayne whip has been a welter of court cases and 

fines that have scared lenders into being extremely cautious almost to the 

point of the pre-deregulation days when banks lent only to people who 

didn’t need it. 

Anyone who has applied for a loan or to refinance in the past year or so 

will know what I mean. Loans that should be straight forward now require 

multiple hoop-jumping and a count of the number of hairs on the 

applicant’s head with independent verification by an officer of the court. 

The Reserve Bank was getting worried about credit being overly tightened 

by regulatory fears before COVID hit. Making credit difficult now is an extra 

economic retardant when the first instinct of consumers and businesses 

faced with economic uncertainty is to save rather than borrow. 

As well as deciding whether it wants to take on the risk of lending you 

money, your bank now has to very carefully decide – and prove it has been 

very careful – if you will be allowed to take the risk you want to take. 

My esteemed former colleague, Adele Ferguson, winner of multiple 

Walkley Awards and one of the handful of individuals most responsible for 

the Hayne Royal Commission being established, has criticised the 

proposed easing of responsible lending laws as inevitably resulting “in a 

return to the bad old days of loose credit and a debt binge”. 

Source: 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/consumer/2020/09/26/responsible-lendingfrydenberg-pascoe/


‘This policy will hurt people’: Consumer groups pen open letter 

on responsible lending reforms 

by Euan Black, Finance Editor for The New Daily 


Treasurer Josh Frydenberg's reforms would burden individuals with 

unsustainable debt, according to consumer groups. Photo: TNDND 

More than 120 community groups have penned an open letter urging 

Australian parliamentarians to oppose Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s 

responsible lending reforms. 

Spearheaded by Choice, the Consumer Action Law Centre, Financial Rights 

Legal Centre and Financial Counselling Australia, the letter calls on 

politicians “to stand up for Australians and block this harmful law when it is 

introduced into Parliament”. 

The groups argue the reforms would burden individuals with debt they 

cannot repay and slow down the economic recovery by reducing the 

spending power of consumers. 

They also point out that Mr Frydenberg’s reforms would contradict the first 

recommendation of the banking royal commission, which was to refrain 

from amending the National Consumer Credit Protection Act “to alter the 

obligation to assess unsuitability”.


“We write to you as community organisations, financial counsellors, and 

thousands of people concerned about the government’s disastrous 

proposal. This policy will hurt people and hinder our economic recovery,” 

the letter reads. 

“These changes will take away people’s rights and give more power to the 

banks.” 

Mr Frydenberg announced his plans to scrap responsible lending laws, 

which Labor introduced in 2009 after the global financial crisis, in the lead 

up to the federal budget. 

Mr Frydenberg said banks had become too risk averse in their lending 

practices and reforms were needed to boost the flow of credit to small 

businesses and households, which he said would speed up the economic 

recovery. 

Some economists and business groups backed the proposed changes – 

with Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe flagging concerns over the 

growing risk aversiveness of banks back in August. 

But, in their open letter, the consumer groups warn that the reforms could 

trigger a repeat of the “shocking stories” ventilated by Kenneth Hayne’s 

landmark inquiry. 

“The banking royal commission heard shocking stories of banks giving 

aged pensioners 30-year mortgages, relying on fraudulent loan documents 

provided by car dealers, and paying thousands in kickbacks to loan 

‘introducers’,” the letter reads. 

“We’ll see even more of this if banks and other lenders are not legally 

required to take care when lending.” 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Labor has adopted a similar position to that of the 

consumer groups. 

Shadow assistant treasurer Stephen Jones wrote in The New Daily in 

October that the reforms put bank profits above consumer interests and 

were “a solution in search of a problem”.


“Household debt levels remain near historic highs, indicating credit is 

flowing as freely today as it ever has. The Treasurer’s own department has 

made this point,” Mr Jones wrote. 

“Its submission to the Banking Royal Commission observed: “There is little 

evidence to suggest that recent tightening of credit standards … has 

materially affected the overall availability of credit.” 

Meanwhile, former Liberal leader John Hewson has also opposed the 

changes. 

Dr Hewson said although the reforms might improve the recovery by 

boosting spending in the short term, they would create a “debt 

monster” that had to be serviced down the track. 

But his concerns might not materialise. 

The government faces an uphill battle to pass the legislation, as the 

Greens, like Labor, are expected to oppose it. 

“We implore the Senate to listen to the warnings of financial counsellors, 

because our only interest is that of our clients’,” said Fiona Guthrie, CEO of 

Financial Counselling Australia. 

“Even with the current responsible lending laws, financial counsellors still 

see too many vulnerable people with too much debt. 

“We despair at the thought that this will get worse.” 

Source: 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/consumer/2020/11/24/choice-letterresponsiblelending/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning%20N 

ews%20-%2020201124 

--------------------------- END --------------------------


Morrison-Indigenous: Morrison 

has failed the Indigenous 

Community 

Morrison government using 

Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) 

as their personal slush fund


Scott Morrison has failed the Indigenous Community 

Warren Mundine denies wrongdoing over $550,000 

in GOVERNMENT GRANTS 

By NITV on 25 January 2019 

A business owned by the new Liberal Party candidate for Gilmore 

received two government grants amounting to over half a million 

dollars to subsidise his Sky News Australia television program. 

The grant was awarded before the application was submitted and was 

taken out of an Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) fund. The 

actual cost of the production of the program has never been revealed. 

Warren Mundine and Scott Morrison speak to reporters in Nowra (AAP) 

The coalition government gave Warren Mundine’s company more 

than $220,000 last year to subsidise a pay-TV show on Sky News 

Australia. 

The former Labor national president was installed as a Liberal Party’s 

candidate for the next federal election in the ultra-marginal NSW seat of 

Gilmore. 

The decision was controversial because of Mr Mundine’s former association 

with the opposition party and the fact that he does not yet live in the 

electorate.


Before his recent return to politics, the conservative commentator hosted 

two seasons of Mundine Means Business, which looks at entrepreneurship 

in Indigenous communities. 

The show was partly funded by a government grant which was awarded to 

Mr Mundine’s business Nyungga Black Group through a “closed noncompetitive” 

selection process. 

Buzzfeed News reports that a second grant worth $330,000 was also 

given to Mr Mundine’s company in 2017 to provide advice to the 

government about its Indigenous business strategy and develop a TV 

show on Sky News Australia celebrating success in the sector. 

NITV News is not suggesting any wrongdoing in the awarding of the 

grants. The decisions were made before Mr Mundine became a member of 

the Liberal Party and when Malcolm Turnbull was prime minister. 

For months there has been speculation in the media that Mr Mundine’s 

business interests could endanger his eligibility to run for office under 

section 44 of the constitution. 

In the NSW town of Nowra earlier this week, Prime Minister Scott Morrison 

introduced his "mate" to reporters as the endorsed Liberal candidate. 

"I've always been an honest speaker. I've always said what I believed in," Mr 

Mundine said. 

"The Liberal Party is the home for me because it is about creating jobs." 

The grant was awarded before the application was submitted and was 

taken out of an Indigenous Advancement Strategy fund. The actual 

cost of the production of the program has never been revealed. 

Source: 

https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2019/01/25/warren-mundinedenies-wrongdoing-over-550000-government-grants



Audit finds $5 billion Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) 

is not properly evaluated 

By Jacqueline Breen and Gavin Coote – ABC News on 19 June 2019 

Newly-appointed Indigenous Affairs Minister Ken Wyatt is now responsible 

for the $5 billion Indigenous Advancement Strategy. (AAP: David Moir) 

Key points: 

• The Indigenous Advancement Strategy overhauled government 

spending on tackling disadvantage in 2014 

• An audit says the department is still in the "early stages" of 

evaluations, five years after the controversial upheaval 

• Labor, the Greens and Aboriginal organisations say the management 

of the multi-billion-dollar fund is not good enough 

The Federal Government's overhaul of billions of dollars in spending on 

Indigenous disadvantage is still only in the "early stages" of evaluation, five 

years after a funding shake-up that was found to be rushed and flawed. 

An audit has found the guidelines belatedly developed to evaluate the 

$5.1 billion-dollar Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) have "potential" 

to help determine whether the programs it funds are working. 

But critics said the situation is not good enough and have called for more 

control to be transferred to Aboriginal community-run organisations.


The Australian National Audit Office looked at the evaluation framework 

for the strategy that it previously found was bungled by the Abbott 

government when it was introduced in 2014. 

"Five years after the introduction of the IAS, the department is in the early 

stages of implementing an evaluation framework," the audit found. 

"(The framework) has the potential to establish a sound foundation for 

ensuring that evaluation is high quality, ethical, inclusive and focused on 

improving the outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples." 

But the audit office found that the Department of Prime Minister and 

Cabinet has no reliable method for measuring long-term evaluation 

outcomes, and implementation has only been "partially effective". 

"That is not good enough for the department in charge of the Australian 

public service," said Pat Turner, chief executive of the National Aboriginal 

Community Controlled Health Organisation. 

The audit found the evaluation guidelines did not measure the 

government's funding decisions against its Closing the Gap policy 

commitments. 

"You can't function like that," Shadow Indigenous Affairs Minister 

Linda Burney said. 

"We're talking about the most marginalised people within society and yet 

the main funding body for those people is mired in mystery and has no 

proper evaluation or methodology." 

In a statement Indigenous Affairs Minister Ken Wyatt said the inclusion of 

"transparency" as a principle in the new framework "is a significant step in 

providing the public insight into the activities we fund". 

Mr Wyatt said the Federal Government was committed to ensuring IAS 

funding delivers outcomes for Indigenous Australians "and is always 

looking to improve the outcomes this funding achieves".


Deadlines missed 

The audit said there were "several" missed deadlines after the 

government's promise to establish an evaluation framework in 2014, with 

most elements not in place until half-way through last year. 

It also describes battles fought by the department to secure enough 

funding to do the evaluation work, with internal documents describing an 

"impossible" one-off allocation in 2016 that was half the amount requested 

by the department, which it had already considered "a fraction" of what 

was required. 

Proper funding was only allocated by then Indigenous Affairs Minister 

Nigel Scullion after the blistering audit report into the establishment of 

the IAS, released in 2017. 

And the audit reveals that Mr Scullion told the department to seek his 

approval for the membership of what was envisioned as an independent 

Indigenous Evaluation Committee. 

"There's no basis on which to make future funding decisions because we 

just don't know how effective all that money being spent under the IAS is," 

she said. 

Pat Turner said she hoped the creation of a separate Indigenous 

Australians Agency inside the department would herald some change. 

She said Indigenous organisations should be supported to both deliver 

services and do the evaluation work the department was failing to do. 

"There are some signs this is understood by the Coalition government, 

which committed in its election promises to increasing the Aboriginal 

service sector," she said. 

"(We) will take responsibility for outcomes in a way public service do not." 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-19/indigenous-advancement-strategy-iasaudit-measure-government/11222554



On Election Eve, PM’s office gave $15 million to Wesfarmers – 

a rich Party Donor from money set aside to tackle Black Poverty 

By Chris Graham – newmatilda.com on September 12, 2019 

The day before the 2019 federal election, the Morrison Government gave 

more than $15 million to one of its biggest political donors, from funding 

set aside to alleviate grinding Aboriginal poverty. 

Just three months earlier, that political donor – retail giant Wesfarmers, at 

one time the wealthiest corporation in the country – announced a record 

half-yearly profit of $4.5 billion. 

The government grant came from through the controversial Indigenous 

Advancement Strategy (IAS), the Morrison government’s main Aboriginal 

affairs funding pool, which has been the subject of numerous 

controversies. 

Just one month after the contract was approved, the IAS was the focus of 

fresh damning revelations – an Australian National Audit Office 

report which revealed the IAS still has no effective framework in place to 

evaluate any outcomes, despite expending more than $5 billion over five 

years. 

The explosive details are contained in a grant published by the Morrison 

government in May 2018, just two weeks after the federal election. The 

funding was publicly disclosed without any accompanying government 

announcement or fanfare, and classified as “Closed – Non-Competitive”, 

meaning other corporations could not bid for the money. 

The deal was approved on May 17, one day before the federal election. 

However, shortly after New Matilda began making inquiries about the 

grant in mid-2019, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet 

announced five separate variations on the contract. The publicly available 

documentation now claims the grant was approved on May 20, 2019, 

the first business day after the federal election.


A screenshot of the funding announced on grants.gov.au. Highlighted is the date, 

showing the original approval, which was given the day before the federal election. 

PM&C and Wesfarmers have both conceded to New Matilda that the grant 

was approved the day before the federal election. 

The grant approved for Wesfarmers has had five variations since it was first 

published in May 2019, including an initial increase in the grant value to 

just over $17 million, then a reduction back to the original amount. 

The first variation to the contract, which claimed that an “incorrect start 

date” was listed in the original agreement, was issued on June 26, 12 days 

after New Matilda first approached the Department of Prime Minister and 

Cabinet for comment. From that variation forward, the contract has 

continued to claim it was approved after the election.


The five variations listed on the grants.gov.au site reveal: 

• Variation 5 – Decrease of the grant value. (22-Aug-2019 ); 

• Variation 4 – Increase in grant value (24-Jul-2019 ); 

• Variation 3 – Grant start date moved back. (9-Jul-2019 ); 

• Variation 2 – Grant start date brought forward. (2-Jul-2019 ); 

• Variation 1 – Error – Incorrect start date listed (26-Jun-2019 ). 

New Matilda tried unsuccessfully to gain comment from PM&C about the 

discrepancy. 

The funding is to enable Wesfarmers to deliver, “Strategic activities that 

focus on getting Indigenous Australians into work, fostering Indigenous 

business and assisting Indigenous people to generate economic and social 

benefits from effective use of their land, particularly in remote areas.” 

It’s being directed through an IAS funding stream the Department of Prime 

Minister & Cabinet calls the ‘Employment Parity Initiative’, where large 

corporations are given government grants to employ Indigenous people. 

Retail giant 

In 2018, Wesfarmers was the largest private employer in the country, with 

more than 222,000 staff including, it claimed, more than 5,200 Indigenous 

staff. 

The company is best known as the former parent company of the Coles 

brand of supermarkets (it divested Coles in late 2018, but remains a major 

shareholder) and is now the ninth largest corporation listed on the 

Australian Stock Exchange, with a turnover of almost $70 billion in 2018. 

In February 2019, three months before the Morrison government approved 

the $15.3 million grant, Wesfarmers announced a half-yearly profit of 

$4.5 billion, the biggest in the companies’ history. 

Business is so good for Wesfarmers that it also announced it was planning 

to distribute more than $1 billion of its half-yearly profit as dividends to 

shareholders.


Big political donor 

The retail giant, which still owns brands such as Bunnings, Liquorland, 

K-Mart, Officeworks, Target and First Choice Liquor, has long been one of 

the Liberal/National Party’s most generous political donors. 

From 1999 to 2017, Australian Electoral Commission records show 

Wesfarmers has donated at least $1,128,000* to the Coalition. 

In October 2018, the West Australian reported that the chairman of 

Wesfarmers, Michael Chaney and the CEO, Rob Scott joined Prime 

Minister Scott Morrison and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann for a 

$2,000-a-head Liberal Party fundraiser. 

Michael Chaney is the brother of Fred Chaney, the former Deputy 

Leader of the Liberal Party and a former Minister for Aboriginal 

Affairs in the Fraser government. 

A damning audit report 

A report by the Australian National Audit Office, released in June 2019, 

reveals that despite spending more than $5 billion over five years, the 

Commonwealth still has no proper processes in place to determine 

whether or not their program funding is effective. 

“Five years after the introduction of the IAS, the department is in the early 

stages of implementing an evaluation framework that has the potential to 

establish a sound foundation for ensuring that evaluation is high quality, 

ethical, inclusive and focused on improving the outcomes for Aboriginal and 

Torres Strait Islander peoples. 

“Following substantial delays in establishing an evaluation framework, the 

department is now designing a framework that has the potential to support 

the achievement of the Government’s policy objectives by strengthening 

evaluations under the IAS. The design of the framework has been informed 

by recognised principles of program evaluation, relevant literature, previous 

evaluation activity and stakeholder feedback. The framework could more 

clearly link evaluation to the Government’s objectives for the IAS and other 

relevant strategic frameworks such as Closing the Gap.


“The department’s implementation and management of the IAS evaluation 

framework is partially effective. Management oversight arrangements are 

developing, and evaluation advice provided to program area staff has been 

relevant and high quality. The department has not developed a reliable 

methodology for measuring outcomes of the framework and its evaluation 

procedures are still being developed. 

“As the department is still developing procedures to support the application 

of the IAS evaluation framework, it is too early to assess whether evaluations 

are being conducted in accordance with the framework. The department’s 

approach to prioritising evaluations should be formalised by developing 

structured criteria for assessing significance, contribution and risk. The 

department has taken recent steps to: mandate early evaluation planning; 

publish completed evaluations; and ensure findings are acted upon.” 

Slush fund 

The government’s own Audit Office is not the only organisation with 

concerns over how cash has been distributed through the IAS. 

In a series of scoops in 2018 the Guardian newspaper revealed that former 

Indigenous affairs Minister Nigel Scullion doled out nearly half a million 

dollars in funding to non-Indigenous organisations to which he had close 

ties, even though some of them had never even applied for funding. 

Indigenous affairs minister Senator Nigel Scullion


Scullion’s largesse included the NT Seafood Council, the Cattleman’s 

Association, and the NT Amateur Fishermen’s Association, which received 

$155,000 to spend on legal fees in opposition to Aboriginal land rights 

claims. 

Wider anger 

The anger within Indigenous communities about how the Commonwealth 

distributes funding earmarked to alleviate Indigenous disadvantage has 

been growing for years, in particular since the Abbott Government moved 

Indigenous affairs policy and programming into the Department of Prime 

Minister & Cabinet, and began the widespread defunding of Indigenous 

community-controlled organisations. 

Perhaps the best-known axing is that of the National Congress of 

Australia’s First Peoples, which announced in September 2019 it was 

entering into voluntary administration after its funding was axed in 2014. 

The National Congress was conceived and designed by Indigenous leaders 

in 2010, and had widespread support throughout the Australian 

Indigenous community. 

Virtually every major Indigenous organisation in the country is a member 

of Congress, and it was widely acknowledged as Indigenous Australia’s 

peak governance body. 

(IMAGE: Chris Graham, New Matilda)


Congress entered into voluntary administration in June 2019 due to the 

axing of government funding. 

PM&C and Wesfarmers respond 

Wesfarmers provided a detailed response to a series of questions from 

New Matilda, which you can read below. 

Wesfarmers emphasized that it had been a strong and active employer of 

Indigenous people, and that the grant funding would assist the company in 

“relaunching Indigenous employment across the Wesfarmers group, 

following the demerger last November of Coles”. 

“Wesfarmers will employ 14 dedicated Indigenous recruitment and 

employment specialists and advisers at Group level and embedded within 

our businesses to establish processes and accelerate recruitment, 

development and retention of Indigenous team members,” a spokesperson 

said. 

A spokesperson for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet said the 

$15 million grant was provided under its “Employment Parity Initiative”, 

which “targets larger non-Indigenous organisations”. 

“Our EPI partners have delivered around 5,700 jobs for Indigenous 

Australians,” the spokesperson said. 

The spokesperson also claimed that “since the establishment in 2009 [of 

the National Congress] the Australian Government has provided over 

$30 million to support its activities and operations”. 

“The decision to enter into voluntary administration is a matter for the 

Board of Congress and the Department is continuing to work with 

Congress and the Administrator during this time.” 

In truth, the Commonwealth funding was provided by previous Labor 

governments, although then Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin 

refused to provide a level of funding that would guarantee Congress could 

survive a Coalition government, in the event Labor lost the 2013 election.


As it transpired, in Tony Abbott’s first budget in 2014, treasurer Joe Hockey 

ended future funding to Congress and the government instead set-up a 

hand-picked Indigenous Advisory Council. 

Greens take aim 

The Greens’ long-serving spokesperson on Indigenous issues, Senator 

Rachel Siewert was shocked by the level of funding provided to 

Wesfarmers. 

“Government grants should not be going to multi-million-dollar businesses 

when so many in the Aboriginal community doing extremely valuable, 

community led work struggle to get any funding,” Senator Siewert said. 

“Many organisations were cut off from funding when the IAS was first 

introduced. 

“Wesfarmers should not be getting money that is meant for First Nations 

peoples and it contravenes their supposed policy ensuring that Aboriginal 

organisations are getting funded to develop and deliver programs.” 

Source: 

https://newmatilda.com/2019/09/12/exclusive-on-election-eve-pms-office-gave- 

15m-to-rich-party-donor-from-money-set-aside-to-tackle-black-poverty-2/



Morrison government gave $15 million grant to Wesfarmers 

on eve of 2019 election 

Wesfarmers are one of the largest donors to the 

Liberal/National Party 

From 1999 to 2017, Australian Electoral Commission records 

show Wesfarmers has donated at least $1,128,000 to the 

Coalition. 

In October 2018, the West Australian reported that the 

chairman of Wesfarmers, Michael Chaney and the CEO, 

Rob Scott joined Prime Minister Scott Morrison and 

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann for a $2,000-a-head 

Liberal Party fundraiser. 

Wesfarmers chairman Michael Chaney is the brother of Fred 

Chaney, the former Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and a 

former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the Fraser government.



Ken Wyatt’s proposed ‘voice to government’ 

marks another failure to hear Indigenous voices 

by Eddie Synot, Centre Manager, Indigenous Law Centre, UNSW 

for The Conversation on October 30, 2019 

Many will feel a sense of déjà vu when reading the minister for Indigenous 

Australians’ announcement of a co-design process for a “voice to 

government”. This is yet another process in the long journey of Indigenous 

people to set things right and for our voices to be heard. 

Ken Wyatt’s announcement states Indigenous people will have the 

opportunity to have their say on the development of an Indigenous voice to 

government. 

This is new and worrying. This “voice to government” is to be legislated 

and separate from the question of symbolic constitutional recognition. As 

Wyatt described it, this will also be co-design process that will develop 

models to enhance local and regional decision-making. 

To begin the “co-design” process, he has, without consultation, appointed 

professors Tom Calma and Marcia Langton to a senior advisory group. 

Both are exceptional professionals whose suitability is beyond question. 

But the process falls short of the government’s own “co-design” intention. 

It unfortunately marks another failure of the government to hear 

Indigenous voices. And it fails to hear the invitation from the Uluru 

Statement from the Heart to walk with us in a movement of the Australian 

people for a better future.


Marcia Langton has previously called for the Voice to Parliament 

to be enshrined in the constitution. Lukas Coch/AAP 

Ignoring our voices 

Since his watershed National Press Club speech in July, Wyatt has sought 

to diminish the work of those involved in crafting the Uluru statement. 

The minister has labelled these leaders as “elites” and “influencers”, while 

emphasising those Indigenous voices supposedly not heard. This is 

incorrect. 

The achievement of the Uluru statement should not be underestimated. 

Uluru dialogue participants were community members. Not elites. The 12 

regional dialogues were run by communities themselves. Facilitation and 

technical advice was provided by the Referendum Council. 

The national convention that produced the Uluru statement was made up 

of delegates elected by their communities from the regional dialogues. 

This was a process unlike any other in the history of Indigenous affairs. 

These dialogues were legitimate expressions of Indigenous voices. There 

was no prefigured outcome, as there is with Wyatt’s proposed “voice to 

government”. The Uluru process drew its authority from the voices of 

Indigenous people taking part as representatives of their communities. 

These participants included dissenting voices within our communities. And 

they reached the deliberative consensus of Voice, Treaty and Truth. This 

outcome was also supported by the bipartisan joint select committee on 

constitutional recognition, which held its own extensive consultations.


The committee acknowledged the Uluru statement was a game changer 

and a First Nations Voice to Parliament (not government) was the only 

viable option. 

Status quo reform 

The intention to create a “voice to government” fits the minimalist rhetoric 

of improving local and regional decision-making, which Wyatt has been 

emphasising as the only viable option. 

This emphasises a need to build on and improve existing structures. But 

this reform was resoundingly rejected by the Uluru statement. And it runs 

counter to the extensive support that continues to build within the 

Australian community for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament. 

The Uluru dialogues specifically criticised existing structures that fail 

Indigenous people. A “voice to government” simply maintains the 

bureaucratic status quo. It does not structurally reform the process or the 

nation. It does not afford us our legitimate right to be heard and control 

the decisions that affect us. 

The “voice to government” would also lack transparency and 

accountability. It would be confined narrowly to the government and its 

bureaucracy. 

Having a “Voice to Parliament” as called for by the Uluru statement would 

ensure Indigenous people were no longer trapped within a web of 

bureaucracy and government priorities. This would enable Indigenous 

voices to be heard by all, not solely the government. 

Of note also is Calma’s position on the Uluru statement. Last year, he cosigned 

a submission to the joint select committee that effectively 

recommended ignoring the Uluru statement and its reform proposals, 

instead suggesting a suite of symbolic reforms. 

Calma was also co-chair of Reconciliation Australia, which provided funding 

to the “Recognise” campaign. The Recognise campaign was controversial 

because it emphasised symbolic reforms only. 

This was rejected by the community through the work of the Referendum 

Council and the production of the Uluru statement, which called for 

substantive structural reform.


Anecdotal evidence makes poor public policy 

The minister continues to emphasise talking to “local people” as opposed 

to “elites” and “influencers”. 

But anecdotal evidence makes poor public policy compared with 

deliberative and informed processes. Further, conversations between 

Commonwealth ministers and Indigenous citizens are inherently unreliable, 

as they are grounded in an extreme power imbalance. 

The community ought to know why this anecdotal evidence outweighs the 

authority and mandate of the Uluru statement. 

This problem is highlighted by the minister’s absence from the celebrations 

marking the closure of the Uluru climb last weekend. 

Had Wyatt been present, he could have spoken to thousands of 

Indigenous citizens. He could have witnessed the Central Land Council, 

representative of some of the most disadvantaged Indigenous 

peoples, pass a resolution in support of the Uluru statement and a 

constitutionally enabled Voice to Parliament. 

These are local voices that want control of their future. 

Walking together for a better future 

Indigenous people are tired of political failures that leave too many of us 

economically and socially deprived. Indigenous affairs has become a game 

of political football with no rules. 

This announcement attempts to water down community expectations for 

substantive structural reform. The emphasis is again on minimalist 

improvements to a system of government that has proven time and again 

to fail Indigenous people. 

These are the reasons why we came together from across the nation at 

Uluru. We aren’t naive to the challenge of reform. We refuse to accept this 

is the best we can be. 

Source: 

https://theconversation.com/ken-wyatts-proposed-voice-to-government-marksanother-failure-to-hear-indigenous-voices-126103



The government’s ‘new page’ on Indigenous policy 

is actually just more of the same 

by Alison Holland. Senior Lecturer in Australian History, Macquarie 

University for The Conversation on November 12, 2019 

When the minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, recently 

announced a co-design process for creating an Indigenous “voice to 

government”, it was characterised as a shift in rhetoric. 

Yet, on closer inspection, it was less a shift than a consolidation of the 

Liberal Party’s rhetoric on Indigenous affairs over the past two years. 

In fact, Morrison was talking about a co-design model to improve local and 

regional Indigenous decision-making and options for constitutional 

recognition in the lead-up to the federal election this year. His government 

has also emphasised collaborating with Indigenous people to improve 

Closing the Gap targets. 

Given the 15-year absence of such collaboration since the disbanding of 

the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), Morrison’s 

talk of “empowering partnerships” has been welcomed in some quarters. 

He has also used the language of accountability. 

However, there are two issues here: Morrison has initiated significant 

changes in Indigenous affairs without consultation with Indigenous groups, 

and, as this suggests, there is a serious gap between rhetoric and practice. 

A new approach to Indigenous policy-making 

When Wyatt ruled out an enshrined Indigenous advisory body in the 

constitution, disappointed Indigenous leaders accused the government of 

“wheeling back” the consultative process after a decade-long public 

process. 

Indigenous Labor Senator Pat Dodson suggested that, for things to 

change, Morrison needed an epiphany.


According to the Liberal Party, he has had one. In fact, the Morrison 

government claims to have turned a new page when it comes to 

Indigenous affairs. 

Morrison unveiled this new approach in his 2019 Closing the Gap report. 

Rejecting a top-down model as unworkable, he said the government would 

rely on partnerships to drive sustainable, systemic change. 

To this end, he has been building an infrastructure of his own. Last 

December, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) announced 

a new partnership with a group of 40 Indigenous representative bodies 

called the Coalition of Peaks to refresh the Closing the Gap process. 

This was hailed as a historic development, despite the fact there’s been 

a long history of inter-governmental partnerships with Aboriginal and 

Torres Strait Islander peoples. 

In addition, within a month of the Coalition’s election victory this year, 

Morrison established the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) 

within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. 

Since then, $5.2 billion in funding allocated for the controversial 

Indigenous Advancement Strategy has been transferred to the new agency. 

The former vice-chief of the defence forces, Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, a 

non-Indigenous Australian, also came out of retirement to head it. With a 

team of 1,200, he is now responsible for coordinating Indigenous policy 

development, advising Morrison and Wyatt on the priorities of Indigenous 

people and promoting reconciliation. 

Around the same time, the former Indigenous peak body, the National 

Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, was left to crumble due to lack of 

government funding. 

Top-down and selective 

Is this systemic change? Though the government emphasises partnerships, 

accountability and evidence-based policies, Morrison is actually taking a 

selective and top-down approach. He is also ignoring key Indigenous 

advice and evidence.


For instance, Morrison has sidelined the work and achievements of the 

Referendum Council by mischaracterising its call for a Voice to Parliament 

as a “third chamber”. 

His party has also used the rhetoric of failure in describing the the Uluru 

Statement – the council’s extensive, deliberative response to the question 

of constitutional recognition. 

In addition, instead of empowering Indigenous communities, he and Wyatt 

are dividing them. Wyatt has said, for instance, he is interested in hearing 

from all Indigenous people on the co-design process toward an Indigenous 

voice, not just the leaders, or “influencers”. 

At the same time, he has handpicked a senior advisory group of 

Indigenous and non-Indigenous members to lead the co-design effort – an 

apparent contradiction of this “bottom-up” approach. 

Many Indigenous communities have also already developed models for 

engaging with state governments. Some worry these efforts could now be 

overtaken by Wyatt’s co-design process. It was hardly surprising that one 

Indigenous leader in NSW said: 

Given the yards we’ve made and the buy-in we’ve got in the communities, it 

would be awesome if the Commonwealth just said, ‘You know what? It’s 

already there, we’re just going to come in and build on that’. 

Evidence points to failures of government policies 

The Morrison government also says it is committed to acknowledging the 

historical experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and taking 

an evidence-based approach to Indigenous policy-making. 

But there is ample historical evidence showing that governmental policies 

have been a leading cause of Indigenous disadvantage, poor health and 

disempowerment. 

If Morrison is serious about addressing the extremely high rates of 

Indigenous suicide, he would know that disempowerment, lack of selfesteem 

and identity, loss of community control and even loss of their own 

leaders are key drivers of this crisis.


If he took the high rates of Indigenous domestic violence seriously, his 

government would not have defunded shelters for victims in the Northern 

Territory. 

He would also know what the Lowitja Institute advised to the Closing the 

Gap steering committee this year – that the principle of self-determination 

must apply in all Indigenous policy. 

In contrast to the noisy reverberations of the Uluru Statement, Morrison 

has been making quiet changes in the Indigenous policy landscape. And 

Wyatt is travelling a well-mapped road with a predetermined destination. 

The volumes of data on Closing the Gap targets obscure the important fact 

that a government-led approach does not constitute a new page in 

Indigenous affairs. 

Indigenous people know what drives success in Indigenous policy-making 

– not a co-design process with governments, but the ability to design and 

implement their own solutions. Indigenous people must lead and 

governments must support. 

Source: 

https://theconversation.com/the-governments-new-page-on-indigenous-policy-isactually-just-more-of-the-same-126179



Indigenous affairs funding diverted to lobby groups 

opposed to native title ahead of the 2019 Federal Election 

Mining giant given millions in grant by Coalition 

from fund for Indigenous disadvantage 

By Lorena Allam for The Guardian on 9 March 2020 

Nigel Scullion awarded millions of dollars from a fund for alleviating Indigenous 

disadvantage to companies and welfare groups in the six weeks before the 2019 

election. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP 

Mining giant Fortescue Metals, retail giant Wesfarmers, two NRL clubs, and 

Catholic and Anglican welfare organisations were awarded millions of 

dollars from a fund for alleviating Indigenous disadvantage. 

The former Indigenous affairs minister Nigel Scullion approved more than 

$560 million worth of funding in his final six weeks in the role ahead of the 

announcement of the federal election in 2019. 

Fortescue Metals, which is owned by the mining magnate Andrew “Twiggy” 

Forrest, received a grant of $3.828 million for “strategic activities that focus 

on getting Indigenous Australians into work, fostering Indigenous business 

and assisting Indigenous people to generate economic and social benefits 

from effective use of their land, particularly in remote areas”.


The funds from the federal government’s controversial Indigenous 

advancement strategy were approved on 5 April 2019, just six days before 

the Morrison government went into caretaker mode. 

In the six weeks from 1 March to 11 April, Scullion approved 240 grants 

worth around $567 million, including the one-off grant to Fortescue. 

Scullion also approved more than $15 million to retailer Wesfarmers over 

four years to support Indigenous employment in its businesses, 

including Coles, Target, Kmart and Bunnings. 

The Brisbane Broncos were awarded $10 million for a mentoring program 

and the establishment of a girls’ academy, while the North Queensland 

Cowboys received $2.7 million for a boys’ academy. 

At a Senate inquiry on Friday, current Indigenous affairs department 

representatives said that in 12 cases Scullion funded projects the 

department had advised against. 

One of these, they said, had not been applied for through formal channels. 

A $300,000 funding application to the Alice Springs-based Red Tails AFL 

club, to help young Indigenous men in the region, was developed by the 

National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) because “the minister 

indicated that was who he wanted to support for that activity”. 

The NIAA secretary, Ray Griggs, told the senators it was possible for the 

minister to initiate grants. He could not say exactly how many grants were 

made by agencies, and how many were approaches to them by the 

minister, but Griggs suspected it was “an admixture”. 

“We were not involved with the process in the minister’s office,” Griggs 

said. 

Scullion also declined to support 28 projects that the NIAA recommended 

should be funded, including the now defunct National Congress of 

Australia’s First Peoples, several school nutrition programs for Indigenous 

children in remote communities, and cadetships in the NSW Legal Aid 

Commission named for the late Indigenous judge Bob Bellear. 

The Fortescue Metals CEO, Elizabeth Gaines, said the company had 

received various funding grants from prime minister and cabinet since 

2006 to support employment.


“We applied for and received funding under the Indigenous Advancement 

Strategy, as part of the Employment Parity Initiative, to support the 

ongoing employment, training and long-term career advancement of our 

Aboriginal team members with a focus on participants gaining high-value 

skills, building workplace and community leadership, as well as employee 

retention.” 

The aim of the Employment Parity Initiative is to get 20,000 more 

Indigenous job seekers into jobs by 2020, Gaines said. 

In 2018, Scullion came under fire for allocating Indigenous advancement 

funds to the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, the NT amateur 

fishing lobby group and the Northern Territory Seafood Council – an 

industry group he used to chair – so they could oppose Aboriginal land 

claims. 

As minister he approved grants of $150,000 to the NTSC, $170,000 to the 

NT Amateur Fishermen’s Association, and $165,000 to the NT Cattlemen’s 

Association for “legal fees, effectively … to put forward a case of detriment 

to the land commissioner”. 

Under the NT Land Rights Act, those who consider a land claim would have 

a negative impact on their business or personal interests can argue a 

“detriment” case about how their future access to income, land or water 

would suffer if the claim were approved. 

The $4.9 billion Indigenous advancement strategy was supposed to 

“improve the way the government does business with Aboriginal and 

Torres Strait Islander people, to ensure funding actually achieves 

outcomes”, according to the government’s website. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/mar/09/mining-giant-givenmillions-in-grant-by-coalition-from-fund-for-indigenous-disadvantage


About the Author 

Lorena Allam 

Lorena Allam is descended from the Gamilaraay and Yawalaraay nations of 

north west NSW and is the Guardian's Indigenous affairs editor. Email: 

lorena.allam@theguardian.com



'It's just denial': Bruce Pascoe, Labor condemn Scott Morrison 

'no slavery in Australia' claim 

By Max Koslowski, Journalist for The Sydney Morning Herald 

on June 11, 2020 

Author and historian Bruce Pascoe says Prime Minister Scott Morrison's 

claim there was no slavery in Australia is wrong, while Labor's Indigenous 

Australians spokeswoman has called for more truth-telling in the country's 

history. 

Asked on radio on Thursday morning whether he supported the removal of 

Captain James Cook statues, Mr Morrison said "[Cook] was one of the most 

enlightened persons on these issues, you could imagine" 

"Australia when it was founded as a settlement, as New South Wales, was 

on the basis that there'd be no slavery," the Prime Minister told Ben 

Fordham on 2GB. "And while slave ships continued to travel around the 

world, when Australia was established yes, sure, it was a pretty brutal 

settlement. 

"My forefathers and foremothers were on the First and Second Fleets. It 

was a pretty brutal place, but there was no slavery in Australia," he said 

Pascoe, the 72-year-old author of award-winning book Dark Emu, and 

adjunct professor at UTS' Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education & 

Research, said slavery was present in Australia post-colonisation. 

"When you capture people, and put chains around their necks, and make 

them walk 300 kilometres and then set them to work on cattle stations, 

what's that called?" Pascoe said. "That's what happened in Western 

Australia and in the [Northern] Territory and in Queensland."


A photo titled: "Group of prisoners in neck chains, Wyndham, Western Australia", 

dated between 1898 and 1906. CREDIT:STATE LIBRARY OF VICTORIA 

"It doesn't matter what you call it," he added. "It's brutality and I think a lot 

of Australia are in denial about the real history of the country." 

Shadow minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney said Mr Morrison 

needed a better understanding of Australian history. 

"The Prime Minister's comments demonstrate a need for a greater 

understanding and awareness of our nation's history," Ms Burney said. "We 

cannot achieve meaningful progress on matters such as Reconciliation if, as 

a nation, we are not aware of the historical context of the challenges we 

face in the present. One of the crucial elements of the Uluru Statement was 

a national process of truth-telling." 

From early colonisation up to the 20th century, Indigenous Australians 

often worked on farms for rations instead of wages. They were traded 

amongst settlers, with some children being taken from their families and 

moved across the country to work. 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders also sometimes illegally worked for 

no income up until 1972. Roughly 10,000 Indigenous Australian workers 

received $190 million from the Queensland government in a settled classaction 

lawsuit on the matter, known as the Stolen Wages.


At least 60,000 South Sea islanders were taken, often against their will, to 

Australia from 1857 to 1908, where they worked in largely in cotton, sugar 

and pastoral industries in a process named blackbirding. 

"It's just denial," Pascoe said. "And it's about time we grew up and called a 

spade a spade. 

"It's an insult to all those old people with chains around their necks." 

Pascoe added that while Captain Cook was "enlightened" for his time, "that 

wasn't good enough to stop slavery" in colonies. 

"What happened under their administration was slavery and murder," he 

said. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/it-s-just-denial-bruce-pascoe-laborcondemn-pm-s-no-slavery-in-australia-claim-20200611-p551jo.html



Closing the Gap: how a captive media failed to question 

Scott Morrison on defunding 

by Callum Foote | Government | Michael West Media 

on August 5, 2020 

Photo Credit: SBS 

Only one member of the Australian media questioned Prime Minister Scott 

Morrison’s narrative about the “innocent” failure of Kevin Rudd’s Closing 

the Gap scheme. This failure of accountability from all major Australian 

media outlets skirts over the $1 billion in funding cut from Indigenous 

services. Callum Foote lays down the real numbers in this investigation of 

yet another instance of media succumbing to Government public relations 

narratives. 

“We reflected on the fact that Closing the Gap and the initiative taken by 

Kevin Rudd was an entirely worthy initiative … but, innocently, there 

were elements of how that was done that were misguided.” 

This from a thoughtful Scott Morrison at his press conference last week as 

he announced 16 new targets for his Closing the Gap initiative. 

And this was how most of the mainstream media reported the 

announcement – that this new scheme would rectify the failure of the 

original scheme, set up by then prime minister Rudd in 2008, which had 

only fulfilled two of its eight targets.


There was no mention of the fact, as Rudd himself tweeted, that half a 

billion dollars to deliver the first set of targets had been cut by the 

Coalition immediately after gaining office in 2013. 

Kevin Rudd Twitter @MrKRudd July 30, 2020 

But here’s the problem: Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison withdrew half-abillion 

dollars in funding from delivery of the first set of targets. It’s 

therefore important to ask: what is their funding commitment for the new 

set of targets? 

“Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison withdrew half a billion dollars in funding 

from delivery of the first set of targets. It’s therefore important to ask: what 

is their funding commitment for the new set of targets?” 

Citing the 2014 Budget, Rudd pointed out that the Abbott government cut 

$534 million from Indigenous programs administered by the Prime 

Minister and Cabinet and Health portfolios over five years. 

Failure of accountability 

Yet the headlines last week were as follows: from The Guardian: “ ‘A real 

turning point’: new Closing the Gap agreement to move beyond 

targets”; The Australian: ‘Historic Indigenous partnership ‘unprecedented’. 

Similarly 9 News and its stablemate of newspapers the Sydney Morning 

Herald and The Age: “New collaborative approach to Closing the Gap


targets”, SBS: “New Indigenous life expectancy and incarceration targets set 

in ‘historic’ Closing the Gap revamp” and The New Daily: “‘Shared decision 

making with First Nations people’ at heart of Closing the Gap agreement”. 

Only the Australian Financial Review’s Tom McIlroy: “Closing the Gap 

reform fails justice test: campaigners” and the ABC’s Isabella Higgins lent a 

critical eye to the announcement by suggesting that the targets had not 

gone far enough. 

The ABC quoted Nerita Waight, the co-chair of the National Aboriginal and 

Torres Strait Islander Legal Service, who said the new initiative felt like a 

“missed opportunity” in relation to Indigenous incarceration rates, 

“especially when we have ever-increasing rates of Indigenous 

imprisonment”. 

She applauded “the ambitious goal to reduce the number of Indigenous 

children in out-of-home care by 45%”, which many in the Indigenous 

community have fought to include for decades, she said. 

More than 20 years ago, in 1997, the ground-breaking “Bringing Them 

Home” report into the Stolen Generations noted that Aboriginal and 

Torres Strait Islander children represented 20% of children living in out-ofhome 

care (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1997). That 

rate has since increased to more than 35%. 

Meanwhile, NSW recently published a report the delved into out of home 

care in that state, Family is Culture. In one of the most egregious cases 

documented, a first-time Aboriginal mother was deemed to be a “danger” 

for not giving details about her child’s lunch-time routine, despite the child 

only being one day old at the time. 

The report also noted that widespread noncompliance with policies and 

legislation by caseworkers and managers of the Department of 

Communities and Justice resulted in many newborn Aboriginal children 

being removed from their families. In NSW Aboriginal and Torres Strait 

Islander children are now 11 times more likely to be removed from their 

families than non-Indigenous children.


Associate Professor, Chelsea Bond 

Chelsea Bond, a Munanjahli and South Sea Islander woman and a Principal 

Research Fellow within the School of Social Science at The University of 

Queensland, writing in The Conversation, pointed out the failure of the 

mainstream press to question Morrison’s narrative following the 

announcement and the lack of scrutiny of his announcement. 

She also noted that the new targets no longer have parity with non- 

Indigenous Australia as their target within this generation. “So effectively, 

they aim to do less.” 

Targeted cuts 

The neglect of Aboriginal services is worse than Rudd claims, since 2014 

the Federal Government has either enacted or foreshadowed $1 billion in 

funding cuts for Aboriginal services. 

Out of the original seven targets set in 2008, five were not met. Two were 

health-related: a reduction in child mortality and an overall increase in life 

expectancy. 

Yet some $160 million was cut from Indigenous health programs in 

2014. That might go some way to explaining why three of the new 16 

targets still focus on improving health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres 

Strait Islander people. 

Another two of the original targets were concerned with Indigenous 

education outcomes, yet again, these were badly affected by $14 billion 

worth of Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison-era funding cuts for public 

schools. 

Indigenous students were particularly affected. In just one example, the NT 

Remote Aboriginal Investment – children and schooling initiative 

experienced a massive 48.7% reduction from $56 million to just 

$28.7 million.


The initiative funds vital remote programs such as Families as First Teachers 

that complement core schooling activities. Funding for Indigenous 

language support was also to be cut by $9.5 million over five years. 

In the 2019-20 Budget, Morrison cut a promised $10 million from the 

Indigenous Student Success Program and announced a further cut of 

$1.2 million. 

As Celeste Liddle noted, “This effectively contradicts the Federal 

Government’s stated commitment to increasing both Aboriginal and Torres 

Strait Islander staffing numbers and student participation on campus.” 

General funding cuts 

Services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have experienced 

more general cuts under Liberal governments. Turnbull, despite claiming 

that his government was in the process of “refreshing” the Closing the Gap 

strategy, cut $245 million from Indigenous housing in 2017. 

Yet safe, appropriate, affordable, good quality housing is fundamental to 

achieving better outcomes for First Nations people. Overcrowding is a 

huge issue in remote communities. Insufficient housing leads to higher 

rates of homelessness, for young people especially, poorer health 

outcomes, unsafe environment, with youth offending likely to increase. 

Morrison then backed this up by defending his decision to cut a quarter of 

a million dollars in annual funding for the national arm of the Family 

Violence Prevention Legal Services, which represents organisations working 

in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Yet Indigenous 

women are more than 30 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family 

violence as non-Indigenous women and twice as likely to be killed by a 

current or previous partner. 

As the Coalition was defending these cuts, news emerged of the $345,000 

contract between the government and TV personality Scott Cam. 

No new funding has been announced, nor has legislation been put in place 

to meet the new 16 goals. 

However, the government responsible for the serious underfunding of 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services has now been branded as 

their saviour.


Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/closing-the-gap-how-a-captive-media-failed-toquestion-scott-morrison-on-defunding/ 


Callum Foote 

Callum Foote is our Revolving Doors editor exposing the links between the 

highest level of business and government. These links provide well-resourced 

private interests with significant influence over Australia's policymaking 

process. Callum has studied the impact of corporate influence over policy 

decisions and the impact this has for popular interests. He believes that the 

more awareness this phenomenon receives the more accountable our 

representatives will be.



'We have not been heard': 

Indigenous leader slams Voice process 

by Deborah Snow, Senior Writer for The Sydney Morning Herald 

on September 30, 2020 

A senior Indigenous leader has lashed the Morrison government's codesign 

process for a Voice for Indigenous Australians, labelling it disjointed 

and conflicted and warning that it risks sowing division among Aboriginal 

and Torres Strait Islander people. 

Pat Turner, CEO of the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health 

Organisation, will tell the National Press club on Wednesday that the 

proposed Voice mechanism envisaged by Canberra "will not stand the test 

of time and is doomed to fail, unless these foundational shortcomings are 

addressed urgently". 

Pat Turner in July with Prime Minister Scott Morrison. CREDIT:ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN 

Ms Turner, who is the niece of legendary Aboriginal leader Charlie Perkins, 

has become increasingly unhappy with the convoluted process set up by 

the federal government to respond to the landmark 2017 Uluru Statement 

from the Heart. 

Her criticisms are significant because she is one of 19 members appointed 

by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, to a senior advisory 

group providing input on the Voice's "co-design". She has not previously 

gone public with her concerns.


The Uluru Statement contained a plea from Indigenous leaders for a 

constitutionally enshrined Voice to advise on laws affecting First Nations 

peoples. But ministers have made clear the Voice will not be 

constitutionally enshrined and will be a "voice to government" rather than 

to Parliament. 

Artists complete their work on the Uluru Statement of the Heart 

in 2017. CREDIT:CLIVE SCOLLAY 

Delivering the annual Australia and the World lecture at the press club, 

Ms Turner will say the Commonwealth's response to the Uluru statement 

has been "high on rhetoric" but "what is now unfolding is a 

convoluted and flawed process". 

"We were not and have not been heard," she will say. Seeking advice on a 

model does not amount to "shared decision-making", Ms Turner argues. "It 

involves government selecting its own advisers, Indigenous and non- 

Indigenous, three separate committees, including a senior advisory group 

with potentially overlapping roles and terms of reference that impose limits 

on wider discussion by participants." 

She says the fact that she and other committee members are "there as 

individuals – not representing or accountable to our own constituencies, 

organisations, membership or cultural groups … immediately compromises 

the strength of our voices". 

"We must choose who speaks for us, how and on what issues," she adds, 

saying no compelling case has been made for the shift from a Voice to 

Parliament to a "Voice to government".


"It was a decision by the [federal] government and we were not asked or 

involved. Whether intended or not the outcome … is likely to be disjointed, 

conflicted and thus counterproductive. 

"Most concerning of all is the risk of considerable division arising between 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in respect to the government's 

Voice – and this is unacceptable." 

Ms Turner also convenes the coalition of peak Indigenous communitycontrolled 

organisations (or Coalition of Peaks), which earlier this year 

struck an agreement with state and federal governments to re-draw the 

Closing the Gap targets. 

She stood alongside Prime Minister Scott Morrison at a press conference in 

July to launch the new agreement, which is supposed to hand Indigenousrun 

organisations a much greater say in programs to reduce disadvantage 

in their communities. 

The Voice co-design process is in conflict with the spirit of that agreement, 

she says. 

Ms Turner will argue that Australia lags compared with other liberal 

democratic nations such as Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and 

Finland, where "institutions and structures that allow Indigenous peoples to 

be heard are much better developed". 

James Christian, the CEO of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, 

slammed the government's co-design process as "fake" and poorly 

designed. 

"It is really disheartening that the Australian government continues to 

follow a path trodden over many years, which is to establish some very 

divisive processes, where they hand-pick their own advisers and then 

choose amongst that advice what they take and what they leave," he told 

the Herald. 

However a spokesman for Mr Wyatt said that community consultation on 

the Voice would begin later this year, and that "everyone who wants to 

have a say on the Indigenous voice will be able to do so. This will take 

place with Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in urban, regional 

and remote locations across Australia".


"Ultimately, if anybody is going to advise government or the parliament, it 

must be established and accepted by government – any suggestion that 

this detracts from views or contributions of Indigenous Australians is 

wrong" the spokesman added. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-have-not-been-heard-indigenousleader-slams-voice-process-20200929-p560de.html



During NAIDOC Week, the Liberal/National government 

votes against displaying Indigenous flags in the Senate 

By Evan Young for SBS on 11 November 2020 

A man is seen under the Aboriginal flag at Parliament House in Canberra 

on 26 January. Source: AAP 

A motion to display the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags in the 

Senate chamber has been voted down by the federal government. 

As Australia celebrates NAIDOC Week, the federal government has voted 

against an Indigenous-led motion to hang the Aboriginal and Torres Strait 

Islander flags in the Senate chamber. 

Labor’s Pat Dodson and Malarndirri McCarthy along with the Greens’ Lidia 

Thorpe moved a motion on Tuesday to display the flags in the Senate 

chamber alongside the Australian flag. 

The motion failed, 29 to 28. 

Families and Social Services Minister Anne Ruston said the government 

thought the “only appropriate flag” to hang in the Senate was the 

Australian flag. 

“There are many places and circumstances to appropriately display the 

flags of our nation, including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 

flags,” she told the chamber.


“The government believes that the Australian national flag, which 

represents all Australians, is the only appropriate flag to be flown in the 

Senate chamber.” 

Families and Social Services Minister Anne Ruston defending the government's 

decision on Tuesday. Source: APH/screenshot 

NAIDOC Week, which began on Sunday, celebrates the culture and 

achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This year's 

theme is 'always was, always will be'. 

Senator McCarthy, a Yanyuwa woman, urged the government to support 

the flag motion. 

“The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags are also national flags,” she 

said. 

“I appeal to the Senate, when we fly the flags out the front as we do this 

week, we have it on display for the whole of the country, in NAIDOC week, 

[for] an opportunity to show that we can unite our country.” 

Labor Senator Malarndirri McCarthy waits for a press conference 

for the start of NAIDOC Week in Canberra. Source: AAP


Senator Thorpe, a Gunnai and Gunditjmara woman, slammed the 

government in a passionate speech. 

“May I remind you all that we are on stolen land? The Aboriginal flag 

represents the oldest continuing, living culture in the world,” she said. 

“My people have been here … for thousands and thousands and thousands 

of generations. The Aboriginal flag is what we identify with, what we 

connect with.” 

Nationals Senator Matt Canavan defended the government’s move in an 

interview with the ABC, suggesting the motion was impractical and would 

not improve anything. 

“There are a lot of people that stand up at the start of the speeches and 

say they want to recognise the land and traditional owners,” he said. 

“Canberra has 99-year leases. It was given back to Indigenous people. It is 

all words and symbols ... let’s do practical things that can improve people’s 

lives.” 

Source: 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/during-naidoc-week-the-government-votes-againstdisplaying-indigenous-flags-in-the-senate 

------------------------------- END --------------------------


Neglect: Aged Care Neglect: 683 

Deaths 

during Covid19 Pandemic 

The government has faced heavy criticism since the counsel 

assisting the aged care royal commission Peter Rozen QC told 

that inquiry there was no specific Covid-19 PLAN, and accused 

the federal government of displaying “a degree of selfcongratulation 

and even hubris” in the crucial months between 

the Newmarch House outbreak in April and the developing 

situation in Victoria in mid-June.


Aged Care Neglect – 683 Deaths during Covid19 Pandemic 

Budget Review 2016 – 2017 index 

Scott Morrison was Treasurer from September 2015 to August 2018 

Aged Care - reduction of $902.7 million over five years 

Also, changes to Aged Care provider funding savings of 

$1.2 billion over four years 

This is in addition $472.4 million savings over four years through 

changes to the *The Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI) scoring 

matrix that was announced in Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal 

Outlook 2015-2016 

Source: @Biggy1883 

* ACFI is used to assess the degree of care each aged care resident needs 

and to allocate funding accordingly. ACFI pays subsidies to the 

residential aged care facility that is providing the care


2016 – 2017 Budget – Scott Morrison’s Budget 

The government changed the scoring of the Aged Care Funding 

Instrument, which allocates the government subsidy per person 

in aged care, by assessing their care needs. There was some 

additional funding for regional aged care facilities, but the net effect 

of the budget is "a reduction of $902.7 million over five years". 

Source: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Morrison


Aged Care Neglect – 683 Deaths during Covid19 Pandemic



The aged care crisis can be traced back to 

Howard's Aged Care Act. We need a new act 

By Dr Sarah Russell for The Guardian on 20 April 2018 

Dr Sarah Russell is a public health researcher and aged care advocate 

If the government really values the safety of older people, it would 

rewrite the Aged Care Act from scratch 

‘Aged care homes require proactive initiatives to prevent inadequate personal care, 

neglect, abuse and negligence of residents’ 

Photograph: Burger/Phanie/REX/Shutterstock 

The hyperbole used by politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists to defend 

heartbreaking stories about inadequate personal care, neglect, abuse and 

negligence in aged care homes is staggering. 

Consider this from the aged care minister in his media release announcing 

a national Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. Ken Wyatt said the 

government recognised “the vast majority of providers give consistent, 

quality care to their residents.” 

After the Oakden scandal, Sean Rooney, the chief executive of Leading 

Aged Services Australia, stated “the overwhelming majority of Australians 

in aged care and their families receive high quality care, support and 

services that meet the most stringent national standards”.


And then again from Kate Carnell and Ron Paterson in their Review of 

National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes: “Poor care in some 

facilities also risks undermining the efforts of the majority of residential 

aged care providers that are committed to providing good-quality 

services”. 

Politicians, bureaucrats and providers frequently reassure us that the 

majority of aged care homes are “world-class”. However, there is no 

empirical evidence to support this claim. Their reassurances are simply 

marketing spin on steroids. 

To be able to evaluate the proportion of aged care homes that provide 

high standards of care, researchers like myself need access to data. We 

need data on quality indicators such as pressure sores, medication errors, 

weight loss, falls, infection rates admissions to hospitals, staffing levels and 

training. However, these data are not publicly available. 

Who decided that data on residents’ safety and wellbeing in aged care 

homes must be kept top secret? 

To answer this question, we need to go back more than 20 years when the 

Aged Care Act 1997 was drafted. John Howard’s Coalition government 

proved a turning point for aged care policy in Australia. 

Under the Coalition’s Aged Care Act 1997, there was an increase in private 

investment. Private equity firms, new foreign investors, and superannuation 

and property real estate investment trusts entered the residential aged care 

market. 

The dean and head of the University of South Australia’s law school Wendy 

Lacey has slammed the Aged Care Act, arguing that there is “a complete 

absence of any positive and mandatory legal obligation on the part of 

facilities to take proactive measures to promote mental health and 

wellbeing of their residents”. 

Rather than tackle the disgracefully inadequate staffing requirements 

contained in the 1997 Aged Care Act, the government’s latest bureaucratic 

idea is to merge a number of agencies.


The new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission has been dubbed a 

“one-stop shop” to prevent failures and monitor and enforce quality 

standards. This initiative is like shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic. 

Aged care homes require proactive initiatives to prevent inadequate 

personal care, neglect, abuse and negligence of residents. The only way to 

prevent failures is to ensure a sufficient number of trained staff are 

employed in aged care homes. Aged care homes also require kind and 

competent managers who create happy workplace cultures and welcome 

feedback from relatives. 

While it’s not the only remedy, empirical evidence shows the value of 

mandating ratios in aged care homes. Staffing studies undertaken in the 

United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, Norway and Sweden 

show that the ratio of registered nurses-to-residents has a positive impact 

on the standards of care in an aged care home. Wyatt ignores this 

empirical evidence. 

When asked whether he would mandate staff ratios in aged care facilities, 

as is required in childcare centres, Wyatt said there wouldn’t be sufficient 

staff for small country towns or remote Aboriginal communities. This is 

disingenuous. The aged care minister is surely aware of workforce 

strategies in other sectors (including education and health) to recruit and 

retain qualified staff in remote areas. Similar strategies need to be 

developed for the aged care sector. 

Wyatt added that mandated ratios in childcare have increased costs for 

families. This may be true. However, the government values the safety of 

children in childcare enough to mandate ratios. The government also 

values the safety of patients in hospitals to mandate ratios. Clearly the 

government does not value the safety of older people in aged care homes 

enough to mandate ratios. 

The standards of care in aged care homes are a human rights issue. The 

only way to ensure higher standards of care is for the government to go 

back to the drawing board and rewrite the Aged Care Act from scratch. 

This time, the government needs to work not only with providers, but 

also staff, residents and their families. We need legislation that 

ensures the highest possible standards of care in all aged care homes.


Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/20/the-new-aged-carewatchdog-is-like-shifting-the-deckchairs-on-the-titanic#img-1 


Dr Sarah Russell 

Dr Sarah Russell is a public health 

researcher who specialises in 

qualitative research. She has been 

the Principal Researcher at Research 

Matters since 1999. She is also the 

Director, Aged Care Matters. She 

believes the aged care system 

requires greater scrutiny, 

accountability and transparency.


Day before ABC 4 Corners 

Investigation into Aged Care 

goes to air 

Scott Morrison announced 

Royal Commission into AGED CARE 

Aged Care Minister Ken Wyatt 

has defended his about-face on 

the need for a royal commission



Scott Morrison announces royal commission into aged care; 

advocates expect 'appalling' cases of mistreatment to surface 

By political reporter Alexandra Beech for ABC News 

on Sunday 16 September 2018 

Key points: 

• Scott Morrison says he expects the royal commission to uncover 

some "pretty bruising information" 

• The Government has been reviewing the sector in the wake of the 

Oakden nursing home scandal 

• Labor has welcomed the move 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced a royal commission into 

Australia's aged care system. 

The inquiry will focus on residential and in-home aged care for seniors but 

will also cover care for young people with disabilities who live in aged care 

homes. 

Mr Morrison said he had been particularly shocked by a "disturbing" trend 

of non-compliance and failures in the aged care sector, highlighted in 

briefings he had received over the three weeks since he became Prime 

Minister. 

He said authorities had closed one aged care centre a month since 

the Oakden nursing home scandal, and an increasing numbe were under 

sanction. 

"I think we should brace ourselves for some pretty bruising information 

about the way our loved ones, some of them, have experienced some real 

mistreatment," Mr Morrison said. 

"And I think that's going to be tough for us all to deal with. But you can't 

walk past it." 

Next week will mark one year since South Australia's Oakden nursing home 

was closed.


Following that scandal, the Federal Government has been reviewing quality 

of care and regulatory processes in the sector. 

Aged Care Minister Ken Wyatt has defended his about-face on the 

need for a royal commission. 

In filming for Monday night's Four Corners program, he said it would be an 

unnecessary move because the Government was already reviewing the 

sector. 

"A royal commission, after two years and maybe $200 million being spent 

on it, will come back with the same set or a very similar set of 

recommendations," he said. 

At the time, around a month ago, he said he would prefer to see that 

money go towards frontline aged care services. 

But on Sunday, standing next to Mr Morrison at the announcement of a 

royal commission, he said he fully backed the inquiry. 

"You ask the simple question: How widespread is this? How far and wide 

does it go? Does it touch on the whole sector?" Mr Morrison said. 

"Now, until we can have clear answers to those questions, I think 

Australians will be unsure." 

The inquiry will also look into what can be done to prepare for the 

increasing demands of an aging population. 

But the terms of reference, timeframe and cost have not yet been 

determined. Mr Morrison said they would be worked out over the next few 

weeks, in consultation with the sector. 

More 'appalling' cases expected to surface 

The Council on the Ageing (COTA), an advocacy group for older people, 

said the inquiry would bring more horrific cases to light. 

"The revelations of the Oakden nursing home in South Australia, they were 

appalling, and there will be more of that, there will be more of that come 

forward," COTA chief executive Ian Yates said.


"It is not the majority of the industry but, yes, you need them to come 

forward." 

Mr Yates said the big question would be who would pay for the 

improvements needed in the sector. 

"I think the commission will find the industry needs to become more 

mature, that there needs to be more control in the hands of the consumers 

and their families, that we need more funding, and that we have different 

expectations than previous generations did about what aged care is," he 

said. 

"We want a much more diverse and high-quality aged care system and the 

question it will have to ponder is, who's going to pay for that and in what 

proportions?" 

He said he was also worried the Royal Commission could stall 

improvements that are already being made to the sector. 

But Mr Morrison said the Federal Government could "walk and chew gum" 

at the same time on this issue. 

Labor welcomes move 

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten welcomed the move and said he had raised 

the issue first. 

"I welcome an overdue look at the aged care sector in Australia," Mr 

Shorten said. 

"I said it was in national crisis some months ago … The government rushed 

out and accused me rather wrongly of causing fear-mongering. 

"I wonder if the Minister for Aged Care will accuse his new boss of fearmongering 

as he accused me." 

Mr Shorten said he was worried about the impact of low wages for aged 

care staff, the number of qualified people in the aged care homes, and 

Federal Government funding cuts. 

There's no-one fighting for these buggers


Advocate Charli Darragh, whose mother Marie was killed by a lethal dose 

of insulin at a Ballina nursing home in 2014, has been fighting for CCTV 

and better staff-to-patient ratios for more than four years. 

She said she didn't realise the extent of elder abuse until she was contacted 

by scores of people with tragic stories. 

"It wasn't until Mum's murder that I discovered there's no-one out there 

fighting for these buggers — no-one," she said. 

In 2016, ex-nurse Megan Haines was found guilty of killing Marie Darragh, 

82, and Isabella Spencer, 77, at St Andrews Village nursing home. 

Ms Darragh said while there were many "beautiful" nurses, carers and staff 

in nursing homes, there were also "evil angels" working in the sector. 

"They don't care," she said. 

"I don't even know why they're in this industry." 

Pat Sparrow — the head of Aged and Community Services Australia, which 

represents not-for-profit providers — said the inquiry must look at how 

much funding was needed to make the system sustainable into the future. 

"Funding's always an important thing to look at," she said. 

"What the royal commission allows is an opportunity for us to have a 

broader national community conversation about what it is the growing 

number of older Australians expect, and the community in general expects, 

of aged care." 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-16/scott-morrison-announces-royalcommission-into-aged-care-sector/10252850


ABC 4 Corners Investigation into 

Aged Care 

Who Cares? 

Part One aired on 17 September 2018 

Part Two aired on 24 September 2018



PART ONE 

Who Cares? 

ABC 4 Corners on Age Care – Part One 

on 17 September 2018 

A special two-part investigation of the failings in aged care. 

"They're all someone's mum, someone's dad, someone's brother, someone's 

sister. They were all young once and they're just forgotten." Senior aged care 

consultant, NSW 

On Monday Four Corners launches the first of a two-part special 

investigation into the treatment of the elderly in aged care homes. 

"I was a personal carer in an aged care facility and I'm speaking out because 

people need to know what it's really like in a nursing home." Aged care 

worker, NSW 

In the ABC's biggest crowd sourced investigation, we asked our audience 

to share with us their experiences of the aged care industry. More than 

4,000 responded. 

"I'm speaking up today for people that don't have a voice." Senior aged care 

consultant, Victoria 

Many of those who have come forward are professionals who have 

extensive experience in the industry and are concerned by what they have 

seen. 

"I believe our elderly deserve to have better care." Senior aged care 

consultant, NSW 

In part one of this investigation, Four Corners examines the business of 

aged care and what that means for the vulnerable residents left in its care. 

"When they go into have a look at a facility, they do see the glamour. They 

might see a sing along or a coffee club or something like that. They see the 

glitzy pictures and they don't know about the ground level care." Diversional 

therapist, Victoria


Families have also decided to speak out, with disturbing accounts of 

overworked staff and neglected residents. 

"Within three weeks, she was no longer the person that she had been. Nan 

would never want to complain about things and when I was there I would 

verbally bring up things with the staff. No resolution was ever evident. And 

so I started filming it." Granddaughter 

With families and aged care workers from around the country, Four 

Corners reveals the shameful lack of care and dignity experienced by many 

elderly Australians. 

Who Cares? reported by Anne Connolly and presented by 

Sarah Ferguson, went to air on Monday 17th September at 8.30pm. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/who-cares/10258290



PART TWO 

Who Cares? 

ABC 4 Corners on Age Care – Part Two 


Part Two of the Four Corners special investigation into the failings in aged 

care. 

Four Corners details shocking cases of abuse and premature deaths in our 

nursing homes. 

"If this was happening to our children, we would be in there and we would be 

fixing it and solving it." Son, NSW 

"You could see the hand bruising from her being picked up." Son, WA 

"Mum had bruises on her wrists and black eyes, and whenever I said 

something to the staff, they said she had had a fall." Son, NSW 

In part two of this Four Corners investigation, the program will reveal the 

abject failure of government regulation to protect the elderly. 

"Her comment was, 'Will an apology do?' And I said, 'No, an apology will not 

do. You have to do your job, and you have to find out what happened, and 

make sure that this doesn't happen again.'" Daughter, NSW 

Carers and families from across the country have come forward to tell their 

stories and demand change. 

"I believe there are a lot of incidents like this that we don't know about. 

Families do not have a way of finding out the truth. He was a loving man, he 

cared for his family, he worked hard all his life. And he didn't deserve this 

ending." Daughter, NSW 

Facing concerted efforts to cover up abuse and mistreatment, families are 

taking matters into their own hands to hold nursing homes to account. 

"I wanted to know what really happened...The fact is that the right things 

hadn't been done, were not done for him, at his hour of need. And, these 

were merely just total lies." Daughter, NSW


Some families have resorted to installing hidden cameras to capture 

evidence. 

"To make life easy, why don't we just put a camera in? You know, a little 

camera, clock camera? And we'll just see what's happening." Son, WA 

They say that for too long the industry has been able to avoid rigorous 

public scrutiny. 

"You can sit on the internet and book yourself a hotel, or a car, or a flight, 

and you can compare very easily, but in aged care it's not so easy." Former 

assessor 

As this program will clearly show, there is much more to be done if our 

vulnerable elderly Australians are to be given the care and protection they 

deserve. 

"To simply say that staff members have been educated and this won't 

happen again, doesn't give the family of the deceased any comfort at all, 

because it shouldn't have happened in the first place." Former assessor 

Who Cares? reported by Anne Connolly and presented by Sarah 

Ferguson, went to air on Monday 24th September at 8.30pm. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/who-cares-part-two/10300264



Home Care: 

Operators snipping 50pc fees from the elderly in home care 

by Dr Sarah Russell | Business, Government | Michael West Media 

on March 6, 2019 

“Some providers are taking up to 53 per cent of the package in fees. 

Other providers only take about 10 per cent,” writes public health 

researcher and Director of Aged Care Matters, Dr Sarah Russell. 

While the media has been reporting stories of appalling treatment 

in aged care homes, Russell is publishing her research on another 

aspect of aged care this week — home care packages. 

THE STORIES about in-home care are equally appalling, albeit for different 

reasons. What is heartbreaking – and currently flying under the radar – is 

the commodification of the treatment of older people, the rorting in the 

system, insurance companies with no experience of caring for older people 

winning contracts to provide in-home care, strangers being sent to the 

homes of older people, and support workers with minimal or sometimes 

no training. 

The only aspect of in-home care that makes the news is the ridiculously 

long queue for home care packages. Some 127,000 older people are 

waiting to be assigned a package, with some waiting more than a year. 

I recently interviewed the lucky ones — older people who had received 

their home care package. I asked them and their family about what is 

working well, and what is not. The research is timely because the Living 

Longer Living Better (2013) and Increasing Choice in Home Care 

(2015) reforms have significantly changed the way in-home support is 

delivered.


The Commonwealth Department of Health is clear about where the aged 

care reforms are headed. It envisages a future where the aged care system 

is consumer driven, market-based and less regulated. Where the public 

might view an older person as needing support as they age and become 

more frail, the department aims to transform them into an empowered 

“aged care consumer” — to position older people as active participants in 

an economic transaction. 

The first challenge facing “aged care consumer” is how to choose one of 

the more than 860 government-approved home care providers — 

preferably one that delivers high standards of care at a reasonable price. 

Many older people simply do not know where to start. 

They soon learn that the only place to start is with My Aged Care, 

established in 2013 by the federal government as a “one-stop aged care 

shop”. Previously, GPs and local councils had been the first port of call. 

Now older people begin their “aged care journey” by phoning My Aged 

Care or, for those who are computer literate, by visiting its website. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Aged Care Crisis 

@agedcarecrisis 

96yo approved for home care, waiting more than 9 months w/out 

assistance. Daughter: I watch the news & I read the newspapers. But what 

the govt says is, ‘blah, blah, blah’ – this is my reality” 

canberratimes.com.au/national/act/c #agedcareRC #CDC 

2:44 PM Feb 27, 2019 Twitter Web Client


My Aged Care has been such an unmitigated disaster that six years after it 

was introduced, an Aged Care System Navigator is being trialled to help 

people “navigate” the aged care system. The absurdity of needing a second 

service to assist people to use the first service brings to mind an episode 

of Utopia. 

“Navigate” has become the new buzzword in aged care. The first discussion 

paper from the Royal Commission is titled: Navigating the maze: an 

overview of Australia’s current aged care system. But it was not a maze 

when local councils, the Royal District Nursing Service and other not-forprofit 

and for-profit organisations delivered services to older people in 

their home. How did the aged care system become so complex that older 

people and their family need help to navigate it? 

Social isolation among older people is emerging as one of the major issues 

facing the industrialised world. One of the priorities of the aged care 

system should therefore be to ensure older people remain engaged in their 

communities. Many councils recognise this and have developed Active and 

Healthy Ageing Strategies. One strategy involves providing subsidised 

activities for older people – such as senior citizen clubs, activity groups, 

men’s sheds and community bus trips. 

However, some federal government bean counter is concerned about 

older people ‘double dipping’ by using subsidised federal services as 

well as local council/state government services. As a result the federal 

government introduced a policy of “full cost recovery”. 

Under this policy, those receiving a higher-level home care package (i.e. a 

federal subsidy) are required to pay the full cost of activities subsidised by 

their local council. While older people using the Community Home Support 

Programme pay the subsidised rate of $10 for a bus trip, those with a 

higher-level home care package pay $100 (i.e. the full cost). This $100 is 

deducted from their home care package. Such exorbitant costs have forced 

some older people to stop going to local social activities because they may 

then have less in their package to spend on personal care, for example.


This brings me to concerns about the financial statement the “aged care 

consumer” receives each month from their provider. These statements are 

often long and difficult to understand, creating unnecessary stress for older 

people and their families. It is also difficult for the “aged care consumer” to 

know how much a provider should charge for labour, equipment and 

supplies. 

The monthly financial statements indicate some clients are being charged a 

fixed cost for case management, irrespective of how much case 

management they use. The costs for case management vary enormously, 

with some providers taking up to 53 per cent of the package in fees. Other 

providers only take about 10 per cent. The wide range may indicate 

differences in the health needs of the older person and the complexity of 

providing case management. Or it may suggest overcharging. 

My Aged Care has been such an unmitigated disaster that six years after it 

was introduced, an Aged Care System Navigator is being trialled to help 

people “navigate” the aged care system. The absurdity of needing a second 

service to assist people to use the first service brings to mind an episode 

of Utopia. 

“Navigate” has become the new buzzword in aged care. The first discussion 

paper from the Royal Commission is titled: Navigating the maze: an 

overview of Australia’s current aged care system. But it was not a maze 

when local councils, the Royal District Nursing Service and other not-forprofit 

and for-profit organisations delivered services to older people in 

their home. How did the aged care system become so complex that older 

people and their family need help to navigate it? 

Social isolation among older people is emerging as one of the major issues 

facing the industrialised world. One of the priorities of the aged care 

system should therefore be to ensure older people remain engaged in their 

communities. Many councils recognise this and have developed Active and 

Healthy Ageing Strategies. One strategy involves providing subsidised 

activities for older people – such as senior citizen clubs, activity groups, 

men’s sheds and community bus trips.


However, some federal government bean counter is concerned about older 

people ‘double dipping’ by using subsidised federal services as well as local 

council/state government services. As a result, the federal government 

introduced a policy of “full cost recovery”. 

Under this policy, those receiving a higher-level home care package (i.e. a 

federal subsidy) are required to pay the full cost of activities subsidised by 

their local council. 

While older people using the Community Home Support Programme pay 

the subsidised rate of $10 for a bus trip, those with a higher-level home 

care package pay $100 (i.e. the full cost). This $100 is deducted from their 

home care package. Such exorbitant costs have forced some older people 

to stop going to local social activities because they may then have less in 

their package to spend on personal care, for example. 

This brings me to concerns about the financial statement the “aged care 

consumer” receives each month from their provider. These statements are 

often long and difficult to understand, creating unnecessary stress for older 

people and their families. It is also difficult for the “aged care consumer” to 

know how much a provider should charge for labour, equipment and 

supplies. 

The monthly financial statements indicate some clients are being charged a 

fixed cost for case management, irrespective of how much case 

management they use. The costs for case management vary enormously, 

with some providers taking up to 53 per cent of the package in fees. Other 

providers only take about 10 per cent. The wide range may indicate 

differences in the health needs of the older person and the complexity of 

providing case management. Or it may suggest overcharging. 

The Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, Ken Wyatt, asked all 

home care providers to publish their existing pricing information on the 

My Aged Care Service Finder by November 30, 2018. Several providers 

have not yet done so.


There are also significant differences in the hourly rates providers charge 

the “aged care consumer” for support workers — from $39 to $61 an hour 

on a weekday. Some providers charge the “aged care consumer” more than 

$130 an hour for a support worker on a public holiday. Yet it’s fair to say 

the support worker would have received only a fraction of that rate. 

There are also large differences between the support provided by different 

providers for the same amount of money. For example, some providers 

deliver just 10 hours of personal/domestic support per week to those on a 

Level 4 home care package while other providers deliver 30 hours. 

How can these differences be justified? It has been suggested they are a 

result of the market-based system that has been established explicitly to 

create competition, innovation and choice for the “aged care consumer”. 

Questions must also be asked about unspent funds. How many older 

people are not spending their monthly subsidy due to the poor quality of 

the services provided? When the support workers change from day to day, 

some older people may prefer no one to provide personal assistance given 

their concerns around safety. 

Large companies with limited or no expertise in the delivery of aged 

care services have also been given licences to provide aged care. It is 

not surprising that a company that specialises in insurance, for example, 

would deliver unsatisfactory aged care service. It is, however, surprising 

how many large established aged care providers also deliver an 

unsatisfactory service. 

The most common complaint about home care providers is the high 

turnover of unqualified, inexperienced and untrained support workers. A 

high turnover of staff is a recipe for disaster. It results in strangers being 

sent to work in an older person’s home. The older person has to just trust 

that they will be treated with respect and kindness. 

Many older people have high expectations for the services that will be 

provided by a home care package. They hope these services will enable 

them to remain in their own home. Those with the best outcomes have 

family support, most often a daughter. Without this additional support, 

many acknowledged they would not be able to remain at home.


Earlier this year, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety 

began hearings. This Royal Commission is investigating both residential 

and in-home aged care. 

Factors that are important to older people who receive a home care 

package 

• Access to a competently staffed My Aged Care information line/web 

page to provide accurate and consistent information and advice; 

• A clear explanation of providers’ services including their fees; 

• Publication of providers’ fees and charges on the My Aged Care 

website; 

• Clear information about entitlements and reimbursements; 

• Information on sub-contracted services, including rates and any 

additional charges; 

• A home care agreement that is easy to understand; 

• Reasonable fees for case management and administration; 

• Reasonable charges for support workers; 

• Support workers who are paid the award rate or above; 

• Reasonable costs for equipment and home modifications; 

• Reasonable charges for gardeners and other maintenance personnel; 

• Clear financial statements that accurately reflect the services 

provided. 

• Person-centred care delivered by a local provider; 

• Support workers who are suitably trained, competent, trustworthy, 

punctual and empathetic; 

• Knowledge about the qualifications and experience of staff; 

• An option to choose support workers; 

• Consistent support workers who work at regular and set times (e.g. 

9am rather than sometime between 9am and 11am); 

• Flexibility with times and changing needs; 

• Access to service provision “on the spot” (i.e. same day) when a 

situation changes (e.g. transport to a doctor’s appointment); 

• Sufficient time allocated for support workers to undertake tasks 

required; 

• Direct communication permitted between recipient and support 

workers for easier co-ordination;


• A weekly roster of support workers supplied in advance; 

• Case managers who are experienced, qualified and easy to contact; 

• Consistent use of mutually agreed means of communication with 

case managers (e.g. emails, messages, home phone or mobile); 

• Information about how many older people case managers are 

overseeing; 

• Forward-thinking case managers who seek to improve care and offer 

suggestions if new services become available; 

• Regular mandatory visits by case managers to include health/welfare 

checks, face-to-face conversations and updates with the older 

person. 

• Better-trained office staff (e.g. how to talk respectfully to older 

people, including older people with dementia); 

• Options for different degrees of case management support/selfmanagement; 

• Involvement of family/advocates when issues arise; 

• Ongoing professional development, including dementia training, for 

all staff; 

• Access to affordable social activities inside and outside the home; 

• Provision of information from case managers on other community 

resources (e.g. local services, volunteer groups etc.) 

• Feedback from older people and their family/advocates welcomed by 

providers; and 

• An effective complaints process. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/home-care-operators-snipping-50pc-fees-fromthe-elderly-in-home-care/



Australia ready for a coronavirus pandemic and 

sustained outbreak 

By Eryk Bagshaw for The Sydney Morning Herald 

on February 27, 2020 

Australia has leapt ahead of the World Health Organisation and is set to 

declare a coronavirus pandemic, preparing health authorities for a 

sustained outbreak as the disease spreads around the world. 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the last 24 hours had fundamentally 

altered the government's response to the COVID-19 virus as the 

government prepares for months of disruption and triggers emergency 

measures at hospitals, schools and aged-care facilities. 

"While the World Health Organisation is yet to declare the nature of the 

coronavirus and its move towards a pandemic phase, we believe the risk of 

a global pandemic is very much upon us," he said. 

"We're effectively operating now on the basis that there is a pandemic." 

The COVID-19 emergency response plan has been activated in its initial 

phase since January 21. On Thursday, Mr Morrison re-launched it and 

asked authorities to identify "any gaps in capabilities" and elevate the 

government's response to "the next phase". 

The government is preparing to respond to sustained coronavirus 

transmissions in Australia under pandemic conditions, known as "scenario 

two" in the emergency plan. 

Minister for Health Greg Hunt and Prime Minister Scott Morrison. 

CREDIT:ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN


Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt will meet with state and territory 

ministers on Friday and prepare surge capacity measures at medical 

institutions across the country. 

Doctors, nurses, dentists and pharmacists will have access to protective 

equipment and alternative staffing arrangements are being drawn up in the 

event that large numbers of staff succumb to the coronavirus. Hospitals are 

preparing for coronavirus specific wards. 

State and territory health ministers are expected to seize on the 

coronavirus to demand extra Commonwealth funding for their hospitals at 

the COAG Health Council meeting in Melbourne. 

The Australian Border Force has been called in to escalate screening at 

airports, as cases of the flu-like disease spike in South Korea, Iran and Italy. 

Earlier on Thursday (AEDT), World Health Organisation Director-General 

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus condemned the push to declare a 

pandemic. 

"Using the word 'pandemic' carelessly has no tangible benefit, but it does 

have significant risk in terms of amplifying unnecessary and unjustified fear 

and stigma, and paralysing systems," he said. 

The United States reported its first case of human-to-human transmission 

on Thursday. Another infection was confirmed in Brazil, the first in South 

America. Saudi Arabia initiated a temporary ban on millions of Muslim 

pilgrims from entering the country for the holy pilgrimage to Mecca. 

Mr Hunt said in the last 24 hours four continents had seen their first incountry 

cases confirmed. "That is a very significant moment," he said. 

"We are not immune. The likelihood is there is a further round of cases that 

may make it to Australia and this becomes a truly global pandemic." 

The virus has now killed 2800 people and infected 82,164 worldwide, while 

32,897 have recovered. Australia has had 15 confirmed cases to date. 

The Australian Department of Education will also begin briefing state 

ministers to prepare schools for a pandemic response that could see 

classes reduced or cancelled.


"There is no evidence before us that children are at any greater risk but we 

do believe to take care of our kids that we needed an even greater 

abundance of caution should the coronavirus move to an extreme level," 

Mr Morrison said. 

The Prime Minister urged the public to go on with their normal lives and 

said the measures were being taken to stay ahead of global developments. 

"There is no need for us to be moving to having mass gatherings of people 

stop. Go to the football and play with your friends down the street. You can 

go out for a concert and you can go out for a Chinese meal," he said. 

After a three-hour meeting on Thursday, cabinet's national security 

committee extended the travel ban on all non-Australian residents from 

China for another week, locking out more than 200,000 students and 

tourists since it was first introduced on February 5. 

Mr Morrison said there would be "no carve outs" for 100,000 students in 

China who now face missing at least another week of the semester 

"We have always acted with an abundance of caution on this issue, and 

that has put Australia in the strong position we are in," he said. 

The decision comes despite the infection rate in China slowing, with 433 

new cases reported on Thursday. At their peak in mid-February cases were 

rising by 15,000 a day. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-to-declare-coronaviruspandemic-20200227-p5452c.html 


Eryk Bagshaw 

Eryk Bagshaw is the China 

correspondent for The Sydney 

Morning Herald and The Age. Due to 

travel restrictions, he is currently 

based in Canberra. 

Article written With Dana McCauley 

and Kate Aubusson



Pandemic preparedness: who has responsibility? 

Reported by Michael Taylor – The AIM on 31 July 2020 

Image from abc.net.au (Photos by ABC News) 

With the COVID-19 blame game and finger pointing so evident lately, my 

recent article; An incompetent and careless government is a threat to us 

all needs repeating. With the COVID-19 outbreak in Victoria people are 

lining up to saddle the blame on the premier, Daniel Andrews. Some, 

borrowing Donald Trump’s claim that COVID-19 is the “China virus,” are 

now disgracefully calling COVID-19 the “Victoria virus.” 

There’s no denying that many new outbreaks across the nation have links 

to Melbourne, but how did the virus get to Melbourne in the first place? 

Did it come from Sydney? Canberra? Queensland? The USA? China? The 

UK? The fact is it came from somewhere. There’s a body in this country 

responsible for doing its best to control the import and spread of the virus 

in this country. It’s called the Australian government.


When you read the extract from my earlier post below, keep in mind 

that Scott Morrison “declared the COVID-19 outbreak a national pandemic 

on 27 February” and approximately two weeks later passengers from the 

Ruby Princess were allowed to disembark in Sydney. 

Here is my extract: 

In the dying days of the Howard government they were very mindful of a 

couple of viruses, H5N1 (avian influenza), or bird flu as it was better known 

as, and H1N1, which was known as swine flu, that in a worse-case scenario 

could bring the world to its knees. That is, a global pandemic. Which 

includes us. 

We had to be prepared for it… 

Battle plans for such an event hit the drawing-board in 2007; an initiative of 

the Howard government – readying the country for the worst – and 

sometime later the program was given life again by the Rudd 

government, with a significant increase in funding. 

Here is Howard’s original pandemic plan: Australia’s Preparedness for a 

Human Influenza Pandemic. 

Due to copyright I cannot reproduce any of the report so I draw your 

attention to Section 2.43 on page 59 and the importance of thermal 

scanners being deployed at airports. 

What is so good about thermal scanners? Here is a succinct explanation: 

In efforts to contain the highly contagious virus causing COVID-19, thermal 

cameras, set up at checkpoints or hand-held by personnel at airports, 

borders, and entrances to businesses, schools, and other institutions, are 

being used to screen large numbers of people for elevated body 

temperatures quickly and reliably. 

A high temperature does not necessarily indicate that the person is 

infected with the coronavirus, but it is the first step in identifying its 

presence. People with a high temperature are taken for further testing and, 

if they test positive, are isolated until treatment can begin.


Thermal scanning should be utilised as the first step in ‘catching’ and 

ultimately containing the disease, and this is practised in 

a growing number of countries. 

I say “well done” to the authors of Australia’s Preparedness for a Human 

Influenza Pandemic report 2007/2008 for including the use of thermal 

scanning in airports as one of their key recommendations. 

Now let’s jump to the present day and the same report prepared in August 

2019: Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza. Again, 

as with the previous report I cannot reproduce any of the content due to 

copyright reasons. But I draw your attention to page 136, and there – right 

up the top of the page – the use of thermal scanners is Not 

recommended, stating, bewilderingly, that their effectiveness is low and 

their use is an impediment to travellers. 

Instead, as summarised on page 127 of the report, the traveller will be 

confronted with pamphlets and brochures etc. 

What is going to be of the most critical importance in the identification of 

even one person who is carrying the coronavirus: thermal scanning or a 

pamphlet? 

I also encourage you to read page 9 of the report: “Pandemic stages” and 

ask yourself how well the Morrison government rates in this current 


On February 28, Katie Burgess, writing in The Canberra Times reported that 

the: 

The Morrison government urgently purchased nearly $150,000 worth of 

thermometers at the start of the coronavirus outbreak in case they had to 

be deployed at the borders. 

But the Health Department says there are no current plans to subject 

travellers to temperature checks, on the advice of medical professionals.


… Australia’s chief medical officer Brendan Murphy told media on 

January 21, 2020 temperature checks had proven ineffective in past 

pandemics. 

Murphy, sadly, must have read the 2019 report which had reached the 

same conclusion: it didn’t work for pandemics in the past so it obviously 

won’t work with any pandemics in the present or the future. 

Ever heard of tunnel vision, Mr Murphy? 

It is true that thermal scanning won’t stop the spread of the coronavirus 

and it won’t always catch those that have it, but it will take enormous steps 

in detecting it, as countries like China have shown. 

Australia, meanwhile, with its incompetent and careless government is 

dragging its feet. 

I don’t know about you, but I get the feeling that our incompetent and 

careless government is a threat to us all. 

Note: There is also a brief report from 2018: Emergency Response Plan for 

Communicable Disease Incidents of National Significance: National 

Arrangements which also ignores thermal scanning at airports. In fact, they 

don’t even rate a mention, but a ‘police presence’ at airports does. 

Those who are adamant that Daniel Andrews is to blame for the 

recent outbreaks … may want to think again. 

Now I wish to draw your attention again to the Australian Health 

Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza, dated August 2019. 

Two major issues we hear much of are 

1) whether schools should be closed, and 

2) the risk of outbreaks from aged-care facilities. 

Who should make the decision to close schools? 

If it is a State decision, can the Federal Government intervene? 

Who is in charge of the aged-care facilities? 

Is it a State responsibility or a Federal one?


The following sections in the report answer these and many more 

questions: 

Page 31: Section 4.1.4: Implementation of public health measures 

(second paragraph). 

Implementation of public health measures 

The Australian Government is responsible for ensuring the resources 

and systems required to mount an effective national response are 

readily available; for international border activities; and for ensuring 

that Australia meets its international obligations. This includes 

maintaining the NIR the National Medical Stockpile (NMS) and IHR 

core capacities including maintenance of the National Focal Point 

(NFP). 

The Australian Government will also be responsible for residential 

aged care facilities; working with other healthcare providers to set 

standards to promote the safety and security of people in aged care 

and other institutional settings; and establishing and maintaining 

infection control guidelines, healthcare safety and quality standards. 

The Australian Government will fast-track assessment and approval 

of the customised pandemic vaccine; procure vaccines; develop a 

national pandemic vaccination policy and a national pandemic 

immunisation program; and communicate immunisation information 

on the program to the general public and health professionals.


Page 32: Section 4.1.6: Communication (first paragraph). 

Communication 

The Australian Government is responsible for national 

communications to the public and the health care sector at a national 

level, with direct responsibility for communications with the primary 

care sector. It is also responsible for reporting to and liaison with the 

WHO as required under the IHR and sharing information from the 

WHO, from surveillance and other sources with relevant stakeholders 

The Australian Government will also disseminate relevant tailored 

information to aged care and other residential facilities through 

approved providers and regulatory processes and liaise with Australian 

Government education authorities concerning public health measures 

related to schools. 

Page 145: Timing (relates to school closures). 

Timing 

Precise data from Australia concerning timing of this measure are not 

available. 

Workplace closures at the same time as school closures would avoid 

associated workplace disruption, but this alignment is unlikely in cities 

if workplace and school closures are reactive only. 

Worth reading, weren’t they? 

Source: 

https://theaimn.com/pandemic-preparedness-who-has-responsibility/



Federal government had no Covid-19 aged care plan, 

royal commission hears 

By Katharine Murphy and Elias Visontay for The Guardian 

on 10 August 2020 

In Melbourne, some families haven’t known whether their loved ones 

are alive or dead, which is “unforgivable”, the barrister assisting the 

inquiry says 

The aged care royal commission has heard lessons weren’t learned following a 

Covid-19 outbreak at Sydney’s Newmarch House earlier this year. Photograph: AAP 

The Morrison government has said it did have a strategy for Australia’s 

vulnerable aged care sector, despite the senior counsel assisting the royal 

commission into aged care arguing the health department and regulator 

both failed to develop a Covid-19 plan, rendering the industry 

“underprepared”. 

After Monday’s blistering opening statement at the royal commission by 

Peter Rozen QC, the federal minister for aged care, Richard Colbeck, issued 

a statement saying the government had been “continuously building on 

our response to Covid-19 in residential aged care since January 2020”.


Colbeck said the measures undertaken included issuing specific infection 

control guidance for residential aged care “combined with freely available 

training for the aged care workforce”. 

He said the government had imposed restrictions on visits to homes, had 

overseen the rapid provision of personal protective equipment, had 

provided additional skilled workers to support the provision of care and 

contain transmission in the event of an outbreak, as well as “in–reach 

pathology testing for Covid-19 and access to telehealth to ensure residents 

continue to safely receive needed healthcare”. 

Aged care is a commonwealth responsibility. 

The sustained outbreak in residential nursing homes during the second 

wave of infections in Victoria has prompted serious questions about 

whether the Morrison government was adequately prepared for the crisis, 

and whether reporting between the tiers of government and the regulator 

has been adequate. 

Last Friday’s national cabinet meeting resolved to roll out rapid response 

units aimed at preventing Victorian-style outbreaks across Australia – but it 

will take another fortnight to resolve the protocols. 

A parliamentary inquiry was told last week that 97 Victorian aged care 

facilities had been affected in the second wave, with 657 residents and 594 

staff infected with Covid-19. A further 25 home care services for the elderly 

were also affected. Seventeen recipients of these services were infected, as 

were 24 staff working in-home care. There had been 108 fatalities. 

The royal commission will later this week examine evidence of a “stand-off” 

between commonwealth and state health authorities over how to best 

handle an outbreak at Sydney’s Newmarch House, where the medical 

recommendation to send infected residents to hospital was discouraged 

out of an “intolerable” fear of setting a precedent. 

Health professionals on Monday gave evidence that attempts to replicate a 

“hospital in the home” were futile, due to issues including poor building 

airflow and staff undertrained in infection control. The commission heard 

that when outbreaks occurred, a facility’s workforce could be almost 

entirely replaced with surge staffing, who needed to be “oriented” to that 

particular aged care home.


The royal commission on Monday heard from Merle Mitchell - an 85-yearold 

resident of a locked-down aged care home in Melbourne. Despite no 

Covid-19 infections being reported at her facility, she described her 

restricted life under the pandemic. “Every morning when I wake up I 

think damn I’ve woken up. If you asked most people here, they would 

all say they would rather be dead rather than living here if they’re 

honest”. 

The resumption of the royal commission, and its focus on the aged care 

sector’s response to Covid-19, comes after the aged care quality and safety 

commissioner, Janet Anderson, revealed on Monday morning her 

organisation had taken four days to alert the health department about 

what would become a deadly outbreak at Melbourne’s St Basil’s aged care 

home. The commonwealth later intervened at the facility. 

During damning opening remarks on Monday, Rozen revealed the Aged 

Care Quality and Safety Commission and the Federal health 

department had no Covid-19 response plan for the aged care sector. 

Rozen noted the federal health minister, Greg Hunt, said in late July that 

“aged care around the country has been immensely prepared” and the 

royal commission “will be scrutinising” that claim. 

“Regulating the aged care sector as it confronts Covid-19 has been and 

continues to be this regulator’s biggest test. What did the commissioner do 

to prepare the sector? What has she done by way of regulating the sector?” 

Rozen said. 

“The regulator did not have an appropriate aged care sector Covid-19 

response plan. Given that it was widely understood that recipients of aged 

care services were a high-risk group, this seems surprising. 

“The evidence will reveal that neither the commonwealth department of 

health nor the aged care regulator developed a Covid-19 plan specifically 

for the aged care sector.” 

Highlighting a range of the concerns set to be examined by the royal 

commission, Rozen said the Australian Health Protection Principal 

Committee did not update its advice for aged care for “a crucial period of 

six weeks”, until 3 August, as the Victorian outbreak escalated.


He also said it was “surprising” the commission had not itself investigated 

the circumstances of the Dorothy Henderson Lodge and Newmarch House 

outbreaks in Sydney, despite incident investigations being “normally one of 

the key tasks of any regulator”. 

Outlining evidence that the royal commission will hear about the Covid-19 

outbreak at Newmarch House – where 37 residents tested positive and 17 

died – Rozen said there was a “stand-off” between health authorities about 

hospitalising Covid-19-positive residents. 

When Grant Millard, the chief executive of Anglicare, the operator of 

Newmarch, gives evidence on Tuesday, he is set to describe the “vigorous 

disagreement between the commonwealth and NSW officials” about 

providing “hospital in the home” care for infected residents. 

While the chief clinical adviser to the Australian aged care quality and 

safety commission, Melanie Wroth, “strongly” recommended infected 

residents be removed from sites, health department correspondence 

showed that NSW Health’s preference was “not to decant residents into 

hospitals given the precedent” it would set for future aged care outbreaks. 

This allegedly prompted Anderson to write to the department. 

“We must be vigilant in calling out the elephant in the room if ever we 

sense it might be present. To be clearer: if there is a view sitting behind the 

NSW Health position that aged care residents with Covid-19 should always 

be cared for in situ and should not be transferred to a hospital in any 

circumstances, then WE MUST CALL THIS OUT as an intolerable and 

unsupportable assumption,” she wrote in an email on 16 April, while 

Newmarch’s outbreak was still active. 

Millard said he was ultimately told by Colbeck to follow the advice of NSW 

Health. This meant only two Covid-19-positive Newmarch residents were 

transferred to hospital, one of whom died there. Of the 35 other infected 

residents who were kept at the aged care home, 16 died there. 

Millard said that Anglicare had conservatively estimated it would lose 

between 30% and 40% of its staff during an outbreak, but that the 

operator acknowledged this was a “massive underestimate” and that it 

“effectively had to stand down its entire workforce”.


Rozen said the royal commission had already examined “the consequences 

of a shortage of clinical skills in aged care homes” in a system where 

“providers have the ultimate say concerning the numbers and skill mix of 

their workforce and can choose between paying the hourly rate of a 

university-educated nurse and that of a care worker with or without a 

certificate 3”. 

These issues with staffing were echoed by Melanie Dicks, a BaptistCare 

manager involved in the Covid-19 response at Dorothy Henderson lodge, 

which is understood to be a relative success story given the virus spread to 

only 16 residents (13 of who were sent to hospital) and there were six 

deaths. Dicks was then sent to provide advice to Newmarch House. 

She told the royal commission Newmarch’s “hospital in the home” strategy 

struggled particularly due to staff skills shortages. 

“We had a new [surge] staff that didn’t fully understand what hospital in 

the home model was and we needed to continually orient those staff as 

well,” she said. 

A further issue with the hospital in the home model was identified by 

Marylouise McLaws, a professor of epidemiology at the University of New 

South Wales and an adviser to the World Health Organisation. 

“In hospitals, the airflow change needs to be at least 40 to 80 litres per 

second per patient, and in most homes it’s nowhere near that,” she said. 

“Sometimes it’s even less than three litres per second per person in a home 

… They won’t be opening up windows to get good air flow and 

decontamination.” 

Rozen noted health department data that said between 8 July and 

9 August, more than 1,000 residents had been diagnosed with Covid-19, 

and 168 had died. Monday’s hearing is the first after the program was 

suspended in March as a result of the Covid-19 outbreak. This week’s 

program will not examine the current outbreaks in Victoria. 

“During the recent outbreaks in Melbourne, once again, some families have 

been unable to ascertain even whether their loved ones are alive or dead,” 

he said. “That this can happen in Australia in 2020 is unacceptable; that it is 

happening again so soon after Newmarch House is unforgivable.”


Colbeck said: “Unfortunately where there are high rates of community 

transmission, as has been the experience globally, it is very hard to keep 

Covid-19 out of aged care facilities and other environments where there 

are people residing in close proximity including hospitals.” 

“When it gets in, the results can be devastating, even with the required 

infection control and screening preparedness in place,” the minister said. 

“This is what has happened in Victoria after quarantine breaches, the 

numbers in aged care sadly reflect the high level of community 

transmission within the surrounding areas.” 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/10/government-had-nocovid-19-aged-care-plan-inquiry-told-as-catastrophic-failure-alleged-over-st-basils 

Katharine Murphy 

Katharine Murphy is Guardian 

Australia's political editor. She has 

worked in Canberra's parliamentary 

gallery for 15 years. In 2008, she won 

the Paul Lyneham award for 

excellence in press gallery 

journalism, while in 2012 she was a 

Walkley award finalist in the best 

digital journalism category. email: 

katharine.murphy@theguardian.com 

Elias Visontay 

Elias Visontay is a reporter for Guardian Australia. He previously worked as a 

federal politics reporter for The Australian 

Email: elias.visontay@theguardian.com



As at 13 August 2020



Report from ADF dated 18 August 2020 

Source: Katy Gallagher - twitter on 18 September 2020



Government received aged care workforce warning months ago 

By David Crowe, Chief Political Correspondent for The Sydney 

Morning Herald on August 19, 2020 

Federal authorities were told four months ago aged care centres 

would struggle to find staff in a coronavirus outbreak, with a 

confidential report listing the urgent lessons from the first wave of 

infection. 

The federal report warned of problems in keeping staff, recruiting 

agency nurses and sending residents to hospital during the nation's 

first major COVID-19 outbreak in an aged care home. 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison. CREDIT:ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN 

But the report was kept confidential after it was handed to federal 

authorities on April 14 and was only made public in recent days after being 

lodged with the royal commission into aged care. 

The report into Dorothy Henderson Lodge, the Sydney centre where six 

residents died from coronavirus, revealed the workforce pressures months 

before the same problems took authorities by surprise in Victoria 

"When the first case was diagnosed, many personal carers stayed away 

from work and others were distressed and fearful; all were quarantined for 

two weeks," says the report by Professor Lyn Gilbert, a former director of 

infection prevention and control for the Western Sydney Local Health 

District.


"Early in the outbreak, many carers were unfamiliar with the strict infection 

prevention and control precautions and/or the working environment, which 

was stressful and conducive to IPC breaches. 

"Maintaining adequate numbers of agency nurses was difficult and costly." 

Aged Care Minister Richard Colbeck said the government had learned 

from the first outbreaks by putting $101.2 million toward a "surge 

workforce" including contractors from Aspen Medical, and a $205 million 

package on May 1 with cash for all Commonwealth-funded residential 

aged care providers. 

"The lessons that have been learnt from our experience with Dorothy 

Henderson Lodge have been applied and built on throughout our response 

to COVID-19 in residential aged care facilities," Senator Colbeck said. 

"All services with an active case of COVID-19 receive support from the 

Federal Government including a single case manager, access to [personal 

protective equipment], testing in residential aged care facilities, and access 

to surge workforce and supplementation. 

"We strengthened our advice to providers on ensuring their outbreak plans 

had strong workforce options, assuring them that our surge workforce 

contract was available." 

Federal Health Department Secretary Brendan Murphy argued last 

month that authorities could not foresee the sudden withdrawal of most 

workers from the St Basil's home in Melbourne because it had not 

happened elsewhere. 

But authorities were told of the lessons from the NSW outbreaks at 

Dorothy Henderson Lodge and Newmarch House, where an estimated 

87 per cent of workers had to go into quarantine. 

Professor Gilbert also conducted a review of Newmarch House but the 

federal government is yet to release the document. She has also been 

asked to conduct a review of St Basil's. 

The reviews come as Prime Minister Scott Morrison strongly denies 

claims made to the royal commission that he and his ministers did not 

develop a specific plan to prepare aged care for the pandemic.


Asked on Wednesday if "the buck stops" with him on aged care, 

Mr Morrison told the ABC it was a shared responsibility because the states 

looked after public health. 

"We regulate aged care but when there is a public health pandemic, then 

public health, which, whether it gets into aged care, shopping centres, 

schools or anywhere else, then they are things that are matters for 

Victoria," Mr Morrison said. 

Labor leader Anthony Albanese said this was "passing the buck" and Mr 

Morrison should stop saying aged care was someone else's responsibility. 

"The Morrison government runs, regulates and is responsible for aged 

care," Mr Albanese said. 

The federal Health Department commissioned Professor Gilbert to review 

Dorothy Henderson Lodge, run by BaptistCare, and received her report in 

April. 

The report notes the first COVID-19 case was diagnosed on March 3 in a 

nursing assistant and was followed by infections among two more staff and 

four residents within two days. 

"The response of BaptistCare management and staff to this outbreak was 

prompt and thorough," Professor Gilbert found. "The outcome probably 

would have been worse in a less well-managed facility with fewer resources 

and facilities." 

Managers and volunteers from other BaptistCare units had to staff the 

centre for several days and workers had to be flown in from interstate. 

While Professor Gilbert found there were problems with training in the use 

of masks and gowns, she also found huge waste from the use of 800 sets 

of protective equipment per day in the early stages, in a facility with 80 

beds. 

"Almost half the cases were probably already infected before containment 

measures were fully implemented," she wrote.


Professor Gilbert found that some infected residents could be looked after 

at the facility rather than being sent to hospital, a point of contention in 

the current outbreak in Victoria when some aged care operators want all 

infected residents to go to hospital. 

"Anecdotally, some residents were referred to hospital contrary to their 

advanced care directives," she wrote. 

"This is understandable in the context of a frightening new disease. 

However, it later became clear that seriously ill residents could be safely 

palliated at the facility, after consideration of their and their family's wishes 

and the resources of the facility." 

From interviews with staff and residents, Professor Gilbert also found the 

strict controls put in place caused harm over and above the harm from the 

coronavirus. 

"The absence of physical contact with loved ones and lack of exercise and 

fresh air seriously affected residents' mental and physical health," she 

wrote. 

In a separate submission to the royal commission, the not-for-profit 

BaptistCare said it incurred additional costs of $2.4 million to manage the 

outbreak including $1.7 million in staff costs, and warned of the difficulty of 

finding an emergency workforce at short notice. 

"We acknowledge that the Australian government has subsequently 

implemented processes to assist the sector, but this was not an option at 

the time of the DHL outbreak," it said. 

"We encourage a review of the effectiveness of the resources that are now 

available." 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-received-aged-careworkforce-warning-months-ago-20200819-p55nb0.html



Scott Morrison's persistent effort to sidestep accountability 

for aged care is utterly transparent 

By Katharine Murphy, Political Editor for The Guardian 


Is the prime minister focused on managing the crisis at hand 

– or is he preoccupied with managing the blame game? 

‘Accountability...doesn’t stop at the Victorian border. If Andrews is responsible [for 

aged care failures], then so is Australian prime minister Scott Morrison.’ 

Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP 

At the moment, if you ask the wrong question, Scott Morrison says 

you are being too binary. 

The ABC Breakfast presenter Michael Rowland found himself 

dispatched to binary corner on Wednesday morning after pursuing 

the prime minister on aged care. 

It’s worth sharing the exchange.


Question: Prime minister, Daniel Andrews the Victorian premier, says the 

buck stops with him when it comes to the hotel quarantine bungle. So does 

the buck stop with you as prime minister for the litany of aged care 

failures? 

Morrison: Well, there are shared responsibilities for, well public health is a 

matter for the Victorian government, and the federal government regulates 

aged care … 

Question: It’s a federal responsibility. It is fundamentally a federal 

responsibility. 

Morrison: Well public health, we regulate aged care, but when there is a 

public health pandemic, then public health, which, whether it gets into 

aged care, shopping centres, schools or anywhere else, then they are things 

that are matters for Victoria. So I don’t think that it is as binary as you 

suggest. 

Morrison was picked up on this observation later in the morning by the 

Sky News journalist Andrew Clennell. 

Question: Is there an element here of you being happy to own the 

successes when it comes to dealing with the pandemic, but not the failures? 

Morrison: I think that’s an unkind assessment, Andrew, that doesn’t bear 

out the facts. 

Given facts have been invoked (hooray), let’s step those through. 

Morrison is correct to point out that aged care is connected to the public 

health system and vice versa. That’s a more than reasonable point. 

But the prime minister’s persistent effort to sidestep accountability is also 

utterly transparent. 

Before we get into responsibilities in the federation, just a basic point of 

logic. If it is fair to argue that Covid-19 got into aged care facilities because 

Daniel Andrews failed to stop community transmission, then it is also fair to 

argue about whether the commonwealth did enough to fortify residential 

aged care facilities against the incoming threat.


If Australia’s health systems are connected, as the prime minister correctly 

suggests, then the performance of every tier of government is in focus 

during a pandemic. 

Accountability isn’t selective. It doesn’t stop at the Victorian border. It goes 

all the way to Canberra. If Andrews is responsible, then so is Morrison. You 

can’t invent a world where someone else is responsible and you aren’t. 

Just for the record, the federal government funds and regulates aged care. 

This is a commonwealth responsibility. 

The Australian Health Sector Emergency Response Plan for 

Novel Coronavirus, released in February, draws the lines clearly, and it 

documents the desired interactions between the tiers of government 

during the pandemic. 

That document says the Australian government is responsible for 

residential aged care facilities “working with other healthcare providers to 

set standards to promote the safety and security of people in aged care 

and other institutional settings; and establishing and maintaining infection 

control guidelines, healthcare safety and quality standards”. 

So Canberra has primary responsibility. It sets the safety systems and 

ensures they are maintained – self-evidently a hands-on role. State and 

territory governments look after public health responses, which include 

“establishing systems to promote the safety and security of people in aged 

care”. The states also support the investigation of outbreaks. 

These are the facts. 

A couple of weeks ago, Morrison sent me to binary corner when I asked 

him whether we were still all in this crisis together – which is a mainstay of 

the government’s talking points – or whether “all in this together” had 

morphed during the second wave to blaming Andrews. My question was 

“binary” and “a little simplistic, with great respect”. 

On Wednesday, Morrison told reporters governments were “working 

together, not against each other – [that] is the way we manage these 

impacts”.


But binary or not, this remains one of the critical questions about this 

phase of the pandemic: is the prime minister focused, as he should be 

exclusively, on managing the crisis at hand – or is he preoccupied with 

managing the blame game? 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/19/scott-morrisonspersistent-effort-to-sidestep-accountability-for-aged-care-is-utterly-transparent 



Katharine Murphy is Guardian Australia's political editor. She has worked in 

Canberra's parliamentary gallery for 15 years. In 2008, she won the Paul 

Lyneham award for excellence in press gallery journalism, while in 2012 she 

was a Walkley award finalist in the best digital journalism category. email: 

katharine.murphy@theguardian.com



Royal commission blasts Morrison government 

for inaction on AGED CARE 

By Kathryn Murphy, Political Editor – The Guardian on 24 August 2020 

Suffering of many could have been avoided if government had acted 

on previous reviews, commissioners say 

The aged care royal commission has said it is ‘unacceptable’ that Australia doesn’t 

have an independent reporting system for the sector and criticised the Morrison 

government for its inaction. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP 

The aged care royal commission has criticised the Morrison 

government for failing to establish independent monitoring and 

reporting of aged care quality outcomes, as the government’s 

performance during the pandemic dominated the first day of federal 

parliament since June. 

In a statement, the commission said new research showed Australia “could 

immediately establish independent, transparent, routine monitoring and 

public reporting of many aspects of aged care quality outcomes similar to 

leading countries”.


It said reporting could be increased without burdening aged care 

providers. Commissioners Tony Pagone and Lynelle Briggs said unbiased 

measurement and reporting of performance was “vital to create 

accountability and continuous improvement in the aged care sector”. 

The commissioners warned that “without it, problems are hidden from 

sight and not addressed”. 

“It is unacceptable that in 2020 the aged care system is still without this,” 

the commissioners said on Monday. “Had the Australian government acted 

upon previous reviews of aged care, the persistent problems in aged care 

would have been known much earlier and the suffering of many people 

could have been avoided.” 

The blast from the commissioners came as Scott Morrison continued to 

insist his government did have a plan to manage outbreaks of Covid-19 in 

residential aged care. 

While apologising to families for hundreds of deaths, the prime minister 

told parliament 97% of facilities were coronavirus free. 

With more than 300 lives lost, the government’s performance in residential 

aged care dominated parliamentary question time. Labor accused the 

government of failing to heed warnings from earlier outbreaks and failing 

to own up to responsibility for people’s safety. 

The aged care minister, Richard Colbeck, used the opening of question 

time in the Senate to apologise for being unable to recall last week how 

many people had died in aged care during the pandemic. 

Morrison also offered an apology before question time in the House of 

Representatives and acknowledged what happened in Victoria was “not 

good enough”. But the prime minister insisted the government had a plan 

to minimise the risk of outbreaks.


The government has faced heavy criticism since the counsel assisting the 

aged care royal commission Peter Rozen QC told that inquiry there was no 

specific Covid-19 plan, and accused the federal government of displaying 

“a degree of self-congratulation and even hubris” in the crucial months 

between the Newmarch House outbreak in April and the developing 

situation in Victoria in mid-June. 

An independent review released earlier on Monday about the outbreak at 

the Newmarch House aged care home in Sydney’s west found that a lack 

of staff, and confusion between the levels of government, worsened the 

crisis at that centre. Nineteen residents died and there were 71 cases 

among staff and residents during the outbreak. 

Given 328 aged care residents had now died during the pandemic, Labor 

leader, Anthony Albanese, asked Morrison why Australians should believe 

the prime minister when he said the government had a plan, rather than 

the counsel assisting the royal commission, who contends there was no 

plan? 

Morrison said the government’s plan for the aged care sector had “been 

available since March of this year, and has continued to be refreshed and 

reported to the aged care sector and worked through in webinars and 

other information, including with support by the aged care quality 

commissioner as well”. 

The prime minister said the government rejected the “assertions” that had 

been made before the royal commission. 

Morrison said he welcomed the aged care royal commission making 

inquiries about the government’s Covid-19 response, because that had 

happened at the request of the government. But he said “whether there’s 

an assertion made before the royal commission or any other place that 

asserts something the government has not done, when we believe it’s not 

correct, we’ll correct the record”. 

The deputy Labor leader, Richard Marles, asked Morrison how many more 

aged care residents had to die before the prime minister would accept full 

responsibility for keeping them safe?


Morrison said he mourned the deaths “of so many Australians who have 

succumbed to this virus, not just those who are older, but all those 

affected, either with serious illness or those who have ultimately 

succumbed to this virus”. 

He said the commonwealth was responsible “for the funding and the 

regulation of aged care services in this country” but he said, “it is also true, 

in the course of a pandemic … that there are responsibilities that are held 

by other agencies of the federation – in particular, the state governments”. 

While Morrison endorsed the royal commission deliberations, just before 

question time, a Liberal backbencher, Jason Falinski, told the ABC he was 

“not entirely sure a royal commission coming up with policy solutions to 

aged care was a good idea in the first place”. 

Albanese said Morrison was still failing to take responsibility for failings at 

the commonwealth level during the pandemic. “For this government, you 

know, the buck never stops. No one is responsible.” 

“What we know was that no plan was put in place – we know this from the 

royal commission opening statement by the counsel assisting,” the Labor 

leader said. “The fact there wasn’t a plan, and there wasn’t the action that 

was required.” 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/katharine-murphy 



Katharine Murphy is Guardian 

Australia's political editor. She has 

worked in Canberra's parliamentary 

gallery for 15 years. In 2008, she won 

the Paul Lyneham award for 

excellence in press gallery 

journalism, while in 2012 she was a 

Walkley award finalist in the best 

digital journalism category. email: 

katharine.murphy@theguardian.com



Tone deaf: 

Aged care providers’ PR campaign strikes wrong note 

by Dr Sarah Russell | Business | Michael West Media 


The biggest players in the Aged Care sector have hired a public relations company. 

Image: Unsplash 

Hiring properly qualified staff, staff-resident ratios and a commitment to 

be transparent and accountable for the $13 billion in annual taxpayer 

funding would help private providers of aged care “change the 

conversation” and “win the hearts and minds of middle Australia”. 

Dr Sarah Russell reports. 

In the middle of the biggest reputational disaster to hit privately run aged 

care, with the preventable deaths of more than 500 residents, private 

providers have launched a public relations campaign to “change the 

conversation” about aged care and “win the hearts and minds of 

middle Australia”.


Rather than agree to fundamental things that would really win the hearts 

and minds of Australians – such as hiring properly qualified staff, staffresident 

ratios, and a commitment to be transparent and accountable for 

the $13 billion in taxpayer funding they receive every year – the 

biggest players in the sector, including BaptistCare, Anglicare, Leading Age 

Services Australia, Aged and Community Services Australia and the Aged 

Care Guild have engaged Apollo Communications. Apollo Communications 

is a PR company run by Adam Connolly, former Daily Telegraph political 

reporter and senior media adviser to John Howard. 

It will undoubtedly be more of the same spin we have been hearing for 

more than 20 years, ever since John Howard deregulated aged care and 

opened the floodgates to private equity firms, foreign investors, and 

superannuation and property real estate investment trusts. 

Glossy brochures 

Their glossy brochures, with pictures of nicely appointed lounge and dining 

rooms and smiling residents and information on the outings that can be 

organised for residents, do not contain the key fundamental information 

that older people and families need to make an informed choice about an 

aged care home. 

The most important information is the number of staff and their training – 

this is an indicator of standards of care. The public also needs information 

on a range of quality indicators such as prevalence of pressure sores, 

weight loss, falls, infection rates and admissions to hospitals. This 

information is deemed “commercial-in-confidence”. 

Who decided that data on residents’ safety and wellbeing in aged care 

homes must be kept top secret? 

The federal government has a long history of being far more 

concerned about protecting aged care providers – some of whom are 

multinationals and large superannuation funds – than looking after 

the interests of those living in residential aged care, most of whom are 

elderly and frail.


When Dr Brendan Murphy, secretary of the Department of Health, and the 

Minister for Aged Care Richard Colbeck last month said they would not 

publicly name the residential aged care homes with outbreaks of Covid-19 

because the aged care providers were worried about “reputational 

damage”, both men were just continuing the secrecy and favouring of 

corporate interests that older Australians and their families have long had 

to put up with. 

The Aged Care Minister has been repeatedly asked for the data on the 

number of residents who have died in aged care homes and how many of 

the cases linked to each home are residents, but he has refused. 

Each day, the Victorian government has been naming the 10 aged care 

homes in Victoria with the largest outbreaks. Figures on the numbers of 

residents who have died in the “top 12 aged care homes” have now 

been published, with the numbers confirmed by the Victorian Department 

of Health and Human Services. 

St Basil’s tops the list with 44, followed by Epping Gardens 35; Kalyna 22; 

Twin Parks 20; Kirkbrae 20; Baptcare 18; Mecwacare 18; Estia Ardeer 17; 

Glendale 17; Japara Sunbury 17; Bupa Edithvale 17; and Menarock Rosehill 

16. 

If 44 children had died in a childcare centre, the childcare centre would be 

named on the front page of every media outlet in Australia. 

Consider also the way the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission 

handles complaints. The Commission does not share with the public 

complaints made against individual homes. 

Surely the public is entitled to know the names of the aged care homes 

associated with complaints. Would you choose a certain home for a loved 

one if you knew numerous complaints had been made about staff conduct 

or medication errors? 

Requiring each home to publish a monthly report on the number of 

complaints received and how each complaint was resolved would 

undoubtedly help older people and their families to assess standards of 

care when choosing a home.


Last December, Centre Alliance’s Stirling Griff tabled three critical 

amendments to the aged care legislation amendment (new commissioner 

functions) bill 2019 to improve transparency and accountability around 

complaints, staffing levels and finances in aged care homes. The Coalition 

voted against all amendments. 

Of course the public should be told exactly how much of the whopping 

$13 billion providers receive from the government each year is spent 

on looking after residents. After all, it’s taxpayers’ money. Do they spend 

the government subsidy on nursing care, meals and activities for residents 

or on salaries and bonuses for their executive team? 

Prior to John Howard’s election in 1996, the main providers of residential 

aged care were local councils, charities and religious groups. The federal 

government tightly regulated the nursing home industry. The required 

number, and the qualifications, of nursing staff was linked to the number of 

residents and their health. This was monitored to ensure enough staff were 

available to provide care. 

There were some, but not a lot of, commercial providers of aged care 

because the strong regulations restricted profitability. 

However, the election of the Howard Coalition government was a turning 

point for aged care policy. The Coalition had promised to deregulate the 

industry and let the market get to work if it won. Moreover, the commercial 

providers, which had close ties to the Coalition, helped write the Aged Care 

Act 1997. 

The new legislation made investing in aged care homes more lucrative for 

private investors primarily because it cut out the requirement for set 

staffing numbers and qualifications. The Act stated that providers were 

required to employ “adequate numbers of appropriately skilled and trained 

staff”. 

This lack of clarity enabled providers to determine what is an “adequate 

number” and “appropriately skilled”. As a result, private providers 

employed fewer staff; replaced registered nurses with much less skilled 

staff; and took the nurses out of nursing homes.


The aged care sector needs structural reform, not a PR campaign. Let’s 

start with an Aged Care Act that focuses on the human rights of older 

people rather than the profits of providers. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/tone-deaf-aged-care-providers-pr-campaignstrikes-wrong-note/ 













The Collapse of Age Care 

Part One and Part Two 

The crisis in the sector can be linked to Howard-era 

reforms that stoked greed and lowered care standards, 

and have been worsened by successive governments. 

By Rick Morton for The Saturday Paper



Part ONE 

The collapse of aged care 

By Rick Morton for The Saturday Paper on 12 – 18 September 2020 

As the royal commission prepares findings that will likely recommend a 

return to an earlier system of aged care, the crisis in the sector can be 

linked to Howard-era reforms that stoked greed and lowered care 

standards, and have been worsened by successive governments. By Rick 

Morton. 

John Howard in 2001, after announcing changes to aged-care policy 

in suburban Brisbane. 

CREDIT: AAP IMAGE / DAVE HUNT 

“It can be seen, commissioners, that the aged-care system we have in 2020 

is not a system that is failing,” Peter Rozen, QC, told the Royal Commission 

into Aged Care Quality and Safety in August. “It is the system operating as 

it was designed to operate. We should not be surprised at the results.” 

The series of events that led to this moment – with the country’s aged-care 

system teetering on the brink of collapse – stretches back long before the 

Covid-19 pandemic hit. 

Its origins lie in the changes made under the Howard government in 

the late 1990s, which ushered in a 23-year failed experiment; a live 

study of human patients that saw falling care standards, dramatic loss 

of professional skill and soaring profits.


The Saturday Paper can reveal that Rozen, who is senior counsel assisting 

the commission, will recommend an end to this experiment when he makes 

submissions to royal commissioners Tony Pagone and Lynelle Briggs this 

week. 

He will recommend winding back the clock, essentially, to where it was 

before 1997, by mandating significant minimum staffing levels in nursing 

homes. 

For more than two decades, no such requirement – with an explicit 

prescription for registered and enrolled nurses, therapy and personal-care 

workers – has existed anywhere in aged-care law. 

Before John Howard’s 1997 aged-care changes, the number of registered 

nurse (RN) hours that a typical nursing home with 60 residents was funded 

for and received was 308. Within a decade, it dropped to just 198. 

Today, it is 168 hours in a week. 

On its own though, Rozen’s staffing recommendation won’t be enough to 

untangle a system so plagued by opacity, so denuded of oversight or 

empty of responsibility. Whatever comes from the royal commission will 

need to correct decades of calcification that has paralysed hearts and 

minds to the horrors of institutionalisation, greed and corporate 

entitlement. 

If you want to trigger an aged-care gold rush, you’re going to need money 

– a lot of it. 

But the 1996-’97 budget offered no extra cash for aged-care services. In 

fact, the line item for “reform of aged and community care” saved the 

Howard government almost $570 million over four years. 

Still, providers didn’t need these funds to win big. They had something 

better: the promise of sweeping deregulation gave providers carte 

blanche over hiring. 

The top quarter of all private aged-care companies in Australia have a 

return that is almost four times higher than the best performers elsewhere 

in the world.


Immediately before the new act began, the old funding model stipulated a 

ratio of staffing qualifications. 

It broke down like this: almost a third of all care in nursing homes was to 

be performed by an RN, 58.5 per cent by an assistant in nursing (AIN), 

8 per cent for therapy (allied health) and 1 per cent by the director of 

nursing. 

“The decision in 1997 around the new [aged-care] act was that the 

government would outsource Australia’s duty of care for older people 

to private providers,” Professor Kathy Eagar, director of the Australian 

Health Services Research Institute at the University of Wollongong, 

tells The Saturday Paper. 

In all 345 pages of the first version of Howard’s Aged Care Act, the words 

staff and employees are mentioned only three times each. The bill’s 

“quality of care” provisions were extremely vague, requiring only that 

“approved providers … maintain an adequate number of appropriately 

skilled staff to ensure that the care needs of care recipients are met”. 

The following year, 1998, the requirement that one registered nurse 

had to be on duty in a home at all times was removed. 

The abandonment of minimum staffing requirements had private equity 

firms and American corporates salivating. Suddenly, frail older Australians 

had become big business. 

The nurses were the first to go. 

In 2003, there were 16,265 full-time equivalent RNs in Australian nursing 

homes, representing 21.4 per cent of all direct care employees in these 

facilities. Even with an explosion in the number of older people receiving 

care, by 2016, there were only 14,564 registered nurses caring for them, 

representing less than 15 per cent of all staff. 

Enrolled nurses (ENs) fell by almost 2000 full-time positions – dropping 

from 14.4 per cent of all employees to 9.3 per cent.


These clinical roles were replaced by low-paid and low-skilled personal 

care workers, often migrants who are given little or no support and face 

language barriers in the workplace. More than 26,000 such jobs were 

created between 2003 and 2016, pushing the proportion of these stilloverworked 

employees from 56.5 per cent to 71.5 per cent of the entire 

direct care workforce. 

It’s little wonder, then, that nursing home tycoon and Liberal Party 

donor Doug Moran boasted of his role in designing the Howard 

government policy, which would throw open the doors to billions of 

dollars of investment. 

Moran, who died in 2011, was particularly thrilled about the proposed 

introduction of new accommodation bonds, lump sum payments provided 

from a resident’s assets or the sale of their home that nursing homes could 

use as interest-free loans. 

As the furore around this measure grew, Moran compared those who 

opposed the policy to corporate fraudsters Christopher Skase and 

Alan Bond. He called them “silvertails, next of kin [and] the hoarders of 

assets”. 

“There are a lot of bludgers in our society and I think that’s got to stop 

because it imposes further costs on to the taxpayers of this nation,” Moran 

told The Daily Telegraph. 

But Howard was spooked by the backlash, and the bonds policy was 

dropped on high-care places. It would be another 17 years before 

accommodation bonds were extended, by a Labor government, to the rest 

of the aged-care sector. 

While Moran got everything else that he’d wanted – reduced standards 

and regulations you could drive a truck through – it didn’t stop him 

quitting the Liberal Party in disgust over Howard’s backdown. 

The impacts of the changes, lobbied for by Moran and others, were 

sweeping.


In an October 2019 background paper on previous reforms, the Royal 

Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety noted the 1997 system 

redesign allowed “greater reliance on resident contributions to the cost of 

care, including through a system of accommodation bonds, and residential 

care benefits subject to income testing”. 

There was also “a relaxation of previous regulatory requirements, such as 

tight financial acquittal requirements, and their replacement by a ‘lightertouch’ 

accreditation approach”. 

Before the changes, all aged-care providers were required to prove that a 

portion of their funding was actually spent on direct care and staff duties. 

Howard’s law erased this. 

A senate community affairs references committee report on the legislation 

in 1997 warned that “any system that claims to be concerned about the 

quality of care in nursing homes must ensure that public money provided 

for nursing care is spent for this purpose”. 

Although Howard did later make minor concessions based on issues raised 

in its report, none of the committee’s recommendations were adopted. 

With its passage into law, the great Howard experiment marked a 

catastrophic shift in the sector that neither major party has proved willing 

to undo. 

Rather, the free market only grew hungrier. It demanded to be fed, and it 

was. 

The age of monolithic providers began slowly, at first. 

By mid-1999, for example, private for-profit companies had a 27.6 per cent 

share of all bed licences in residential aged care. In June last year, their 

market share had grown to 41 per cent. 

John Howard privatised the aged-care sector, but it was Labor’s 

Mark Butler who really accelerated changes in 2012. 

As minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Butler spearheaded the Gillard 

government’s major reform to the sector, adopting large swaths of a 2011 

Productivity Commission blueprint that finally delivered what Howard 

never could – vast sums of free money to providers.


Short of detonating the whole model, Butler had few choices. Providers 

were losing money on so-called high-care places that did not attract 

accommodation bonds, but charging eye-watering amounts for low-care 

beds where these funds could be levied. In Sydney by 2008 some were in 

excess of $2 million. 

In reality, by 2012, almost every bed was now a high-care one. 

Butler abolished these distinctions. Accommodation bonds that previously 

only existed in low-care homes were allowed to be charged across the 

entire sector, subject to approval from the new Aged Care Financing 

Authority. 

Older Australians became “consumers” of services. 

Bonds were renamed “refundable accommodation deposits” – or RADs – 

and residents could no longer negotiate their value. As consumers, they 

paid the market rate. They could, of course, choose to pay either a bond or 

a daily payment calculated as a function of the bond price and government 

interest rate – or they could pay by a combination of both methods. 

Either way, though, the money flowed. 

The average value of accommodation bonds held by providers in 2012-13 

was $229,000 per resident. By last year, that had climbed to $318,000. 

In the same time, the total pool held has more than doubled from 

$14.3 billion to more than $30 billion. These funds are guaranteed by the 

Commonwealth, should providers go bust. 

Providers invest these bonds and skim the profits to buy up property or 

conduct infrastructure projects, which the law encourages, and return only 

the original amount to the resident or their estate when they leave or die. 

Essentially, the system has created billions of dollars in interest-free loans. 

There is no clearer indication of how lucrative these changes to the system 

were than what happened either side of their legislated start date on July 1, 

2014. 

First, in April, aged-care provider Japara listed on the Australian Stock 

Exchange and almost immediately beat its own initial public offering price.


Regis Healthcare, another mammoth operator that formed after Macquarie 

Group hoovered up several nursing home providers in 2007, followed with 

its public listing in October. Finally, Estia Health debuted on the ASX in 

December 2014. 

By April 2015, the ASX was posting material to its investment and finance 

newsletter spruiking “profit from ageing population”. 

The benefits, according to Richard Lie from Stockradar, included 

“government inducements” and “major consolidation”. 

For-profit providers now represent 49 per cent of all aged-care operators. 

The aged-care giants grew quickly. In early 2018, Regis had a market 

capitalisation of $1.2 billion – it has since dropped to $342 million 

following years of blows to the sector – and together this corporate trio 

has recorded $8.4 billion worth of revenue from government subsidies and 

resident charges in five years. Over the same time, the three listed 

companies paid out almost $600 million to shareholders. 

While public companies have strict reporting obligations, there are only 

threadbare transparency requirements for private aged-care providers. 

Research ordered by the royal commission from tax advisory outfit BDO 

Australia, published late on Tuesday, reveals that the “current model 

favours more sophisticated providers who have the necessary financial 

acumen to manage diverse portfolios and capital structures”. 

In other words, the system is set up to allow operators to play hide-andseek 

with government subsidies and across multiple “related” entities 

within a web of controlled companies. 

This is a “perfectly legitimate” model, BDO says, with one important caveat: 

“The current approach of having no priority or obligations to report on the 

related entity … may influence the behaviour of service providers in 

unintended ways and lead to adverse outcomes for the taxpayer.”


Buried in the report is a significant detail. 

While the analysis shows that for-profit aged-care providers in Australia 

have broadly similar profit margins and asset returns when compared with 

companies in the Asia-Pacific, Europe and the United States and Canada, 

they differ in one remarkable way. 

Nowhere in the world do similar systems have as high a return on equity as 

in private Australian aged-care operators – usually a reliable measure of 

income generated from investment. These providers have a return that’s 

almost 10 percentage points higher than the value for listed companies in 

Australia, and 4 percentage points higher than the closest cohort in the 

Asia-Pacific. 

The top quarter of all private aged-care companies in Australia have a 

return that is almost four times higher than the best performers elsewhere 

in the world. 

“This would indicate that unlisted for-profit approved providers behave 

quite differently from their counterparts,” BDO says in its report. “For 

example, they may be distributing a higher proportion of profits out of the 

entity and retaining less.” 

This is important, as BDO notes, because “property investment is a 

significant feature of residential aged care providers” and the Australian 

government may “make a contribution for the use of the property for each 

resident”. 

“Which is effectively a payment of rent,” it says. 

Basically, providers invest in property, often using bonds from residents, 

and then charge themselves, and by extension the government, for the rent 

of that property. 

In addition to this payment – and separate to the care subsidy provided by 

taxpayers – aged-care companies can transfer accommodation bonds 

received from clients to these other entities as “related party loans” and 

“use the funds to buy property or other investments”. 

“An approved provider can own the property asset under a different entity, 

most likely without recourse.”


They then pay rent to these linked companies, listed as an expense for the 

aged-care facility but which is income for the vehicle that holds the 

property. Companies need only complete an annual prudential compliance 

statement. 

One of the worst-affected homes in Victoria during the state’s second wave 

of Covid-19 was St Basil’s Homes for the Aged in Fawkner. The home paid 

more than $14 million in rent to its owner, the Greek Orthodox Church, in 

the past five years. 

At last year’s royal commission hearings, the inquiry heard about multiple 

care failures at another Victorian facility, Menarock Life’s Greenway 

Gardens, that occurred in 2018. Here, management had issued a staffing 

cap based on its financial constraints, rather than resident needs, which 

were growing more complex. 

“You will see a rent figure of $350,000 for this facility. And that’s a payment 

to a related entity,” counsel assisting Paul Bolster asked Menarock’s 

director, Craig Holland. 

“Yes, correct,” he replied. “The [aged-care] business operates through one 

legal entity and the property is held in another legal entity.” 

Menarock Life purchased Greenway Gardens in early 2018. The year before 

the purchase, the facility’s previous owners paid just $70,000 in rent. 

There are 873 residential aged-care providers in Australia. By income, the 

60 largest aged-care providers in Australia and their affiliated entities 

account for 76 per cent of all revenue in the sector – almost $19.6 billion in 

2019. 

The data, published in BDO’s analysis, is particularly vivid because it shows 

how this concentration began. 

In 2011, the year before Labor’s reforms, the top 60 approved providers 

accounted for 68 per cent of all income in the sector. In their wake, the 10 

biggest aged-care juggernauts were able to almost double their income to 

$11.5 billion and increase share of all revenue in the aged-care sector to 

44.7 per cent.


In the context of world-first research from the University of Queensland, 

also commissioned by the aged-care inquiry and released late last month, 

these trends are concerning. 

Private providers with large nursing homes were the worst-performing 

group in Australian aged care. Small facilities run by state governments, 

meanwhile, were consistently the best across a full range of quality 

indicators. 

The latter are also the fastest-shrinking type of aged-care provider. 

In other research for the royal commission, the University of Wollongong’s 

Professor Kathy Eagar found the average Australian nursing home resident 

receives just 180 minutes of care each day. 

That ranks at the bottom of what is acceptable around the world. To bring 

this to between 242 and 264 minutes each day – considered good practice 

– would require an “overall increase of 37.2 per cent in total care staffing”. 

Crucially, Eagar found only 1 per cent of all Australian nursing homes meet 

the legislated standards for state-run homes in Victoria. 

To meet Victoria’s requirements, the federal government would need to 

boost registered nurse and enrolled nurse care time each day by 265 per 

cent. This information is vital to fully understand what happened next, 

when the Coalition came to power again in September 2013. 

Tony Abbott inherited a precarious aged-care industry that was fat with 

profit, starved of care and had an insatiable appetite for growth. 

The sector had become a property play with a funding mechanism that was 

despised by both sides of politics. Political leaders and bureaucrats had no 

way of knowing, nor apparently any desire of discovering, where the 

money provided ended up. 

It was a top-heavy, free market enterprise that also happened to be 

charged with the care of older people experiencing the most complex 

medical conditions in the country.


Rather than fix the mess, Abbott, and successive Coalition governments 

since, simply raided the aged-care budget and redirected the savings 

elsewhere, conveniently using the greed of the biggest companies that 

aged-care policies had long boosted to attack the entire sector. 

Within his first year, Abbott would rip out the two measures Butler 

legislated and relied on for the rest of Labor’s reforms to work: a 

workforce compact and the dementia supplement. 

Now dangerously unbalanced, the sector ran headlong into misery. 

“The only way you can be making profit now is to be delivering 

inadequate care hours,” Eagar says. 

“It is impossible to make a profit and deliver adequate care hours to 

residents.” 

Source: 

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2020/09/12/the-collapseaged-care-part-one/159983280010409



Part TWO 

The collapse of aged care 

By Rick Morton for The Saturday Paper on 19 – 25 September 2020 

The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted two decades of aged-care 

mismanagement, but at the heart of the sector is a pyramid scheme that 

exposes the taxpayer to billions in liability. By Rick Morton. 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison. 

CREDIT: AAP IMAGE / MICK TSIKAS 

When the report landed with senior Department of Health officials early in 

the year, its warning was blunt. This was deliberate: the confidential dossier 

was intended to jolt a lethargic government into action. 

“It remains our view that approximately 50 [aged-care] providers – one per 

week – are likely to walk away due to financial stress in 2020,” author Gary 

Barnier wrote. 

“Not all of these providers will be in rural, regional and remote Australia. A 

substantial investment in the management of risk is warranted.” 

Barnier, a member of the federal government’s Aged Care Financing 

Authority, and partner at Cooperage Capital, did not elaborate on how 

much money was needed to prop up these homes. But the department 

accepted his recommendation to establish a team of seven full-time 

employees to manage the problem.


The report, known internally as the “viability project”, found 141 of 

Australia’s 873 nursing-home providers were at “extreme risk of imminent 

failure”. 

It found a further 89 providers “that will be in severe financial stress within 

two years”. 

The report was commissioned by the Department of Health as evidence 

mounted that the government may have to repay billions of dollars in 

accommodation bonds should these providers’ collapse. Between them, 

the nursing homes listed by the “viability project” hold $5.3 billion in 

bonds. 

These bonds are a fee paid by residents to providers, usually based on 

property prices in the area. The average per resident is $318,000 – 

although they can be well over $1 million. 

Providers can invest these bonds however they like, including on the 

sharemarket, although most are invested in property. The interest belongs 

to the provider, but the bonds must be returned to the resident or their 

estate when they leave care or die. If a number of bonds need to be 

returned at once, this creates a liquidity problem. 

In trying to privatise the cost burden of an ageing population, 

governments – both Labor and Liberal – had transformed the aged-care 

sector into what was, essentially, a pyramid scheme. The bonds are central 

to this. 

As long as the sector kept growing and money kept coming in, the only 

concerns for government were to manage taxpayer funding and regulate 

the care standards. But now some of these providers are struggling. 

Covid-19 was still only a bit player in global affairs when the Barnier work 

began. None of the report’s analyses had factored in the unthinkable oncein-a-century 

devastation of a pandemic. Instead it was grappling with the 

reality of a man-made disaster in aged care. 

If any single element in this astonishingly complex artifice fails, the whole 

of it breaks down. Bonds are one part of this, another is a steady decline in 

government funding and care standards, but the two are inseparable from 

each other.


Tony Abbott had been prime minister for only a matter of days when, 

in September 2013, he hit pause on the outgoing Labor government’s 

$1.4 billion “workforce compact” for nursing homes. This was a signal 

moment in the slow collapse of Australia’s aged-care system. 

Over four years, the program would have delivered a down payment on 

wage increases of between 3 and 12.5 per cent for care workers and 

registered nurses, respectively. 

With no mechanism to guarantee care hours or quality in aged-care 

homes, beyond vague accreditation standards, every seemingly disparate 

dysfunction in the sector has combined to diminish the quality of life for 

aged-care residents. 

Labor had designed the wage increases – which providers would ultimately 

have to fund after early support – partly as a way to fix a problem with the 

aged-care funding tool. 

The tool, known as the Aged Care Funding Instrument, was the mechanism 

by which the government subsidy for individual aged-care residents was 

calculated. 

The tool was an unpredictable burden on budgets because nursing homes 

made their own claims, based on their assessment of resident needs, and 

the federal government then paid. 

Labor took all but $200 million of the $1.4 billion it needed for the wage 

increases directly from this funding instrument. This way, the government 

had a better idea of where the money was going. 

Abbott made no secret of his disdain for the project, which he labelled 

“unionism by stealth”, but as prime minister he blindsided the parliament 

by introducing a bill to terminate it entirely. 

Privately providers were ecstatic, particularly as Abbott returned the money 

saved to the general aged-care budget. 

“The providers didn’t want to do the compact, but they wanted the bonds,” 

says a senior Labor figure from the time. “The consumers didn’t want to 

pay more but they wanted a better system …


“The providers were able to wriggle off the hook. The one thing they didn’t 

want, Abbott got rid of for them.” 

In late 2013, the new government also moved policy development for aged 

care out of the Health Department and into the newly formed Department 

of Social Services. 

While the change would be brief – lasting only slightly longer than Tony 

Abbott’s prime ministership – the bureaucratic whiplash only compounded 

existing problems. 

Then, just six months after the workforce reform was killed off, the then 

assistant minister for Social Services, Mitch Fifield, torpedoed the Dementia 

and Severe Behaviours Supplement, saying it had been massively 

“oversubscribed”. 

Initial modelling suggested 2000 people in nursing homes would receive 

the supplement. Instead, by March 2014, more than 25,000 people were 

being supported. This cost was met entirely by government. 

More than half of all residents in nursing homes have some form of 

dementia. But rather than deal with the budget implications – an initial 

estimate of $11.7 million in funding in its first year blew out to $110 million 

– Fifield pivoted. He centralised dementia support in the Severe Behaviour 

Response Teams, at a cost of just $14 million a year. 

Thousands of people who would have received specialist dementia care no 

longer received it. 

These were cruel cuts, but the real trouble came with structural funding 

changes that would be introduced by Scott Morrison when he became 

treasurer the following year. 

Morrison was just three months into his new job when he delivered the 

mid-year economic update in December 2015. 

The treasurer booked a $472 million saving to be “redirected by the 

government to repair the budget and fund policy priorities”. 

This money was found by freezing indexation of the Aged Care Funding 

Instrument and making it harder for providers to make claims under the 

subsidy.


The next year, Morrison raided the funding instrument again – finding a 

further $1.2 billion. “Savings from this measure will be redirected by the 

government,” budget papers stated. 

Of course, Labor had similarly plundered the funding instrument just a few 

years earlier. But to understand why Morrison’s razor had a more severe 

effect on the sector, you have to focus on one word: “redirected”. 

When Abbott intervened in the workforce compact, or when Labor made 

its changes, they kept the retooled funding in the general aged-care 

budget. Morrison, as treasurer, did no such thing. As far as aged care was 

concerned, the money vanished. 

According to one registered nurse with more than 30 years’ experience in 

aged care, the $1.7 billion that Morrison broke off the funding instrument 

“brought the sector to its knees”. 

Since 2000, the cost of providing care in nursing homes has risen by 116.3 

per cent. But government subsidies to outsourced providers increased by 

only 70.3 per cent, royal commission analysis shows. 

In new evidence tendered to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality 

and Safety last week, the Department of Health concedes that “the level of 

[subsidy] indexation has not been sufficient to cover the increasing cost of 

service delivery inputs”. 

The department also gently reframed its previous allegations that providers 

were “gaming” the funding instrument – artificially boosting the care needs 

of residents in order to obtain more funding. It now says this was likely 

done because the direct care subsidy was not keeping pace with costs. 

“In particular, low indexation arguably encourages providers to make 

higher-than-appropriate funding claims under the [Aged Care Funding 

Instrument] model,” the department told the royal commission. 

We also now have evidence from two research reports to the government 

and the commission that whatever “gaming” was going on, it was 

happening in wealthy areas. 

For the same class of residents, such claims were higher in cities than in 

regional areas. And both were higher than funding delivered in remote 

areas.


Private providers claimed more for the same residents than non-profit 

providers, and both charged more than state and local government 

providers. 

Morrison’s changes crushed services in remote and regional Australia, 

which were already claiming less than they should have been. 

New analysis by industry accountants StewartBrown – which in the past 

year has also advised both the royal commission and the federal 

government – shows that 75 per cent of providers in regional and remote 

Australia are now operating at a cash loss. 

Morrison’s budget saving was delivered on the back of these services. 

At the time this was happening, and with the aged-care sector almost 

entirely reliant on government funding for general revenue, providers 

were raking in tens of billions of dollars in accommodation bonds. 

Then, in 2018, two of the listed aged-care giants, Regis and Japara, lost a 

Federal Court ruling, which forced them and other large providers to repay 

residents tens of millions of dollars in “service” fees that had been charged 

for no actual service since late 2016. 

At the same time, falling interest rates meant providers were making less 

from accommodation bonds. 

The increasing frailty of new entrants to nursing homes, twinned with the 

expansion of home-care packages allowing older Australians to stay in 

their own homes with subsidised care for longer, meant the average length 

of stay in an aged-care facility fell to less than three years between 2003 

and 2016. 

Owing to this, many residents chose to pay a daily fee, rather than a bond. 

In its submission to the royal commission, the Aged Care Financing 

Authority – which advises the Aged Care minister – painted a bleak picture 

of what led to the sector’s current woes.


“A legacy combination of a highly regulated system, funding pressures, low 

community status and at times esteem, incentives that do not reward 

innovation, together with elements of ageism in society, have combined 

with the result that the aged care industry has struggled in attracting 

management and leadership skills compared with better resourced and 

more dynamic industries,” it says. 

The authority also warned of “the danger that the government may 

respond to the symptoms of deficiencies in policy settings, rather than 

dealing with the underlying structural problems”. 

Moreover, with no mechanism to guarantee care hours or quality in agedcare 

homes, beyond vague accreditation standards, every seemingly 

disparate dysfunction in the sector has combined to diminish the quality of 

life for aged-care residents. 

Abuse, neglect and premature deaths are not rare incidents in Australian 

nursing homes but features of this system. The royal commission has heard 

as much. 

For the past two years, the Coalition has promised to crack down on 

the lax standards regulating $30 billion in bonds held by aged-care 

providers. So far, none of the measures announced in the 2018 budget 

have started or even been legislated. 

That year, the Department of Health first commissioned the consultancy 

firm EY to recommend changes to the prudential oversight regime. The 

work was then revisited by Deloitte, which handed its report to 

government in March last year, and then by accounting firm StewartBrown, 

which was brought in to review both the EY and Deloitte reports, delivering 

their brief in October 2019. 

In December, the government deferred the introduction of a mandatory 

levy on providers, which would be paid by every nursing-home operator in 

the event one or more aged-care facilities defaulted on their 

accommodation bond repayments by more than $3 million in any given 

year. 

About the same time, Covid-19 was already spreading throughout the 

Chinese city of Wuhan. It would arrive in Australia in just a matter of weeks.


While the virus did not cause the decline of aged-care standards in 

Australia, it highlighted the weaknesses that were built in by nearly two 

decades of government mismanagement. 

Last month, consultant Cam Ansell of Ansell Strategic provided a report to 

senior Department of Health aged-care officials with a sobering message. 

In a sample group of aged-care providers, representing almost 10 per cent 

of all operators, Ansell found they had lost $134 million in bonds since 

Covid-19. 

He estimated $1 billion had been lost across the sector as of July 2020. 

By January, that figure is forecast to climb to $2.6 billion. 

Residents have been dying or choosing to leave substandard homes in 

large numbers. If they are replaced, it is more likely now to be by new 

residents who choose to pay the daily fee instead of a bond. 

The Commonwealth’s lawyers confirmed to the royal commission that the 

government was so spooked by the impact of Covid-19 it had arranged 

meetings with Health, Treasury and “major financial institutions”. 

“There were discussions as to whether the institutions thought government 

intervention would be required and in what circumstances,” the lawyers 

told the royal commission. 

This is the first time the public is hearing about how close the government 

has already come to having to bail itself out of its own mess. 

One significant piece of work the Coalition has done since it came to 

power is to create the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, cobbled 

together from previously separate roles that once fell to a now-defunct 

quality agency and the Department of Health. 

In January, the commission received its latest transfer of powers. 

The regulator now “has primary responsibility for assessing and monitoring 

the performance of individual aged care providers against the Prudential 

Standards, and holding them to account for returning to full compliance 

where they are not meeting [them].”


It is a perverse arrangement. On the one hand, the government says the 

commission must uphold certain standards but at the same time it cannot 

afford for a provider to fail. And so many are now at that precipice. 

In March last year, Deloitte advised the Department of Health that 

sanctioning providers that failed to meet standards could push them over 

the edge. 

“In situations where a provider is already in financial distress, a potential 

disallowance of the ability to accept [accommodation bonds] by the 

Department may increase the likelihood of provider default,” the 

consultant’s report warned. 

“Alternative options might be more appropriate in these instances.” 

Throughout the pandemic, the aged-care regulator has been criticised for 

ceasing on-site compliance audits of providers. But this was a 

recommendation of consultant Cam Ansell in his advice to government, 

also handed over in March, about how to mitigate the loss of 

accommodation bonds. 

“To focus on appropriate and safe care, without the distraction of a visit by 

the [Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission] it is recommended that 

on-site assessments be postponed for at least six months,” Ansell wrote. 

During the pandemic, the watchdog has also been securing assessors 

through labour hire firms. One such application, seen by The Saturday 

Paper, shows the regulator is using the firm Programmed Health 

Professionals to hire casual assessors on one-year contracts in Melbourne. 

It lists the old, defunct watchdog as giving approval. 

The aged-care royal commission, announced in late 2018, was tasked with 

fixing Australia’s broken system for caring for the elderly and infirm. 

It was framed as a rebuke to dodgy providers, following multiple 

revelations of horrific abuse and neglect in nursing homes. 

Announcing the commission on a quiet Canberra Sunday, just weeks after 

he had ascended to the prime ministership, Scott Morrison warned the 

public that “we should brace ourselves for some pretty bruising 

information about the way our loved ones, some of them, have 

experienced some real mistreatment”.


But this doesn’t start and end with providers. To fix aged care, the royal 

commission will have to unwind two decades of government policy 

that has gutted and privatised the sector, promoted profits over the 

wellbeing of residents and tried, above all else, to ensure that the cost 

of caring for a rising number of elderly Australians would not affect 

the government’s bottom line. 

The inquiry will not hand down its final report until February. Calls for deep, 

broad reform and funding security were already urgent before its work 

began. A pandemic-induced depression has only put that urgency beyond 

doubt. 

In his “viability” review, with its dire warnings of financial collapse in the 

sector, Gary Barnier says the Commonwealth can’t wait for the royal 

commission’s findings. It needs to act now 

Source: 

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2020/09/19/the-collapseaged-care-part-two/160043760010442



'No clear evidence' of drop in quality of aged care: Murphy 

By Melissa Cunningham, The Age Health Reporter 

– The Sydney Morning Herald on September 18, 2020 

Federal Health Department secretary Brendan Murphy says there is no 

clear evidence that safety and quality of care in aged services declined 

because of the mounting financial pressures placed on the troubled sector 

in recent years. 

Professor Murphy appeared before the aged care royal commission on 

Friday as it examined how to best fund the sector into the future amid 

soaring demand. 

Secretary of the Department of Health and former Chief Medical Officer, 

Brendan Murphy, during Friday's Senate select committee hearing. 

CREDIT:ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN 

While being grilled by the inquiry on Friday, the former chief medical 

officer conceded the aged care sector was under significant financial 

pressure, however, he argued there was "no clear evidence" yet that 

funding shortages had led to a direct drop in service delivery. 

"We don't have any evidence at the moment that there is an impact on 

quality and safety from financial performance," he told the royal 

commission. 

Professor Murphy said, however, he "absolutely accepted" more needed to 

be done to support the sector financially into the future.


"We clearly accept the system does need a significant redesign, including 

in costing and funding, and transparency of that system," Professor 

Murphy said. 

"We do not dispute that overall the financial performance of the sector has 

deteriorated in recent years and it does needs some addressing." 

Professor Murphy was also probed about a 2016 aged care funding 

instrument (which is used to measure the level of care each resident needs) 

that he suggested was used to game the system. 

"A lot of providers were over-claiming and I don't blame them for it," 

he told the inquiry. "The tool was not an appropriate tool. We had to 

move to something better and I think we acknowledge that." 

Senior counsel assisting the commission, Peter Gray, QC, later pressed 

Professor Murphy to clarify his comments. 

"Over-claiming would be a form of fraud, wouldn't it?" Mr Gray asked. 

"They [were] doing it legally.... what I am saying is that the intent of the 

tool was being distorted the way it was used," Professor Murphy 

responded. 

"When I say I don't blame them, I'm just saying it's a natural thing in a 

tight, tight market when you have a government funding system for 

people to maximise it. The same thing happens in the tax system. The 

problem with this tool was that it was provider-generated and not 

independently determined." 

Earlier this week, former prime minister Paul Keating laid out a HECS-style 

loan plan aimed at covering home care costs for elderly Australians who do 

not want to go into a nursing home. 

The model, which has been cautiously welcomed by peak seniors’ groups, 

would reduce the fiscal burden on a younger generation already carrying 

the costs of the coronavirus pandemic. 

Former federal treasurer Peter Costello told the hearing earlier this week he 

was wary of such a scheme, as it was difficult to get the rate correct.


He also warned against raiding the $168 billion Future Fund, due to mature 

this year, because it was the best-performing Commonwealth asset during 

the difficult financial times of coronavirus. 

Professor Murphy told the inquiry he supported a reform for home care 

packages but stopped short of going into detail about how this may look. 

The royal commission will release a special report on the COVID-19 

pandemic in aged care later this month. 

The special report will contain specific recommendations by the 

commissioners to "expedite and facilitate the implementation of 

comprehensive measures to protect older Australians". 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/no-clear-evidence-of-drop-in-quality-of-agedcare-murphy-20200918-p55wvi.html


This is the first instalment of a series on 

Aged Care App MABLE 

The Liberal, Murdoch networks making 

millions delivering ‘Uber for aged care’ 

by David Hardaker for Crikey Inq



Revealed: the Liberal, Murdoch networks 

making millions delivering ‘Uber for aged care’ 

by David Hardaker for Crikey Inq on September 21, 2020 

An organisation appointed to provide a surge workforce for aged care 

facilities is backed by a powerful business network with connections 

to the Liberal Party and News Corp. 

MATTHEW PLAYFAIR (LEFT) AND LACHLAN MURDOCH 

(IMAGES: PLAYFAIR, MABLE, AAP) 

An Inq investigation has found that an organisation appointed by the 

federal government to provide a surge workforce for aged care facilities is 

backed by a powerful business network which includes Liberal Party 

donors, members and campaign helpers. 

Online workforce platform Mable Technologies was awarded a $5.8 million 

contract without open tender in April to provide emergency staff for 

COVID-affected aged care homes. 

Within four days of being appointed, however, the company was unable to 

provide staff for Sydney’s Newmarch aged care facility, leaving Newmarch 

— which had lost 87% of its staff — to beg the federal health department 

to find “other avenues … to source suitable and skilled staff”.


Mable’s shareholder list includes a number of individuals with ties to the 

Liberal Party, including: 

• Macquarie Private Wealth banker Matthew Playfair. Playfair was 

thanked by Liberal MP Dave Sharma for his help during Sharma’s 

campaign for the seat of Wentworth last year. Playfair and his wife 

Fiona were also reportedly in line to host a fundraiser for Sharma’s 

campaign. 

• Lawyer Lucinda Aboud, whose name is attached to a $20,000 

donation to the Liberal Party in 2013-14. Aboud’s husband Russell is 

the executive chairman of the billion-dollar hedge fund Manikay 

Partners. Lucinda Aboud and Playfair are joint shareholders in Prual 

Pty Ltd which has a stake in Mable Technologies. 

• Lawyer, company director and investor Ray Whitten AM, former 

president and current vice president of the Double Bay branch of the 

Liberal Party, in Sharma’s Wentworth electorate. (Whitten has held 

roles on NSW government boards and received his Order of Australia 

in June this year.) 

Playfair, Aboud and Whitten are part of an exceptionally well-connected 

network of investment bankers and investors, drawn largely from Sydney’s 

wealthy eastern suburbs, which backs Mable Technologies. 

The platform — an industry disruptor which links carers directly with clients 

— was developed by one-time Bankers Trust venture capitalist Peter Scutt, 

along with investment banker Tony Charara. 

Its major backer is Ellerston Capital, a hedge fund founded by Kerry and 

James Packer. Other notables include BRW Rich Lister Tony Wales, who 

made the bulk of his wealth with ASX-listed stock transfer company 

Computershare, and marketing kingpin Matt McGrath, brother of real 

estate figure John McGrath. Matt McGrath’s wife, the leading fashion 

designer Jodie Boffa, also has a stake in the business. Ellerston fund 

manager and investment guru Chris Kourtis also has a private stake.


Mable Technologies has also been backed by Scaleup Mediafund, a mediafor-equity 

fund owned by News Corp and other Murdoch media 

businesses. The grouping, closely associated with Lachlan Murdoch, is 

made up of Fox Sports, Foxtel, digital advertising company REA Group and 

Nova Entertainment (owner of metropolitan radio stations). The Ten 

Network is also part of the group. 

According to Mable, Scaleup has provided around $500,000 in advertising 

and marketing for the company, promoting the Mable name across 

Australia. It boasts that its network reaches every Australian household and 

can deliver “every target demographic with brand and direct response 

advertising”. In return for promoting the Mable name, Scaleup has a 

minority shareholding, meaning it too stands to benefit from the 

government contract awarded to Mable. 

A grouping of former News Corp executives, operating under the umbrella 

of Macdoch Ventures has also invested in the business. 

The Mable platform functions as a marketplace catering to a growing need 

for aged care as well as disability care under the National Disability 

Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The platform does not employ carers. Instead a 

would-be carer is a “member” of the platform. They upload their profile to 

the site and the client gets to choose who they will employ, using money 

from government-approved home and disability care packages. 

Mable is not a registered NDIS provider. Nor is it an approved Home Care 

Package provider. So how did the government come to appoint Mable to 

provide the essential backup workforce for Australia’s aged care staffing 

crisis? 

The Health Department said Mable was “directly sourced” in line with 

“procurement guidelines”. This was a limited tender with Mable being the 

only supplier. 

And what did it get for the near $6 million contract? 

The department told Inq that Mable had “met the deliverables” in its 

contract, though wouldn’t detail what the deliverables were, beyond access 

to workers via the Mable platform. These workers “would then fall under 

the responsibility of the aged care provider”, the department said.


Mable told Inq “a number of facilities” had accessed its platform, though it 

didn’t say how many workers that meant. 

Aged Care Minister Richard Colbeck didn’t respond to Inq’s questions on 

whether or not Mable’s powerful network of backers played any role in the 

company being granted the contract. Mable told Inq that co-founder Peter 

Scutt had been “engaging with various levels and sides of government over 

the past few years to explain its model”. It said that no shareholders of 

Mable, nor any of their connections, were “in any way involved in 

discussions with the government regarding the contract”. 

Mable advertises that it has more than 10,000 “members” on its books. Yet 

when the crunch came, it was found wanting. 

Grant Millard, CEO of Anglicare, which owns the Newmarch House aged 

care home, told the aged care royal commission last month that “very 

few” of Mable’s carers had residential aged care experience while 

some had home care experience. 

“Early on they just weren’t up to the task. It was dangerous for them,” he 

said. 

As COVID-19 engulfed Newmarch House, Anglicare spelt out its problems 

with the staffing solution in an email to the Health Department: 

“They have only been able to supply one suitable RN [registered nurse] and 

we’ve only been able to source six carers from Mable and we have a much 

greater need that it appears they cannot fulfil. 

“As you would be aware, we now have 20 residents and 11 staff who have 

tested positive and both cohorts are undergoing an extensive testing 

regime and we expect the number of infections to escalate. 

“Mable did have a significant number of staff who applied through their 

website but most were not suitable or did not want to work in a facility that 

had positive cases of COVID.” 

In an email to Inq, Mable concedes there were “some teething issues” with 

Newmarch but said that these were resolved after the first few days.


Anglicare’s CEO told the royal commission that ultimately Newmarch was 

supplied with some “very capable people” once “the requirements and 

specifications for the particularly challenging environment were better 

understood”. 

“These learnings,” Mable told Inq, “helped with subsequent use of the 

Mable platform by other residential aged care facilities.” 

At the same time the Mable labour supply model, experts argue, represents 

a highly insecure form of employment, with no allowance for sick days, 

holidays and no guarantee of continuity — a position not unlike the 

employment model used for hotel quarantine guards. 

A Victorian government inquiry into the so-called gig economy, 

commenced at the end of 2018, highlighted the insecurities for carers 

getting work using the Mable model. The inquiry reported in June this year 

that Mable had no process to “onboard” carers. Nor did it have a 

mechanism for sorting out lack of payment. That needed to be done 

between the carer and the recipient. 

Scutt disputed that the platform facilitated one-off “gigs”. 

“It’s a platform that enables ongoing relationships to form. The client’s 

needs are ongoing. The consumers and workers agree on all aspects of 

their engagement together,” he told Inq. 

This “relationship-based care”, Scutt maintained, offered “flexibility in 

scheduling that works positively for both consumers and workers”. 

Source: 

https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/09/21/aged-care-mable-liberal-news-corpconnection/


This is the second instalment of a series on 

Aged Care App MABLE 

The Liberal, Murdoch networks making 

millions delivering ‘Uber for aged care’ 

by David Hardaker for Crikey Inq



The Mable model brings free market thinking to aged care 

— just in time for COVID 

by David Hardaker for Crikey Inq on September 22, 2020 

This controversial app risks putting the vulnerable in charge of the 

vulnerable. So why isn't News Corp writing about it? 

(IMAGE: MABLE, AAP) 

Online carer platform Mable has benefitted from the advertising and 

marketing support of Murdoch-owned media outlets in what amounts to a 

remarkable blurring of editorial lines. 

As we’ve reported, Mable failed to supply emergency staffing for the 

COVID-affected Newmarch aged care facility just days after receiving a 

multimillion-dollar contract from the federal government to do just that. It 

has also been criticised by experts for its platform, which provides a kind of 

carers’ matchmaking service. It’s a hands-off model that risks putting the 

vulnerable in charge of the vulnerable. 

Yet little of this critical information has been reported by News Corp sites, 

which has pounced on other COVID-19 failures. Before now, critical 

reporting on Mable has been confined to 

The Saturday Paper and Michael West Media.


The Mable model is an example of the free market in action — warts and 

all — and as a method of providing carers it deserves scrutiny. The model 

operates outside regulations governing aged care and the National 

Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Wages are “negotiated” between 

carers and clients, with a risk that the lowest bid wins. The employment 

model also undercuts any unionisation. 

According to Paula McDonald, professor of work and organisation at 

Queensland University of Technology’s Business School, platforms like 

Mable put the onus on freelancers to pay for work costs usually met by 

employers. These include vehicle expenses, insurances, providing police 

checks, creating and updating online profiles, managing on-demand and 

fragmented work schedules, developing individual service agreements and 

resolving disputes. 

“Furthermore,” McDonald said, “a substantial array of tasks referred to as 

‘time out of life’ are mandatory for engaging with the platform but are 

unremunerated. Workers are only paid for designated booking times 

approved by the client and spent directly caring for individuals in their 

homes.” 

“By virtue of being a freelancer there is an inevitable erosion of the 

payment that is negotiated,” McDonald told Inq. “There is also the nature 

of care work, which is more often done by women. It is not purely 

transactional like an Uber trip and there is no additional payment if a 

freelancer goes over their agreed time with a client.” 

Mable CEO Peter Scutt rejects the criticism. He prefers to describe the care 

workers as “small business owners” who negotiate wages and resolve 

problems directly with clients — all part and parcel of the marketplace for 

work, provided by Mable. 

Mable, in the meantime, makes its money by applying a 15% charge to all 

fees charged for caring — 10% is taken from carers payments and 5% from 

clients. 

Scutt told Inq that Mable provided information to workers on things to 

consider when setting and agreeing on their rates with clients, including 

travel time, work expenses and superannuation, taxation, holiday and sick 

pay.


“The average hourly rate for workers offering social support, domestic 

assistance and personal care-type services Monday to Friday day time is 

$36 after Mable platform fees,” he said. Other inquiries have heard that 

Mable now has a minimum rate of $25 an hour. 

Mable Technologies, as Inq reported yesterday, has been backed by 

Scaleup Mediafund, a media-for-equity fund owned by News Corp and 

other Murdoch media businesses. In return for promoting the Mable name, 

Scaleup has a minority shareholding in the company. 

Its investment in Mable stands as just one example of News Corp 

morphing into a hybrid model of boosting businesses using its marketing 

and advertising power on the one hand, while on the other hand reporting 

on those businesses — all the while standing to profit when a business 

succeeds. 

Since its launch in late 2016, News Corp’s Scaleup has backed nine digital 

startups, including Mable. One is a matching platform for pet-minding. 

Another is for child-minding 

By far the best performer has been PointsBet, an online betting platform 

which has been wildly successful in Australia and the US. PointsBet listed 

on the ASX in June last year. As Scaleup’s marketing team put it: “With a 

strong proposition and campaign execution, PointsBet experienced rapid 

growth to reach over 123,000 clients at listing, a substantial increase from 

only 8000 clients at the time of Scaleup Mediafund’s initial investment 18 

months before. 

In August this year investing website The Motley Fool reported that total 

revenue for PointsBet had “rocketed” 194% higher to $75.2 million in a 

“breakout” year, producing an “astonishing” share price rise of 86.7% in 

one day. PointsBet recently launched the second stage of a $353 million 

capital raising. 

PointsBet’s success is the stuff of early investor dreams and has happened 

due to changes in betting laws in the US. 

Whether Mable yields the same success remains to be seen. The number of 

independent contractors in health and social care has increased 

dramatically in recent years, with online platforms playing an important 

role in that.


The aged care royal commission has already revealed the failings of 

corporatized, profit-driven aged care. The commission has heard detailed 

evidence on the adequacy of the Mable model and has already hinted that 

Commonwealth regulation of platforms like Mable might be on the way 

given that government money is used to pay workers signed up to Mable. 

At the same time, as Crikey has been reporting, there has been a total 

failure in the government system to protect those receiving care under the 

NDIS, with only one provider being fined despite more than 8000 

complaints. 

Source: 

https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/09/22/mable-app-aged-care-covid/ 


David Hardaker 

REPORTER @D_HARDAKER 

David has an extensive career as a 

journalist and broadcaster, primarily 

at the ABC where he worked on 

flagship programs such as Four 

Corners, 7.30, Foreign Correspondent, 

AM and PM. He spent eight years 

reporting in the Middle East and can 

speak Arabic.



Royal commission finds only one-quarter of people in aged care 

feel needs are met, final hearing approaches 

By Conor Burke for Aged Care Insite - October 2020 

The interim report, tilted simply Neglect, scorched the aged care sector 

with language shorn of any legalese, direct and to the point. 

Describing aged care as a “cruel and harmful system”, the commissioners 

said that Australians “owe it to our parents, our grandparents, our partners, 

our friends. We owe it to strangers. We owe it to future generations. Older 

people deserve so much more.” 

The current system is “designed around transactions, not relationships or 

care”, it said and “minimises the voices of people receiving care and their 

loved ones”. 

The commissioners also said that the sector “lacks fundamental 

transparency” and called out certain providers who have appeared at the 

commission as “belligerent in their ignorance of what is happening in the 

facilities for which they are responsible”. 

The aged care system needs a “reality check” and to focus less on acting 

like an “industry” and a “market” force which views people as “clients” and 

“consumers”. 

The commission intends to hand down its final report on 26 February 2021. 

Source: 

https://www.agedcareinsite.com.au/2020/10/royal-commission-finds-only-onequarter-of-the-people-in-aged-care-feel-needs-are-met-final-hearing-approaches/



Morrison government’s Covid-19 aged care preparation 

‘insufficient’, royal commission finds 

By Daniel Hurst, Political Reporter for The Guardian 


Report makes six recommendations including establishment of a 

national aged care plan for coronavirus through national cabinet 

The royal commission into aged care found the government’s preparation for 

coronvirus in the aged care sector was ‘insufficient’ but said now was ‘not the time 

for blame’. Aged care minister Richard Colbeck said the government would accept its 

recommendations. Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/Getty Images 

The Morrison government’s attempt to prepare the aged care sector for 

Covid-19 was “insufficient” in some respects, with residents and their 

families too often left in the dark about who was in charge, a royal 

commission into the sector has found. 

In a special report published on Thursday, the aged care royal commission 

said it was “not the time for blame” because there was too much at stake, 

but it made several recommendations aimed at protecting residents and 

improving their quality of life.


Describing the pandemic as “the greatest challenge” Australia’s aged care 

sector had ever faced, the commission said the already under-resourced 

and overworked workforce was “now also traumatised”. 

The commission called on the government to publish a detailed national 

aged care plan for Covid-19 and deploy infection control experts into 

nursing homes. 

The federal government – which has previously denied not having a plan – 

announced it would accept all six recommendations. 

More than 660 people have died in Australian aged care facilities during 

the pandemic, prompting accusations that the federal government – which 

funds and regulates the sector – did not do enough to reduce the risks. 

The royal commissioners, Tony Pagone QC and Lynelle Briggs AO, said they 

were in “no doubt that people, governments and government departments 

have worked tirelessly to avert, contain and respond to this human 

tragedy”. 

The report said the nation’s chief health and medical officers – who form 

an advisory group known as the Australian Health Protection Principal 

Committee – had acknowledged in March that Covid-19 posed a 

significant health risk for elderly people. 

But the royal commission said it was “now clear that the measures 

implemented by the Australian government on advice from the AHPPC 

were in some respects insufficient to ensure preparedness of the aged care 

sector”. 

“Confused and inconsistent messaging from providers, the Australian 

government, and state and territory governments emerged as themes in 

the submissions we have received on Covid-19,” the report said. 

“All too often, providers, care recipients and their families, and health 

workers did not have an answer to the critical question: who is in charge? 

At a time of crisis, such as this pandemic, clear leadership, direction and 

lines of communication are essential.”


The six recommendations included a call for the federal government 

to establish a national aged care plan for Covid-19 through the 

national cabinet. 

The plan should establish a permanent national aged care advisory body – 

beyond the temporary version the government recently announced – and 

put in place protocols regarding who decides when to transfer Covid-19 

positive residents to hospital. The royal commission said significant 

outbreaks in facilities should be investigated by an independent expert. 

The commission also called for all residential aged care homes to have one 

or more trained infection control officers as a condition of accreditation. 

The commission cited “deplorable” accounts of workers being told they 

could only use one glove, rather than two, and a guideline at one facility 

permitting only two masks per shift. 

It urged the federal government to immediately help aged care providers 

“ensure there are adequate staff available to allow continued visits to 

people living in residential aged care by their families and friends”. The 

report said maintaining the quality of life of people living in residential 

aged care throughout the pandemic was just as important as preparing for 

outbreaks. 

The commission also recommended the urgent creation of Medicare 

Benefits Schedule items to increase the provision of allied health services, 

including mental health services, to people in aged care during the 


It said increased levels of depression, anxiety, confusion, loneliness and 

suicide risk among aged care residents since March could be partly 

attributed to “missing family, changed routines, concern about catching 

the virus or fear of being isolated in their rooms”. 

The aged care minister, Richard Colbeck, said the recommendations were 

“constructive” and the government was “well progressed in delivering four 

of those six recommendations already”. 

He also announced $40.6 million in funding, including $29.8 million to 

bring forward the serious incident response scheme. The rest will go 

towards boosting the skills and leadership of aged care nurses.


Colbeck said every single death in aged care as a result of Covid-19 was 

“an absolute tragedy” and he extended his condolences to families who 

have lost loved ones. 

But he said he appreciated the report putting Australia’s figures in a global 

context. 

The report said the overall Australian mortality rate from coronavirus was 

2.6% of cases, which was low by international standards, given the 

equivalent rate was 13.6% in France, 12.8% in the United Kingdom and 

3.1% in the United States. 

But the report said the proportion of those Australians who had died and 

who were living in residential aged care facilities at the time of their deaths 

was about 74% – a high figure by international standards. 

The report said caution must be exercised when comparing care homerelated 

death rates in different countries, because of data collection 

differences, and it pointed to an international study that suggested it was 

more useful to focus on the share of care home residents whose deaths 

had been linked to Covid-19. 

“On this measure, Australia has performed relatively well, with a mortality 

rate of 0.25%,” the report said. 

Labor’s spokeswoman for ageing and seniors, Julie Collins, accused 

the Coalition of a “catastrophic failure” resulting in “a national tragedy”. 

She said Australians deserved action. 

“The foundations of our country’s aged care system have buckled under 

the pressure of a deadly disease and the Morrison government did not do 

enough to stop it,” Collins said. 

The royal commission report said Australia had already experienced two 

significant Covid-19 outbreaks in residential aged care homes by the time 

daily infection rates began to rise in Victoria in mid-June. 

But it was “unclear” whether the lessons were shared widely “before 

community transmission put people living and working in aged care in 

Victoria at risk”.


Earlier this week, Prof Brendan Murphy, the health department 

secretary, conceded some deaths could have potentially been 

avoided in aged care homes during the second wave of Covid-19 

infections in Victoria if the commonwealth had set up its aged care 

response centre in the state earlier. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/oct/01/morrison-governmentscovid-19-aged-care-preparation-insufficient-royal-commission-finds



Aged Care Royal Commission's findings have been batted away. 

But huge problems remain for Morrison 

by David Speers for ABC News on 4 October 2020 

Scott Morrison has repeatedly expressed sorrow at the hundreds of COVID-related 

deaths in aged care, but won't cop the blame. (ABC News: Nick Haggarty) 

Back in August, the Prime Minister bristled at the scathing critique of his 

government before the Aged Care Royal Commission. 

Counsel Assisting the Commission, Peter Rozen, QC, had not held back in 

summing up where the Government had failed heading into this pandemic. 

When the criticism was put to Scott Morrison, he dismissed it. 

"This is not a royal commission finding," he told reporters. "That is a 

statement that has been made by the counsel assisting. So that is not a 

finding of the Royal Commission. That is a position that has been asserted." 

Well, now we have the views of the royal commissioners themselves. Tony 

Pagone, QC, and Lynelle Briggs were chosen by none other than the Prime 

Minister to investigate the aged care sector before the pandemic struck.


On Wednesday they handed a "special report" on the COVID crisis to the 

Governor-General. The Government made it public late on Thursday. Scott 

Morrison is yet to be asked about their findings, but all of this will most 

likely be swamped by Budget news over the coming week. 

Aged Care Minister Richard Colbeck did, however, offer a response to the 

report on Thursday and it's clear the Government's attitude hasn't 

changed. 

Colbeck was just as defensive and dismissive as the Prime Minister back in 

August. This time the criticism was coming from the royal commissioners, 

but the Government clearly thinks they have no idea. 

On the central failing to produce an over-arching pandemic plan for the 

sector, the commissioners still believe "there is a clear need for a defined, 

consolidated, national aged care COVID-19 plan". 

In response, the Minister says: "The Government maintains its position that 

it has a plan in place." 

On the lack of critical guidance to aged care homes at the height of the 

crisis, the commissioners say the peak medical committee, the AHPPC, 

"provided no written guidance to the aged care sector in the period 

between June 20 and August 3." 

In response, the Minister says he's "very satisfied that the AHPPC was 

providing appropriate advice at the appropriate time both to the 

government and to the sector". 

According to the commissioners, "providers, care recipients and their 

families, and health workers did not have an answer to the critical question: 

who was in charge?" 

Colbeck says: "In my view there was always clear advice." 

The Government is now wildly at odds with the findings of the royal 

commission over the greatest crisis the aged care sector has faced. 

Whether the criticism is from the counsel assisting or the royal 

commissioners themselves, the Government is refusing to accept criticism. 

Morrison has repeatedly expressed sorrow at the more than 650 COVIDrelated 

deaths in aged care, but he won't cop the blame.


The Government still argues widespread community transmission in 

Victoria was the main reason so many died. 

An opportunity to fix the problems 

Colbeck has, however, accepted all six recommendations for urgent action 

made in the special report. 

Unsurprisingly, most of the recommendations go to the need for more 

staff. Staff to enable visits by loved ones, staff to provide expert advice on 

infectious disease control and to staff to address the increased "depression, 

anxiety, confusion, loneliness and suicide risk among aged care residents". 

In responding to the special report, the Minister announced an immediate 

$40 million to "enhance the skills of nurses" and fund "serious incident 

responses". The Government will need to go much further and it has an 

opportunity to do so in Tuesday's Budget. 

More than a million people are currently looking for employment, while the 

caring sector is desperate for workers. With skilled migration grinding to a 

halt, that demand is only going to grow. 

There's talk of a "caring careers" package being unveiled in the Budget, 

which will aim to encourage school leavers and job seekers to pursue a 

career in aged care, disability care or childcare. To show these are seriously 

valued careers will require someone to pay them a decent salary. 

This Budget is meant to be all about jobs. It may not involve hard hats and 

hi-vis vests, but a package to tackle workforce shortages in the caring 

sector would do more than just help society's most vulnerable. It would 

benefit the economy as a whole. 

The Government is refusing to be blamed for the coronavirus tragedy in 

aged care, but it can still make a positive difference to fix the systemic 

problems in the sector. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-04/aged-care-royal-commission-covidgovernment-cop-blame/12725246



No strings attached: aged care providers have the Coalition 

wrapped around their little fingers 

by Dr Sarah Russell | Business | Michael West Media 


Image: Unsplash 

Locking out visitors has made it difficult for staff to meet the daily 

care needs of residents. What an indictment on aged care providers. 

They receive billions a year in funding yet rely on the unpaid work 

of family/friends and volunteers. Surely it is time for complete 

accountability for their government funding, writes 

Dr Sarah Russell. 

The federal government failed to prepare the aged care sector for the 

pandemic. So stated the special report released on Friday by the Royal 

Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. 

And what was the response of the Minister for Health Greg Hunt and the 

Aged Care Minister Richard Colbeck? Did they finally take responsibility for 

the mistakes that led to the deaths of 642 older people in Victorian aged 

care homes or issue an immediate heartfelt apology?


No. Minister Colbeck responded with another cash announcement: a 

REANNOUNCEMENT of $29.8 million for a serious incident response 

scheme (first announced in July) and $10.8 million to enhance the 

skills and leadership of aged care nurses. 

This has been their go-to response whenever deficiencies in aged care 

have been revealed – give more money to providers with few strings 

attached. The pandemic has already been a cash bonanza for aged care 

providers, with the federal government committing “more than $1.5 billion 

of additional funding measures to support aged care preparedness and 

response’ in 2020”, according to the royal commission. 

And you can bet your bottom dollar there will be more to come in 

tomorrow’s budget. 

Providers claim the rising costs of keeping residents safe from coronavirus 

has pushed them closer to breaking point. But where is the evidence? 

Show us how taxpayers’ money already provided has been spent. 

No accountability 

Given that Aged Care Minister Richard Colbeck has refused 15 

invitations to be interviewed on ABC 7:30, we probably shouldn’t be 

surprised about a lack of focus on the importance of financial transparency 

and ministerial accountability. 

The commissioners made it clear in their report that they were concerned 

about the providers’ unilateral decision to keep residents of aged care 

homes locked in and family locked out, with some residents detained in 

their room for up to 66 days, something that has contributed to poor 

physical and mental health. 

The Government’s first cash injection was a “$900 per bed support 

payment” (or $1350 for aged care homes in residential areas) to contribute 

to the extra costs of managing Covid-19, including costs associated with 

“screening visitors”. Yet most aged care homes locked out visitors, many in 

Victoria since March when the pandemic took off.


The commissioners also noted that the reduction in visitors had made it 

difficult for staff to meet the day-to-day care needs of residents. An 

extraordinary admission that points to how heavily private providers rely 

on the unpaid work of family members/friends and volunteers to help with 

meals, exercise and care for their loved ones. It appears only some 

providers used their additional funding to increase staff numbers. Others 

reduced staff numbers despite the increased workload. 

As I pointed out on May 3, families were more worried their relatives in 

aged care would die of neglect than coronavirus. 

It would have been timely to address the power relations and the legal and 

human rights issues inherent in the ongoing lockouts. 

As Michael West recently noted, detaining residents in their rooms is 

potentially illegal. 

Instead, the commissioners recommended further funding to pay for 

additional staff to “facilitate visits” despite evidence that some providers 

will not use this extra money to employ extra staff. 

Another recommendation was to increase the provision of allied health 

services, including mental health services, to residents in aged care 

homes. Levels of depression, anxiety, confusion, loneliness and suicide risk 

among aged care residents have increased due to the absence of visitors 

and, in some cases, being confined to their rooms for months. 

Although the Health Minister recently increased access to mental health 

service for older people living in the community, this did not include older 

people living in aged care homes. Minister Hunt’s omission provided 

further evidence of government ageist attitudes to those in aged care. So, 

too, did the Prime Minister when he stated during Question Time: 

“For those of us who have had to make decisions about putting our own 

family, our own parents, into aged care, we have known … we are putting 

them into pre-palliative care.” 

With the average length of time an older person lives in an aged care 

home being 30 months, many older people move into an aged care home 

to live, not die.


While access to mental health services will be important, releasing 

residents from their rooms, allowing them to walk outside and ensuring 

their loved ones can visit will undoubtedly improve their mental health. 

Although aged care providers claim the lockdowns are to “save lives”, what 

type of life is it when you are confined to a room without seeing the 

people you love? 

If visits by family reduces staff workload and improve residents’ quality of 

life, surely family members could have been taught infection control. 

Reviews, task forces repeatedly ignored 

The commissioners also recommended aged care homes employ trained 

infection control officers as a condition of accreditation. A coroner 

recommended this eight years ago, back in 2012, after a fatal gastro 

outbreak in an aged care home. 

Again, like so many recommendations from numerous inquiries, reviews, 

consultations, think tanks and task forces over past decade, the then Labor 

federal government ignored this recommendation. 

The final sentence of the Royal Commission’s special report indicates that 

the commissioners are aware the aged care sector requires structural 

reform, but it has kicked the reform can down the road until next year, 

when it releases its final report. In the meantime, it recommends applying 

more band aids. 

The contrast between the royal commissioners’ special report and the NSW 

Ruby Princess debacle could not be more stark. In NSW, the government 

held a public inquiry to not only identify the mistakes but also to make 

those responsible for the mistakes accountable. Federal ministers Hunt and 

Colbeck have not been held accountable for the deaths in aged care 

homes.


Money down the drain 

There is no indication that the Prime Minister, Health Minister or Aged Care 

Minister have learnt anything. They continue to make announcements that 

give the impression they are doing something. However, without tackling 

the systemic problems is the aged care sector, they are pouring money 

down the drain. 

The horror story in aged care homes in Victoria due to community 

transmission could have been prevented if the prime minister, the federal 

health minister and the minister for aged care had listened to residents, 

families and staff, read the research evidence and acted on 

recommendations from all those inquiries. Instead they listened only to the 

usual suspects: the providers, the regulator and government-funded 

advocacy groups. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/no-strings-attached-aged-care-providers-havethe-coalition-wrapped-around-their-little-fingers/ 














During the pandemic, Australia's aged care regulator has been 

toothless and plainly negligent 

By Sarah Holland-Batt for The Guardian on 8 October 2020 

Aged care residents make up 75% of coronavirus deaths. 

Allowing providers to ‘self-assess’ their readiness for the 

pandemic is indefensible. 

The aged care regulator’s systemic dysfunction hasn’t been rectified; if anything it 

has been magnified by the pandemic. Photograph: Carly Earl/The Guardian 

In October the royal commission into aged care quality and safety 

castigated the aged care regulator as “unfit for purpose”, taking aim at its 

dismal track record in detecting and deterring neglect. The regulator was 

“distant and ineffectual”, the commissioners wrote. Too often its interests 

were aligned with those of providers rather than vulnerable elderly 

residents. 

This assessment, made pre-pandemic, came off the back of a slew of aged 

care scandals with familiar hallmarks: negligent providers repeatedly failing 

standards with few consequences; horrific neglect uncovered at facilities 

that had passed accreditation with flying colours; a near total lack of public 

transparency about complaints against providers.


A year on, the aged care regulator’s systemic dysfunction hasn’t been 

rectified; if anything it has been magnified by the pandemic. Its anaemic 

response to the threat of outbreaks in aged care – coupled with the federal 

government’s lack of a national plan – has left aged care providers 

fundamentally unprepared for the challenges posed by the pandemic. 

In March, when there was ample international evidence that Covid-19 was 

disproportionately affecting the elderly and nursing homes were at unique 

risk, the regulator halted unannounced spot checks of residential aged care 

facilities, leaving the sector without oversight when it was most needed. 

In a stark abrogation of its duties, it allowed providers to self-assess 

whether they were prepared for Covid outbreaks via an online survey, 

rather than deploying inspectors to independently verify whether PPE 

usage and infection control protocols were adequate. Effectively, the sector 

was left to regulate itself. 

Predictably, aged care providers proved unreliable assessors of their own 

preparedness: 99.5% reported their readiness was either satisfactory or 

best practice. Newmarch House, which sustained an uncontrolled outbreak 

that ultimately resulted in the death of 17 residents, rated its preparedness 

as optimal – in retrospect, a disastrous miscalculation. Another 372 

providers declined to respond to the regulator’s survey. In the meantime, 

crucial gaps in knowledge among the aged care workforce went 

unaddressed. 

At the royal commission’s special hearing into Covid-19 in aged care, the 

head of the regulator, commissioner Janet Anderson, was asked whether 

she was surprised by providers’ rosy self-assessments. Overall, there did 

seem to be “a large degree of confidence that providers were ready in the 

event of a pandemic”, she conceded. 

This overconfidence should have been a red flag to the regulator, which is 

well versed in the sector’s endemic problems, such as widespread neglect, 

abuse, malnutrition, and over-reliance on chemical and physical restraint. 

The regulator should have foreseen that the sector’s existing issues – along 

with its casualised, under-skilled and chronically understaffed workforce – 

would prove a powder keg when combined with a deadly pandemic, and 

intervened accordingly.


Instead its inexplicable decision to leave the assessment of providers’ 

pandemic readiness in their own hands has had catastrophic 

consequences: 673 older Australians in residential aged care have now 

died. They represent more than 75% of Australia’s coronavirus death toll. 

Even as Covid-19 has ravaged Victorian aged care homes resulting in more 

than 4,000 infections of staff and residents, the regulator has failed to 

make in-person visits. Since the onset of the pandemic, the regulator has 

inspected a mere 13% of aged care homes with outbreaks: 30 homes. 

Many facilities with outbreaks received perfect accreditation scores, some 

in this calendar year. How can the regulator plausibly claim to know 

whether the conditions that produced these outbreaks have been rectified 

in absence of a site visit? 

More concerningly, the regulator has sanctioned fewer than 10% of 

facilities with outbreaks. Many of the worst-hit facilities have escaped 

without sanctions, including: BlueCross Ruckers Hill, which had 132 cases 

among residents and staff resulting in 12 deaths; Arcare Craigieburn, with 

105 cases and 16 deaths; CraigCare Pascoe Vale, with 104 cases and 16 

deaths; Mercy Place Parkville, with 104 cases and 22 deaths. 

Even after severe outbreaks, the regulator has continued to outsource its 

intelligence-gathering: of the 20 sanctions it has issued in Victoria, only six 

were issued as a result of in-person visits from the regulator. The rest were 

issued as a result of information reported by health authorities. A number 

of providers have even been reaccredited without site visits. 

Australia’s aged care regulator has long been criticised as a toothless tiger. 

Unlike its counterparts in the United States and the UK, which use 

transparent star rating systems and publish detailed information on 

provider performance, Australia’s regulator shields providers from scrutiny 

and conceals vitally important data about complaints, staffing levels, abuse 

and assaults at individual homes from the public. 

It wields neither stick nor carrot to bring providers into line: 

its accreditation standards are either “met” or “not met” with no gradations 

of quality, meaning providers are given no incentive to do more than the 

bare minimum.


But during the pandemic, the regulator has been worse than toothless – 

it has been plainly negligent. Its failure to implement an infection control 

monitoring program until August is irresponsible. Its decision to allow 

providers to “self-assess” their readiness for the pandemic is indefensible. 

Families who have lost loved ones will rightly ask whether those deaths 

may have been averted had the regulator acted with greater urgency or 

had more boots on the ground. 

The Covid crisis has laid bare the egregious inadequacy of our aged care 

regulatory regime. It’s past time for the regulator to be disbanded, and an 

empowered regulator installed in its place: one that prioritises residents’ 

wellbeing and human rights over the current culture of secrecy. 

Transparency, accountability and compassion must be its guiding 

principles. This is the very least older Australians in aged care deserve. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/08/during-the-pandemicaustralias-aged-care-regulator-has-been-toothless-and-plainly-negligent 


Sarah Holland-Batt is an associate professor of creative writing at QUT and 

an aged care advocate



Despite more than 30 major inquiries, governments still haven’t 

fixed aged care. Why are they getting away with it? 

By Eileen Webb, Christie M. Gardiner and Teresa Somes for 

The Conversation on October 21,2020 

Australia’s aged care sector has been the subject of more than 30 

major inquiries and reviews since 1997. 

It is fair to say the findings have been highly critical of the way aged care is 

run in this country. Many of these concerns have been brought to light 

again — along with new issues raised — in the ongoing Royal 

Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. 

Yet, as the royal commission has noted, successive Australian governments 

have shown a “lack of willingness to commit to change”. 

Responses often come years after the review and recount what has been 

done in an almost tangential way. 

Even the establishment of the royal commission was not based on previous 

inquiries or recommendations, but in response to media exposés of the 

appalling conditions in some aged care facilities 

From these dysfunctional circumstances, three questions arise. 

First, what are the ongoing issues with aged care in Australia? 

Second, why have successive governments been comfortable making do 

with piecemeal solutions rather than truly “fixing” aged care, once and for 

all? 

Finally, and most perplexingly, why have Australian voters let them get 

away with it?


What’s the problem? 

It is important to emphasise that aged care is predominantly a federal 

government responsibility. The 1997 Aged Care Act is the main law 

covering government-funded aged care. This includes rules for funding, 

regulation, approval of providers, quality of care and the rights of those in 

care. 

Since 2019, the federal Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission 

Act regulates complaints, sanctions and enforcement, but has been 

criticised for lacking teeth. 

The 1997 act diluted many pre-existing regulatory protections, such as 

strict financial accreditation and staffing requirements, and opened the 

sector up to privatisation. At the time, concerns were raised the new 

regime could compromise standards of care in aged care facilities and 

disadvantage older people on lower incomes. 

The concerns were raised again and amplified in subsequent years. For 

example, in 2011, a Productivity Commission report noted Australia’s aged 

care system needed a “fundamental redesign”. 

Here is a brief summary of the recurring issues raised in multiple reports: 

• the huge difficulty people have navigating the aged care system, 

including finding accurate information about facilities 

• failure to meet the needs of vulnerable older people 

• poor quality care, especially for those with dementia and other 

disabilities 

• the use of chemical or physical restraints 

• inappropriate staff ratios and poor training 

• the rising cost of care, especially in light of an ageing population 

• adherence to accreditation standards 

• ineffective complaints mechanisms


Why haven’t these problems been fixed? 

One of the major hurdles to real reform is the relationship between the 

aged care industry and the federal government. 

The government funds the sector and provides a relatively “light-touch” 

oversight, while the providers attend to the day-to-day running of the 

facilities. 

However, there is concern this alignment has meant successive 

governments are not as involved as they should be and proposals for 

change are diluted by the influence of industry lobbyists. 

Another reason for governments’ reluctance to intervene is many of the 

providers are “too big to fail”. A facility’s licence and government funding 

can be withdrawn if standards are not met. Yet this rarely happens. 

Why? Because if a licence is revoked, residents need somewhere to go. The 

issues here can be seen in the closure of the Earle Haven nursing home in 

July 2019. Here, 68 elderly people were left homeless and had to be moved 

to hospitals and other aged care facilities. 

As a further example, Bupa, one of Australia’s largest providers, continues 

to operate, despite sanctions or failing fundamental assessments. 

Why isn’t aged care a vote winner? 

After so many inquiries and so many horror headlines, the problems in 

aged care are well and truly common knowledge. But do Australians care 

enough about aged care for it to influence their vote — and so, influence 

the way governments respond? 

If we cast our minds back to the 2019 federal election campaign, the hot 

button issue concerning older people was the potential demise of franking 

credits and negative gearing. 

In-home and residential aged care barely rated a mention in the campaigns 

of the major parties. 

Even now, despite the publicity surrounding the royal commission, if an 

election was held today, would this issue actually influence voting 

intentions? Sadly, it seems unlikely.


During the July 2020 Eden-Monaro byelection, a survey of nearly 700 

voters showed while 84% believed the aged care system was “in crisis”, this 

influenced the vote of less than 4% of respondents. It also ranked last in a 

list of seven issues of importance. 

When heartfelt concern does not translate to winning votes, there is little 

incentive for the federal government to provide meaningful solutions to 

well-documented problems. 

We only need to look to the record spending in the 2020 Budget, which 

provided only 23,000 extra home care packages and deferred 

consideration of funding for residential aged care until the royal 

commission’s final report next year. 

It comes back to voters 

Why does concern for the plight of people in aged care fail to generate 

public action? 

We suggest it is because many Australians consciously or unconsciously 

have ageist attitudes — that older people are inherently not important. On 

this front, look no further than arguments made by prominent 

commentators about the fate of older people during COVID-19. 

Yes, most fair-thinking Australians care about our older citizens, yet until 

either we or our family members are directly impacted, we do not prioritise 

it. 

If we don’t care enough or care about other things more, nothing will 

change. And, while this remains the case, the government will have no 

reason to do more than just tinker with an unsatisfactory status quo. 

Source: 

https://theconversation.com/despite-more-than-30-major-inquiries-governmentsstill-havent-fixed-aged-care-why-are-they-getting-away-with-it-147736


About the Authors 

Eileen Webb 

Professor of Law and Ageing, UniSA: Justice and Society, University of 

South Australia 

Christie M. Gardiner 

Associate Lecturer of Law, University of Newcastle 

Teresa Somes 

Associate Lecturer, Macquarie University



'National shame': 

Aged care inquiry hears of high levels of sexual assaults 

By Julie Power, Senior Reporter for The Age on October 22, 2020 

A royal commission has heard an estimated 50 sexual assaults are 

occurring in aged care facilities nationwide per week with lawyers calling 

for a shake-up of the sector that includes mandated staffing ratios, the 

compulsory registration of workers and a new independent watchdog. 

After two and half years of hearings that have included appalling tales of 

neglect, counsel has submitted 124 recommendations to the Royal 

Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety on Thursday. 

The proposed reforms also include a new Aged Care Act that would 

enshrine the universal right of older people to quality, safe and timely care 

of their own choosing. 

The recommendations are contained in a 500-page submission to 

commissioners, Tony Pagone, QC, and Lynelle Briggs, that was made public 

on Thursday. 

The proposals include improving the quality of staff in aged care through 

improved pay and providing more funding for education and training. 

They also want to put the nursing back into nursing homes. Although aged 

care facilities are often called nursing homes, most facilities - with the 

exception of some government homes in Victoria and QLD - are not 

required to have a minimum number of nurses on staff. 

In addition, from July 1, 2022, at least one registered nurse should be 

on site per residential aged care facility for the morning and 

afternoon shifts (16 hours per day). 

It also recommends that approved providers must engage registered 

nurses, enrolled nurses, and personal care workers for at least 215 

minutes per resident per day for the average resident. 

They also proposed replacing the existing regulator with a new and 

independent Aged Care Commission.


The recommendations are proposed by senior counsel Peter Gray, QC, and 

Peter Rozen, QC. 

Counsel called for the proposed new Australian Aged Care Commission - 

and its new commissioner - to be independent of the Aged Care Minister. 

The Australian Quality and Safety Commission, the existing body, is with 

the Commonwealth Health Department. 

Commissioner Briggs said the recommendation to establish an 

independent commission was "quite extraordinary, and indeed, some 

might even call it courageous" given the scale of the reforms 

recommended. 

Ms Briggs said she wanted to hear the public's views on whether making 

the proposed new commission was in the best interest of older Australians. 

"Aged care involves complex judgments and trade-offs. It involves the 

whole community, " she said. 

Given it would continue to be funded by the federal government, Ms 

Briggs, a former senior public servant, said, "I would expect that all 

governments would want clear oversight of over $20 billion in outlays." 

"I am yet to hear you present arguments, counsel, as to how the 

commission model will improve the quality and safety of care for older 

Australians." 

That wasn't to suggest the government's stewardship of aged care had 

been without fault, she added. 

The evidence had shown the Health department had defended the status 

quo when the problems were "blatantly obvious", she said. It had also been 

slow to act when asked to pursue reforms. 

Launching the final two days of hearings before the commission reports in 

February 2021, Mr Rozen said the commissioners had a once in a lifetime 

opportunity to create a better system of care. 

Mr Rozen said the commission had heard many disturbing accounts raising 

allegations of abuse of people living in aged care at the hands of 

caregivers and residents.


He said high levels of sexual assault and unlawful sexual conduct of older 

Australians in residential aged care facilities was 'a national shame'. 

The commission heard there were two reports a day of sexual assaults, and 

each week about 50 residents were the victims of unlawful sexual conduct 

with around 2520 cases in 2018-19. 

These figures grossly underestimated the real extent of the problem, the 

commission heard. 

"We are particularly concerned about the number of allegations of sexual 

assault," Mr Rozen said. 

The incidence of reports had risen from 2.16 reports per 100 residents on 

official figures to between 13 and 18 incidents per 100 residents. 

Of the 10,203 public submissions received, Mr Rozen said those relating to 

abuse were the most common. 

They included: 

• neglect [39 per cent]; 

• emotional [21 per cent]; 

• physical abuse [15 per cent]; 

• financial abuse [13 per cent]; and 

• sexual abuse or assault [3 per cent] 

Before outlining the recommendations, Mr Rozen saluted the courage of 

the 641 witnesses who had shared harrowing stories and the most intimate 

details of their lives.


Other key recommendations included 

• A new planning regime for aged care which provides demand-driven 

access rather than the rationed approach; 

• A new and independent process for setting aged care quality 

standards; 

• A new aged care pricing authority, a new Aged Care Advisory Council 

and a new Inspector General of Aged Care; 

• A new enforceable general duty of care on approved providers of 

aged care; 

• An independent pricing authority that will determine aged care prices 

appropriate to the provision of high quality and safe aged care 

services; 

• A recommendation that people aged under 45 should no longer be 

housed in residential care, something the Prime Minister has 

committed to changing; 

• More assistance to help families find the right care, including "care 

finders", and improved public awareness of resources to help families 

plan for future aged care needs. 

Source: 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/aged-care-inquiry-lawyers-call-for-staff-ratiosand-tougher-laws-and-enforcement-20201022-p567gh.html 

Royal commissioners Tony Pagone, QC, and Lynelle Briggs, are on 

Thursday hearing final submissions from counsel on future recommendations 

to reform Australia's aged care system.



Action needed on aged care draft recommendations now, 

unions say 

By Julie Power, Senior Reporter and Rachel Clun, Federal Political 

Reporter for The Age on October 23, 2020 

Aged care should be overhauled, peak bodies say, with lawyers calling for a 

shake-up of the sector that includes mandated staffing ratios, the 

compulsory registration of workers and a new independent watchdog. 

After 2½ years of hearings that have included appalling tales of neglect, 

counsel has submitted 124 recommendations to the Royal Commission 

into Aged Care Quality and Safety on Thursday. 

The proposed reforms also include a new Aged Care Act that would 

enshrine the universal right of older people to high quality, safe and timely 

care of their own choosing. 

They also want to put the nursing back into nursing homes, mandating at 

least 16 hours of nursing a day at each facility. 

The final report is due by February 26, 2021. Aged Care Minister Richard 

Colbeck said the government will consider the final recommendations next 

year. 

But industry groups say the sector needs a shake-up immediately. 

"Workers and residents should not have to wait ... The disaster is unfolding 

right here, right now," United Workers Union aged care director Carolyn 

Smith said. 

The recommendations proposed by senior counsels Peter Gray, QC, and 

Peter Rozen, QC are contained in a 500-page submission to 

commissioners, Tony Pagone, QC, and Lynelle Briggs, that was made public 

on Thursday.


Mr Rozen said a major challenge for the sector was how to attract and 

retain workers, the vast majority of whom were women. There was a high 

degree of unanimity that they were underpaid, both in terms of the value 

of the work they perform and relative to other sectors such as hospital 

workers. 

"The low pay they receive we submit is nothing less than the aged care 

system exploiting the goodness of their heart," he said. 

Mr Rozen called on providers and the government to back a special 

submission to the Fair Work Commission to make a one-off increase to 

wages. 

During the hearings, the commissioners welcomed some proposals and 

queried others. Commissioner Briggs questioned whether an independent 

aged care body was in the best interest of older Australians, given the 

complex trade-offs and the $20 billion cost. 

Health Services Union national president Gerard Hayes said the 

recommendations were a "breakthrough moment" for aged care that 

should be acted on. 

"Peter Rozen QC and Peter Gray QC have explicitly recognised resident 

care won’t improve unless we significantly invest in the size and skills of the 

workforce, which is horrendously casualised and fragmented," he said. 

"There is now no excuse for inaction. The government should adopt the 

recommendations today, not wait another four months." 

Minister Colbeck said the government has already responded with 

significant measures following the Commission's interim and COVID-19 

reports. 

"The Australian government is listening, acting and working to ensure older 

Australians are kept safe and quality of care is retained as the important 

work of the royal commission continues," he said. 

But Opposition aged care spokeswoman Julie Collins said the Prime 

Minister Scott Morrison rejected the commission’s previous evidence of 

failures to plan for COVID-19 in the sector.


"He also failed to properly respond to the royal commission’s interim 

report which included calls for urgent action on the home care waiting list," 

she said. 

"There were more than 100,000 older Australians on the waiting list for 

home care when Scott Morrison called the royal commission and there are 

still more than 100,000 waiting today." 

Centre Alliance MP Rebekha Sharkie said while the commissioners needed 

to consider the recommendations, there was plenty of work the 

government could start doing. 

"The government is simply in denial if they think the royal commission 

won’t require action on staffing ratios and it would be a simple action now 

to require transparency around the staffing arrangements in aged care 

facilities," she said. 

Source: 

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/action-needed-on-aged-care-draftrecommendations-now-unions-say-20201022-p567l5.html



Government rejected requests for PPE from hundreds 

of aged care homes at peak of pandemic 

By Rachel Clun, Federal Political Reporter for The Age 


More than 1500 aged care homes had their requests for masks, gloves and 

gowns from the national medical stockpile knocked back as the pandemic 

spread around the country and into homes where it killed hundreds of 

residents. 

All facilities that had COVID-19 outbreaks received personal protective 

equipment from the stockpile when requested. But a union representing 

aged care workers said outbreaks could have been prevented if the 

government had provided that equipment earlier. 

A better supply of personal protective equipment 

could have prevented aged care outbreaks, the union says. 

CREDIT:BROOK MITCHELL 

Information from the Department of Health shows 2865 aged care 

providers asked for personal protective equipment from the National 

Medical Stockpile, but just 1324 of those requests were approved. 

Health Services Union president Gerard Hayes said the number of 

rejected requests showed a government that only acted when 

problems "become acute". 

"The government has approached this challenge in a terribly reactive 

manner," he said.


"We know that access to PPE prevented outbreaks at some facilities during 

the pandemic. The importance of PPE was especially obvious after the 

Newmarch House fiasco. 

"That's why we wrote to the minister as the crisis was unfolding to insist 

the federal government immediately supply all aged care facilities with 

appropriate PPE supplies." 

A Department of Health spokesperson said the National Medical Stockpile 

was not the primary source of personal protective equipment, and the 

department "encourages all entities and people seeking access to the NMS 

to continue to purchase PPE through commercial means where possible". 

"The highest priority of the government is to ensure access to masks and 

other PPE for first responders," the spokesperson said. 

"Access to PPE from the NMS is based on an established need in line with 

clinical evidence and where access to commercial suppliers is unavailable." 

There have been 216 COVID-19 outbreaks in aged care facilities in 

Australia, and the bulk of those have been in Victoria. To date, 683 aged 

care residents have died with COVID-19. 

In August, a staff member from Ashfield Baptist Homes residential care 

facility tested positive for COVID-19 and had unknowingly attended work 

while infectious. But as the ABC reported at the time, all staff at the facility 

had been wearing full personal protective equipment. No other staff or 

patients contracted the disease. 

Early in the pandemic, that equipment was in short supply, Aged and 

Community Services Australia chief executive Patricia Sparrow said. 

"Hospitals prepare for these types of outbreaks routinely, but the key thing 

was we're not set up like hospitals," she said. 

When aged care providers realised they did not have adequate supplies 

and went to purchase stock, Ms Sparrow said, "there was not availability, 

and there was price gouging". 

In March, 910 aged care providers around the country requested 

personal protective equipment from the National Medical Stockpile. 

Of those requests, 214 were approved.


A month later, the first major aged care outbreak began in Sydney's 

Newmarch House. That month, NSW aged care facilities made 178 

requests for personal protective equipment, but 128 of those requests 

were rejected. At the same time, 90 of Victoria's 127 requests were 

also rebuffed. 

At the height of Victoria's battle with outbreaks in residential aged 

care homes in July and August, 1180 facilities asked for help with 

personal protective equipment, and 364 of those were rejected. 

Opposition aged care spokeswoman Julie Collins said the rationing of 

personal protective equipment to aged care providers as hundreds of older 

Australians died in residential care was "beyond belief". 

"While Australia's heroic aged care workers were doing everything they 

could to protect older Australians from COVID-19, the Morrison 

government was busy short-changing them," she said. 

"The government needs to explain why so many providers asked for PPE 

but didn't get it." 

Ms Sparrow said when providers had outbreaks or really needed it, the 

stockpile was a huge help. 

"Given the supply issues, they managed it as best they could and made 

sure that where there were outbreaks then the support was there," she 

said. 

Source: 

theage.com.au/politics/federal/government-rejected-requests-for-ppe-fromhundreds-of-aged-care-homes-at-peak-of-pandemic-20201028-p569a7.html



Yes, Minister: aged care, it’s not my fault 

by Dr Sarah Russell | Government | Michael West Media 


Aged Care Minister Richard Colbeck. Image Courtesy Crikey 

Ministerial responsibility is dead. With the refusal of Aged Care 

Minister Richard Colbeck to accept responsibility for the deaths of 

683 residents in aged care homes who died from Covid-19, so too 

dies accountable government in Australia. Dr Sarah Russell reports. 

The Morrison government has redefined Westminster ministerial 

responsibility. No longer does a minister bear ultimate responsibility for 

the actions of its ministry or department. 

The most recent example is the Aged Care Minister, Richard Colbeck, under 

whose watch 683 residents in aged care homes have died from Covid. 

“I don’t feel responsible personally for the deaths that have occurred, as 

tragic as they are, which were caused by Covid-19,” he told a Senate 

estimates hearing on Tuesday.


Given Minister Colbeck has refused numerous invitations to be interviewed 

on ABC 7:30, we probably shouldn’t be surprised by his lack of interest in 

ministerial accountability. 

Litany of failings by Colbeck 

Under the Westminster system, a minister is expected to resign if misdeeds 

are found to have occurred in a ministry. Yet Minister Colbeck has 

indicated he has no intention of resigning for failing to protect residents in 

aged care homes during Victoria’s second-wave. 

It is also possible for a minister to face criminal charges for malfeasance 

under their watch. Under Minister Colbeck’s watch, Australia has one of the 

highest rates in the world of deaths in residential aged care as a proportion 

of total Covid-19 deaths. While Minister Colbeck’s lack of empathy for the 

grieving families may not be malfeasance it is heartless. 

Minister Colbeck had advanced warning of the devastation that community 

transmission of Covid-19 would wreak. Evidence from around the world 

showed the virus spread like wildfire in residential aged care settings. It was 

clear he needed to prepare the aged care sector for community 

transmission. 

Yet he blames “community transmission” for the deaths in Victorian aged 

care homes. This is absurd. It was his job to prepare the aged care sector 

for community transmission of Covid-19. Without community transmission, 

it would have been business as usual. 

To prevent older people in aged care homes from dying from Covid-19, 

the federal government needed a clear National Plan. And it needed this 

plan in February, when it was obvious the death toll would be higher for 

older people who became infected. With proper and timely planning, many 

deaths in aged care homes could have been prevented. 

A special investigation by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality 

and Safety confirmed that Minister Colbeck failed to prepare the aged care 

sector for the pandemic. You only have to compare the Victorian 

government’s evidence-based plan to protect Victorians during the 

second-wave with the federal government’s failure to protect residents in 

aged care homes.


According to Professor Joseph Ibrahim, the planning should have included 

a national audit of all residential aged care facilities to judge their level of 

preparedness. Instead Minister Colbeck relied on an online survey in which 

99.5% of providers said they were prepared for an outbreak. Minister 

Colbeck should have known not to trust the results of a self-reported 

survey given providers’ appalling track record of self-reporting. 

Unfortunately, Minister Colbeck did not insist on a clear national plan. 

Instead, guidelines were initially released on March 13, a week after the 

outbreak in BaptistCare’s Dorothy Henderson Lodge in NSW, the first 

Covid-19 outbreak in aged care. This suggests these guidelines were 

written on the run. They were then updated on April 30 (in response 

to Newmarch House) and then again on July 14 (in response to the 

unfolding disaster in Victoria). 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison came to Minister Colbeck’s defence when 

he said: “There has (always) been a plan, and it has been updated, so we 

completely reject the assertion that there was not a plan, because there 

was a plan.” However, simply updating guidelines does not make them a 

“plan”. 

A national plan should have stated clearly: “All residents who test positive 

should be immediately transferred to hospital.” Transferring residents to 

hospital would have ensured they received competent clinical care and 

would have protected residents who tested negative in the aged care 

home from acquiring the infection. This strategy was used in Hong Kong 

where no residents of aged care homes died. 

Rather than transfer residents to hospital, some aged care homes 

“cohorted” residents into distinct sections of the home to keep separate 

residents who were positive from those who were negative. In some cases, 

residents were confined to their rooms for more than two months. Taking 

away an older person’s liberty by confining them to their rooms was 

profoundly damaging to their mental and physical wellbeing. It was also 

quite possibly illegal.


A national plan should have ensured all aged care homes had access to 

personal protective equipment. Yet more than 1500 aged care homes had 

their requests for masks, gloves and gowns from the national medical 

stockpile refused. In addition, staff needed infection control training. A 10- 

minute video was inadequate training on how-to put-on PPE and, more 

importantly, how to take it off. 

A national plan should have also included paid pandemic leave to ensure 

casual staff did not go to work when they had symptoms or were close 

contacts. It should also have included a strategy to minimise staff working 

in more than one aged care home. However Minister Colbeck sat on his 

hands until late July. By then, more than 60 aged care homes had 

outbreaks in Victoria. In each outbreak, a staff member brought the virus 

into the aged care home. 

Whose side is Colbeck on? 

To make matters worse, Minister Colbeck refused to name the aged care 

homes with outbreaks in Victoria. At a Senate inquiry hearing on August 4, 

2020, Minister Colbeck explained that providers didn’t want to be publicly 

named because they were worried about “reputational damage”. It was not 

Minister Colbeck’s role to protect aged care homes from reputational 

damage. 

On April 13, Minister Colbeck said: “As unlikely as it might be, we have 

plans in place for worst case scenarios where an outbreak in aged care 

facilities mean local staff are unable to continue to provide care due to an 

infection in the service.” These plans included a surge workforce. Yet when 

the entire staff at St Basil’s Home for the Aged were directed to self-isolate 

on 22 July, the surge workforce was unable to provide residents with the 

necessary care. 

Minister Colbeck acknowledged that there was no document outlining the 

surge workforce strategy. He also acknowledged that the change in staffing 

at St Basil’s Home for the Aged had created confusion, gaps in patient care 

and strained communication with families. However, he did not take any 

responsibility for the failures of the surge workforce strategy.


The contracts for the surge workforce went out as a limited tender, an 

approach the National Audit office says risks departments not achieving 

value for money. More recently, Minister Colbeck used another limited 

tender, this time to give two lucrative contracts – worth $415,800 and 

$503,800 respectively – to a member of the Aged Care Financing Authority. 

Jobs for the boys? 

It is also important to question why Minister Colbeck authorised nearly $1 

million to identify aged care providers at risk of collapse and to help stop 

them from going broke. How is this value for money? A more cost-effective 

approach would have been to support legislation to make aged care 

providers disclose how they spend taxpayers’ money, which would also 

reveal their financial strength. Yet, last year Minister Colbeck voted against 

a bill that would have improved financial transparency in the aged care 

sector. 

Reannouncing announcements 

Rather than take responsibility, Minister Colbeck makes announcements 

and re-announcements. For example, in October, he re-announced 

funding for a grief and trauma package that was first announced in 

August. He said: “The package will provide direct support to aged 

care residents and their families through improved advocacy 

assistance, grief and bereavement counselling and for aged care 

residents, home care recipients and their families.” 

However, residents and families would not need grief and bereavement 

counselling if Minister Colbeck had done his job properly. Also the best 

mental health support for residents is to see the people they love and who 

love them. This $12.4 million should have been spent on teaching families 

infection control. Instead, many families have been locked out of aged care 

homes. 

The horror story in aged care homes in Victoria due to community 

transmission could have been prevented if Minister Colbeck had 

tackled the systemic failures in the aged care sector. Instead, he has 

kicked the can down the road waiting for the royal commissioners’ 

final report in February 2021.


Sooner or later Minister Colbeck will need to take responsibility for this 

heart-breaking tragedy – which many of us predicted – that occurred on 

his watch. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/yes-minister-aged-care-its-not-my-fault/ 













Royal Commission into Aged Care 

Quality and Safety 

The Aged Care Commissioners 

delivered an interim report on 31 October 2019, 

a special report on COVID-19 and aged care 

on 1 October 2020, and are required to provide 

a final report by 26 February 2021. 

-------------------------------- END ------------------------------


Broken Promise-Emergency: 

$50m Emergency Response Fund 

Untouched 

= $0 spend


$50 million Emergency Response Fund untouched 

Government's $50 million fund to mitigate bushfires, natural 

disasters, untouched at end of financial year 

by political reporter Anna Henderson for ABC News on 30 June 2020 

The fund is intended for use in preparing for natural disasters. 

(Supplied: Queensland Fire and Emergency Service) 

Key points: 

• The $50 million natural disaster mitigation fund was set up this year 

but has not been put to use 

• Labor says it is "negligent" that the money has not been used to 

prepare for disasters 

• The Government says it has been using other funds to achieve the 

same purpose. 

An annual fund worth $50 million, to be used to lessen the impact of 

natural disasters, remains untouched by the Federal Government on the 

last day of the financial year. 

Labor secured the money for prevention measures as part of a deal with 

the Morrison Government to set up the $4 billion Emergency Response 

Fund at the end of last year.


But the $50 million for mitigation and $150 million for recovery 

assistance have not been used. 

Shadow Minister for Emergency Management Murray Watt said Labor was 

surprised the money had not been spent. 

"It's downright negligent for the Government to have these funds available 

and to not use them, and unfortunately I think we will pay the price when 

we get to the next disaster season," he said. 

"I just don't think it is good enough for the Government to be sitting on 

these funds." 

Senator Watt said the money could have been used for firebreaks, cyclone 

shelters and flood levees. 

"I think there are many people in our regions who are threatened by fires, 

by cyclones, by floods who could give you a list of projects right now that 

this money should be spent on," he said. 

Emergency Management Australia, an agency within the Home Affairs 

Department, manages the funding and provided a statement to the ABC 

confirming it had not spent the money and it was yet to be committed to 

any projects. 

"No engagement on expenditure has occurred," the spokesperson said. 

But EMA pointed to much larger funding pool shared between the Federal 

Government and the states and territories, arguing it was being used first. 

"The Government, in conjunction with state and territory governments, 

recently confirmed the investment of over $260 million over five years from 

2019–20 to deliver disaster risk reduction initiatives at the national, state 

and local levels through the National Partnership Agreement on Disaster 

Risk Reduction," the statement said. 

The spokesperson maintained the department was not obligated to spend 

the funds every year.


"While the fund is not intended to be drawn on every severe weather 

season, nor is it the Australian Government's sole avenue to support 

disaster resilience and risk reduction, the Government may choose to draw 

upon the fund if there is clear evidence that existing programs are 

insufficient," the statement said. 

Emergency Management Australia has confirmed that the unspent money 

remains in the fund's investment account. 

The Natural Disaster Royal Commission is expected to include 

recommendations for bushfire mitigation measures when it hands over its 

report at the end of August. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-30/natural-disaster-bushfire-mitigationfund-untouched/12402960 

-------------------------------- END -----------------------------


Australia Burns: Morrison 

Mismanagement of the Bushfires 

Australia Burns 

2019 – 2020 Bushfires


Morrison MISMANAGEMENT of the Australian Bushfires 

April/May 2019 - Former fire chiefs 'tried to warn 

Scott Morrison' to bring in more water-bombers ahead 

of horror bushfire season 

Reported by ABC News on 14 November 2019 

Key points: 

• Former NSW fire chief Greg Mullins says he doesn't believe he will 

get a meeting with Scott Morrison 

• He says earlier preparation would have helped keep people safe in 

the horror bushfires currently gripping NSW and Queensland 

• A giant water-bomber is on its way to Australia from the USA 

Twenty-three former fire and emergency leaders say they tried for months 

to warn Prime Minister Scott Morrison that Australia needed more waterbombers 

to tackle bigger, faster and hotter bushfires. 

Former New South Wales Fire and Rescue chief Greg Mullins — one of the 

founders of the Emergency Leaders for Climate Action Group — said the 

group sought a meeting with the Federal Government to discuss the issue 

in April and again in May, immediately after the federal election. 

"We have tried since April to get a meeting with the Prime Minister," Mr 

Mullins told ABC Radio on Thursday morning. "It's clear now we won't get 

that meeting. 

"We had some pretty simple asks that we wanted to talk to the 

government about. 

"Funding for large aerial fire tankers. People would have seen the images 

the other day of the Hercules coming in and dropping in 15,000 litres of 

retardant at Turramurra. I watched that with great interest because I was in 

charge of the fire there in 1994 where 17 homes were lost. That cut the fire 

off immediately. 

"We're only going to have seven of those [aircraft] this year. I've just come 

back from California and they had about 30 on one fire.


"Had we spoken back in April, one of the things we would've said is to try 

to get more aircraft on lease from the northern hemisphere because (we 

knew) this was going to be a horror fire season. They can be a decisive 

weapon. 

"If they (the government) had spoken to us back then, maybe they could 

have allocated more money to have more of those aircraft, but they didn't 

and they're probably not available now." 

Greg Mullins says he tried to warn the Federal Government 

about the current fire danger. (AAP: Dan Himbrec) 

Mr Mullins said the group had been told they would be able to meet 

with Natural Disaster and Emergency Management Minister David 

Littleproud "in a few weeks". 

"It is very, very disappointing that we weren't listened to earlier because we 

actually predicted exactly what's happening now. Measures could have 

been taken months ago to make the firefighters more effective and to 

make community safer."


Four people have died and more than 200 homes have been lost in the 

past week as firefighting crews battle intense blazes fanned by extremely 

hot and dry conditions in NSW and Queensland. 

On Thursday the NSW Rural Fire Service announced it was leasing a 

DC-10 Air Tanker from the United States to join its fleet. 

The water-bombing aircraft can drop 35,000 litres of water or fire retardant 

in eight seconds, and will be in the country for the rest of the bushfire 

season. 

The Rural Fire Brigade at Hanwood near Griffith in central NSW announced 

the lease on Wednesday in a Facebook post. 

"A DC-10 Air Tanker is loaded up and almost ready to fly out of America to 

head to Australia," the post read. 

Mr Mullins said he thought the coming summer was going to be "the worst 

I have ever seen" for fire crews, and renewed his calls for the government 

to take urgent action to address climate change and stop Australia's rising 

emissions. 

Last week he told 7.30 that he feared it would become increasingly difficult 

for Australia to get firefighting help from the US, as the bushfire seasons in 

the two countries began to overlap. 

In a statement to 7.30, Mr Littleproud said the Australian Government 

contributed almost $15 million annually to the National Aerial Firefighting 

Centre and "is currently considering further funding towards this 

capability". 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/former-fire-chief-calls-out-pm-overrefusal-of-meeting/11705330



Prime Minister 'fobbed us off' … to Angus Taylor … 

As fire seasons overlap in Australia and California, sharing 

firefighting resources will only get harder 

Reported by Zoe Daniel and Amy Donaldson for 7.30 ABC 

on 6 November 2019 

Key points: 

• California's fire season is starting to overlap with Australia's, which 

will make it harder to share firefighting resources 

• Former fire chief Greg Mullins is calling for more resources in 

Australia 

• A group of former senior emergency chiefs are trying to meet with 

Scott Morrison to discuss the issue 

Greg Mullins is frightened, and that goes against the grain. 

"My whole career as a fire chief was trying to calm people down," he said. 

"When you have people like me who have been around for half a century 

doing this work getting frightened — and I'm frightened — it's time for 

everyone else to be, particularly politicians in Canberra." 

The firefighting veteran and former head of Fire and Rescue NSW is in 

northern California, assessing the damage caused by the Kincade Fire 

which has swept through the state's famed wine country north of San 

Francisco. 

It is the third year in a row the area has been devastated by fire. 

Mr Mullins is a member of the Climate Council and Emergency Leaders for 

Climate Action. 

"The most fire-prone parts of the planet are burning more and more," Mr 

Mullins said. 

"Here in California, 18,000 homes last year, 9,000 the year before. 

Previously 3,000 was the biggest they'd think of. They're just shaking their 

heads saying, 'What the hell is round the corner?'"


'It's going to be harder to fight these fires' 

Speaking with Mr Mullins as firefighters tackle what remains of the blaze, 

local fire brigade captain Scott Rohrs explained that, as in Australia, 

California's fire season is getting longer, stretching resources. Fire size, 

speed and intensity have also increased. 

"When I started with this business, our seasons, especially in this region, 

would maybe run four good months. Now we start in April and we go 

almost to Christmas," he said. 

Even with arguably the best-equipped firefighting services in the world, 

California is struggling to keep up and has plans to add Air Force assets, 

like Black Hawk helicopters, to its fleet. 

Australia has relied heavily on leasing its assets in the off season. 

"The Erickson sky cranes, the Elvis helicopters, 737s with 15,000 litres, C130 

Hercules with 15,000 litres. We don't have them in Australia," Mr Mullins 

said. 

This poses a major problem now that the seasons in Australia and 

California are overlapping. 

"Their air force of 23 — one fire service, 23 fixed-wing water bombers — 

we have one in NSW," he said. 

"As each of the states and territories in Australia, their fire seasons heat up 

and start early, they won't be able to share trucks, people, incidentmanagement 

personnel, so it's going to be harder and harder to fight 

these fires and we need a national response to this." 

Mr Mullins is one of 23 former senior emergency figures trying to get the 

Australian Government to listen to their concerns about climate change 

and the missing capacity to fight fires in a new era. 

"It's up to the retired fire chiefs who are unconstrained to tell it like it is and 

say this is really dangerous," he said. 

"People are at risk, we need a game changer in how we deal with these 

catastrophes because they're going to get worse and worse." 

However, his written requests for a meeting with Prime Minister 

Scott Morrison have failed.


"We were fobbed off to Minister [Angus] Taylor who is not the right 

minister to speak to," Mr Mullins said. 

"We wanted to speak to the Natural Disasters Minister and the PM. We 

asked for help with that, we never got a reply. 

"You had 23 experts willing to sit down with a PM and come up with 

solutions, but he's just fobbed us off. 

"What does it take to wake these people up in Canberra? I don't know." 

In a statement, Emergency Minister David Littleproud said the Australian 

Government contributed almost $15 million annually to the National Aerial 

Firefighting Centre and, "is currently considering further funding towards 

this capability". 

"The Government is not considering the use of military assets to assist in 

fighting fires, as aircraft used for aerial firefighting are required to be 

significantly modified," he said. 

Mr Mullins, however, is not giving up on his push for a meeting with 

Mr Morrison. 

"We're coming into what I think is the most dangerous fire season — the 

most dangerous build-up to a fire season I've seen since 1994, when NSW 

was devastated," he said. 

"And there's not even platitudes, there's just closed doors and closed 

minds as far as I'm concerned. 

"That's atrocious that our national government doesn't recognise that 

there's a disaster heading their way. So, again, please listen, Prime 

Minister." 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-06/former-fire-chief-worried-aboutfirefighting-resources/11677760


FULL LIST OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY CHIEFS’ 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

By Climate Council on 21 December 2019 

This list is excerpted from a letter sent by Greg Mullins, former 

Commissioner, NSW Fire and Rescue, to Minister David Littleproud 

weeks ago, and can also be accessed in ELCA’s most recent media release 

here. 

There are about 20 recommendations that would make a material 

difference, none of which require Ministers to hold hoses or sit in control 

rooms. 

ELCA’s full list of recommendations for the Federal Government. 

Excerpt from letter sent by Greg Mullins to David Littleproud, 

29 November 2019 

1. The Federal Government to take immediate measures to aid current 

firefighting and community protection efforts by the States and 

Territories. 

We are extremely concerned about the potential of an already 

unprecedented fire season, with hot, dry conditions across much of 

southern and eastern Australia resulting in significant losses and levels of 

risk. Already more than 600 homes and public buildings have been lost in 

NSW alone, mostly in remote and rural areas and small towns. 

It is only the beginning of summer, which means the hottest weather and 

greatest danger period may still be before us, with more heavily populated 

areas likely to be impacted. Immediate resourcing is required to save lives 

and protect property over the months ahead. The following interventions 

would make a material difference: 

An injection of emergency funding for the National Aerial Firefighting 

Centre (NAFC) to increase the number of medium to large (5,000 – 15,000 

litre) aerial firefighting assets available for the duration of the 19/20 

bushfire season, given that significant fires have already broken out in 

every state meaning that there will almost certainly be increasing 

competition and needs for scarce strategic resources.


It is noted that a Business Case for increased budgetary support has been 

with the Government for some time, but not dealt with to date. 

Given that there has been relatively little research conducted into the 

efficacy of large aerial firefighting assets, the opportunity should be taken 

to conduct a structured evaluation of the use, effectiveness and costs of 

medium to large aerial firefighting resources, with a report and firm 

recommendations on Australia’s future aerial firefighting needs and 

funding requirements to be delivered before the start of the next fire 

season. 

We submit that AFAC would need to be a key stakeholder. 

Provide assistance to NAFC, if required, to negotiate rapid lease or loan of 

additional medium to large firefighting aircraft from the northern 

hemisphere. 

Arrange for an urgent meeting of Emergency Management Australia, 

senior representatives of the Australian Defence Force, and AFAC (as a 

minimum) to develop a structured approach to defining what, how, where 

and when the ADF can provide logistical and other support to firefighting 

and recovery operations in the short term (this fire season). 

This should then form the basis of a larger review, post-bushfire season, of 

possible expanded civilian support roles for the ADF during natural 

disasters into the future, given that current DACC arrangements are 

essentially ad hoc in nature. 

Communicate clearly to the Australian public that the nature of bushfire 

risk has escalated due to climate change. In many parts of Australia, 

communities have not seen the scale or severity of conditions before. They 

need to understand this to ensure they respond appropriately to protect 

themselves. 

2. Longer term, the Federal Government can make effective strategic 

interventions to increase community resilience and support fire and 

emergency services to cope with a more dangerous environment. 

Fuel reduction burning is being constrained by a shortage of resources in 

some states and territories and by a warming and drying weather cycle, 

which acting in concert reduce the number of days on which fuel reduction 

burning can be undertaken.


Of all the factors which contribute to the intensity of a fire (temperature, 

wind speed, topography, fuel moisture and fuel load), only fuel load can be 

subject to modification by human effort. Fire is an essential ecological 

factor, which has an important and ongoing role in maintaining biodiversity 

and ecological processes in Australian forests and woodlands. 

As a key element in mitigating the effects of future fires, benchmarks need 

to be developed for funding requirements of fire, emergency and land 

management agencies by states and territories so that they can conduct 

increased, targeted fuel reduction works, and have operational capabilities 

(people, equipment, infrastructure) commensurate with increasing. 

3. Risks and strategic fuel management requirements. A suitable 

reporting and auditing framework should be integral to this work. 

Provide funding certainty for an ongoing bushfire and natural hazards 

national research capability to ensure that Australia has the evidence and 

information required to adequately plan, prepare, respond to and recover 

from worsening conditions driven by climate change. 

Provide additional ongoing funding to the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) 

to properly resource a climate change and severe weather unit to provide 

vital early warning and intelligence for fire and emergency services. 

Provide additional ongoing funding for the BOM to further develop the 

suite of Australian Community Climate and Earth-System Simulator 

(ACCESS) programs that provide long-term weather prediction capabilities, 

and which enable fire and emergency services to better pre-plan for 

increasingly serious events. 

Provide funding for AFAC, BOM and the CSIRO to jointly develop improved 

predictive capabilities that can model bushfire, storm and flood impacts 

enabling pre-planning and alerts to communities. 

Provide funding to develop enhanced models of community education and 

engagement in order to increase resilience in a more dangerous 

environment. 

Provide funding to develop enhanced national fire danger rating systems, 

standardised community warning tools, and emergency alerts.


Initiate a review of Australian standards for building construction and town 

planning that recognises the increasing intensity of bushfires in a warmer, 

drier climate, including the effect on flame, radiation, and ember attack 

zones. 

Require that development standards and construction levels, currently 

based on historical weather data, are instead based on objective data from 

bodies such as BOM and CSIRO on future weather extremes driven by 

climate change. 

Explore the concept that bushfire planning standards be changed to 

require all populated areas to be automatically deemed as “bushfire 

prone”, with local government having a reverse onus to the present 

arrangements; i.e. to provide evidence to fire services to justify excising 

identified areas from bushfire building and planning standards, rather than 

the current system which can result in lower standards than required to 

withstand the actual level of bushfire risk in a locality. 

Commence research into provision of community refuges (hardened 

infrastructure) that might double as community sporting facilities etc, able 

to provide protection for communities during floods, fires and storms 

(eg. Portugal) 

4. Government action on climate change, the key driver of worsening 

fire and extreme weather risks. 

ELCA members have observed with mounting concern the escalation in 

extreme weather and natural disaster risks over recent decades. Our 

observations are fully explained by empirical data and peer reviewed, 

irrefutable scientific findings. The increasing risk and changes are directly 

driven by a warming climate. 

To protect Australians from worsening bushfire conditions and natural 

disaster risks, Australia must accelerate and increase measures to tackle the 

root cause, climate change. 

More substantial national action is required to reduce Australia’s emissions 

quickly and deeply to protect future generations, to safeguard our 

economy, and to protect Australians from the escalating risks of extreme 

weather.


Australia is a significant player worldwide. We are the 16th largest emitter 

of CO2 out of more than 200 countries, and our per capita emissions are in 

the top 10 globally. When our exported fossil fuels are included – we would 

rank 5th in the world in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. This means we 

bear significant international responsibility in the global effort needed to 

mitigate the escalating climate driven risks. 

We offer our expertise to brief the Government on the bushfire challenge. 

In the first instance, we would welcome the opportunity to brief the 

National’s Party room. 

The relevant department should prepare a report on escalating fire and 

natural disaster risks over the next three decades, including an accurate 

assessment of risks to communities across Australia. 

It should detail 

a) the long term budgetary and economic implications of experiencing 

and responding to worsening extreme weather; 

b) outline the preparedness required for communities, infrastructure, 

local government; health services and fire and emergency services; 

c) determine the resources required to properly protect communities. 

The results should be publicised widely as this information is critical to 

ensure Australia is as prepared as it can be for worsening disaster risks. 

Source: 

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/full-list-of-fire-and-emergency-chiefsrecommendations-to-federal-government/



Scott Morrison attended Christmas drinks at 

Lachlan and Sarah Murdoch’s Sydney mansion 

on 5 December 2019 as the Australian continent burned 

Source: 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5114381/Murdochs-return-home-23- 

million-mansion-Sydney.html



#Hawaii 

Monday 16 December – Sunday 22 December 2019 

This is the bloke who criticised Police Commissioner for eating dinner 

during the 2009 Victorian fires. 

Morrison pops off for three-week vacation during fires … 

As so often in politics, it's the cover-up that gets you. 

Morrison: "I don't hold a hose, mate, and I don't sit in a control room" 

while on holiday during the country's catastrophic bushfire emergency. 

It was reported later that his adviser, Nick Louw, was in the Hawaiian photo 

with morrison. 

Scott Morrison and Nick Louw enjoying some brews on the beach 

Source: Instagram



Scott Morrison says compensation for volunteer firefighters 

not a priority 

By political reporter Jack Snape – ABC News on 23 December 2019 

Labor leader Anthony Albanese wants an urgent meeting of state and 

federal leaders to discuss the bushfire threat and address the need to 

pay firefighters. 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has said the Government is "not going to 

make any knee-jerk responses" to the growing bushfire catastrophe, 

despite calls for compensation for firefighters. 

Source: ABC News 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-23/scott-morrison-anthony-albanesebushfires-meeting/11823128



ScoMo's awkward moment with tourist on Hawaii holiday 

“his comment to me was … ‘no, that’s a state issue” 

Reported by Yahoo News Australia on 23 December 2019 

The tourist who snapped Scott Morrison relaxing in Hawaii has slated the 

prime minister for his dismissive comments about the bushfires which are 

savaging Australia. 

Following Mr Morrison’s promise to get back to Australia as soon as he 

possibly could, the tourist in Hawaii snapped a photo of Mr Morrison on 

the beach, clearly not rushing to get on a flight back to Australia. 

The tourist spoke to 10 News First and said Mr Morrison was “quite happy” 

to sit back and down cocktails, while the firefighters in Australia battled 

out-of-control blazes. 

The tourist then asked the PM if he would be going back to Australia to 

“resolve the bushfire situation” and the PM said it was a “state issue”. 

“His comment to me was ‘no, that’s a state issue’,” Mr Way said. 

“I think the man just needs to step back and take a bit of a check on 

himself.” 

However, once he returned home he justified his holiday by saying he is 

not a trained firefighter. 

“They know I’m not going to stand there and hold a hose,” he told 

reporters when he returned home from his holiday on Saturday evening.


An image of Scott Morrison in Hawaii started to circulate online after he said he 

would 'rush back' to Australia. Source: Twitter/Ben Parsons



New Years Eve - 31 December 2019 

'More tasteless than the fireworks themselves' 

Scott Morrison is slammed for hosting an exclusive NYE dinner at Kirribilli 

House while Australia burns 

Scott Morrison saw in the new year by hosting an exclusive event where 

guests enjoyed front-row views of the $6.5 million fireworks display 

from Kirribilli House. 

Family and close friends gathered at the Prime Minister's home on 

Sydney's North Shore on Tuesday night for dinner. It was reported friends 

included Tim and Lynelle Stewart and Brian and Bobbie Houston. 

Many people were outraged when they heard the Prime Minister was 

celebrating when so many people across the country were suffering due to 

the bushfires. 

Source: 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7841763/Scott-Morrison-celebrates-New-Years- 

Eve-party-Kirribilli-House-watch-fireworks-Sydney.html 

Scott Morrison (pictured) hosted a New Year's Eve event where guests watched the 

$6.5 million fireworks display from Kirribilli House



New Years Day with Cricket Team at Kirribilli House 

- 1 January 2020 

Scott Morrison hosted Tim Paine’s team & their NZ opponents at Kirribilli 

House on New Years Day 

“But at the same time Australians will be gathered whether it’s at the SCG 

(Sydney Cricket Ground) or around television sets all around the country 

and they’ll be inspired by the great feats of our cricketers … 

PM's spruiking of the SCG Test match between Australia and NZ did not go 

down well during the bush fires. 

Morrison brushes over mounting concerns regarding climate change, 

drought, and Government land management by attributing the cause of 

the bushfires to “lightning storms, or whatever the cause may be.” 

Source: 

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-cricket-commentsslammed-amid-bushfire-crisis-022727600.html 

Sydney Morning Herald



Australia, your country is burning 

– dangerous climate change is here with you now 

Michael Mann for The Guardian on 2 January 2020 

I am a climate scientist on holiday in the Blue Mountains, watching 

climate change in action 

‘In Australia, beds are burning. So are entire towns, irreplaceable forests 

and endangered and precious animal species such as the koala.’ 

Photograph: State Government of Victoria Handout/EPA 

After years studying the climate, my work has brought me to Sydney where 

I’m studying the linkages between climate change and extreme weather 

events. 

Prior to beginning my sabbatical stay in Sydney, I took the opportunity this 

holiday season to vacation in Australia with my family. We went to see the 

Great Barrier Reef – one of the great wonders of this planet – while we still 

can. Subject to the twin assaults of warming-caused bleaching and ocean 

acidification, it will be gone in a matter of decades in the absence of a 

dramatic reduction in global carbon emissions. 

We also travelled to the Blue Mountains, another of Australia’s natural 

wonders, known for its lush temperate rainforests, majestic cliffs and rock 

formations and panoramic vistas that challenge any the world has to offer. 

It too is now threatened by climate change.


I witnessed this firsthand. 

I did not see vast expanses of rainforest framed by distant, blue-tinged 

mountain ranges. Instead I looked out into smoke-filled valleys, with only 

the faintest ghosts of distant ridges and peaks in the background. The 

iconic blue tint (which derives from a haze formed from “terpenes” emitted 

by the Eucalyptus trees that are so plentiful here) was replaced by a brown 

haze. The blue sky, too, had been replaced by that brown haze. 

The locals, whom I found to be friendly and outgoing, would volunteer that 

they have never seen anything like this before. Some even uttered the 

words “climate change” without any prompting. 

The songs of Peter Garrett and Midnight Oil I first enjoyed decades ago 

have taken on a whole new meaning for me now. They seem disturbingly 

prescient in light of what we are witnessing unfold in Australia. 

The brown skies I observed in the Blue Mountains this week are a product 

of human-caused climate change. Take record heat, combine it with 

unprecedented drought in already dry regions and you get unprecedented 

bushfires like the ones engulfing the Blue Mountains and spreading across 

the continent. It’s not complicated. 

The warming of our planet – and the changes in climate associated with it – 

are due to the fossil fuels we’re burning: oil, whether at midnight or any 

other hour of the day, natural gas, and the biggest culprit of all, coal. That’s 

not complicated either. 

When we mine for coal, like the controversial planned Adani coalmine, 

which would more than double Australia’s coal-based carbon emissions, 

we are literally mining away at our blue skies. The Adani coalmine could 

rightly be renamed the Blue Sky mine. 

In Australia, beds are burning. So are entire towns, irreplaceable forests and 

endangered and precious animal species such as the koala (arguably the 

world’s only living plush toy) are perishing in massive numbers due to the 

unprecedented bushfires. 

The continent of Australia is figuratively – and in some sense literally – on 

fire.


Yet the prime minister, Scott Morrison, appears remarkably 

indifferent to the climate emergency Australia is suffering through, 

having chosen to vacation in Hawaii as Australians are left to contend 

with unprecedented heat and bushfires. 

Morrison has shown himself to be beholden to coal interests and his 

administration is considered to have conspired with a small number of 

petrostates to sabotage the recent UN climate conference in Madrid 

(“COP25”), seen as a last ditch effort to keep planetary warming 

below a level (1.5C) considered by many to constitute “dangerous” 

planetary warming. 

But Australians need only wake up in the morning, turn on the television, 

read the newspaper or look out the window to see what is increasingly 

obvious to many – for Australia, dangerous climate change is already here. 

It’s simply a matter of how much worse we’re willing to allow it to get. 

Australia is experiencing a climate emergency. It is literally burning. It 

needs leadership that is able to recognise that and act. And it needs voters 

to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box. 

Australians must vote out fossil-fuelled politicians who have chosen to be 

part of the problem and vote in climate champions who are willing to solve 

it. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/02/australia-your-countryis-burning-dangerous-climate-change-is-here-with-you-now 


Michael E Mann is distinguished professor of atmospheric science at 

Pennsylvania State University. His most recent book, with Tom Toles, is The 

Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, 

Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy (Columbia University Press, 

2016).



Scott Morrison's political ad is a bizarre act of self-love 

as firefighters battle to save Australia 

By Katharine Murphy, Political Editor – The Guardian 

on 4 January 2020 

It really is hard to keep up with a prime minister who declares one minute 

disaster management is predominantly a state responsibility, and he won’t 

be running over the top of state premiers, and then, seemingly, five 

minutes later, calls out the ADF reserve, deploys military assets and 

procures more water bombers than anyone asked for. 

This kind of plot twist is dizzying stuff in normal conditions, let alone in the 

middle of a disaster, when the prime ministerial norm is generally one of 

steadiness and consistency. 

Perhaps it was Scott Morrison’s own demonstrable lack of clarity about 

what his government was, or was not, doing, in response to Australia’s 

catastrophic summer of bushfires that prompted his communications 

team to pump out a promotional video – on one of the most perilous days 

of the disaster – outlining today’s initiatives 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/04/scott-morrisonspolitical-ad-is-a-bizarre-act-of-self-love-as-firefighters-battle-to-save-australia 

5 January 2020 

Under Australia’s federation political system, state governments and fire 

services are responsible for managing bushfire threats, but Morrison 

said the unprecedented scale of the current crisis demanded a national 

response.



'We will meet every cost': 

Bushfire recovery to take priority over budget surplus 

by David Crowe, chief political correspondent for The Sydney Morning 

Herald on January 6, 2020 

Newshub 

Bushfire recovery will take priority over the budget surplus in a mammoth 

federal program starting with a $2 billion fund that could surge in size over 

the next few years to rebuild after the summer crisis. 

Cash payments are being promised immediately to help families, 

employers and local councils to recover from the bushfires, with the outlays 

expected to trim the budget surplus this year by $500 million. 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison vowed to meet "every cost that needs to be 

met" through the new National Bushfire Recovery Fund as well as an 

Australian Defence Force (ADF) operation that continues to evacuate 

bushfire victims and has mobilised the Army Reserve.


But Mr Morrison remains under pressure over his management of the 

federal response, with Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese criticising 

the "incomprehensible" mistake of not consulting state officials ahead of 

the Army Reserve deployment. 

Mr Morrison acknowledged the new spending would reduce the 

surplus, previously forecast to be $5 billion this financial year, but said this 

was not the priority. 

"The surplus is of no focus for me," he said. "What matters to me is the 

human cost and meeting whatever cost we need to meet." 

The government is yet to put an estimate on the economic damage from 

the fires, saying it is too soon with the emergency still underway, but has 

ruled out a levy to cover the cost of the reconstruction. 

"This is an initial and additional investment of $2 billion. If more is needed 

and the cost is higher, then more will be provided," Mr Morrison said. 

"We will meet every cost that needs to be met, we will make every 

investment that needs to be made, both to assist the response to this crisis 

and the recovery needs that follow. That is clearly the priority now." 

The states will not be asked for matching funding for the federal projects, 

which could range from supporting a local tourism industry, council 

building works or mental health services. 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg say the 

budget surplus is not a priority in the context of the human cost of the bushfires. 

CREDIT:ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN


With farmers and small business owners suffering a blow to their incomes 

and the loss of their assets, the government is promising to use the money 

to help employers keep operating. 

As an example, Mr Morrison cited payments of up to $75,000 to primary 

producers and said similar grants had been "lifesavers" to farmers hurt by 

previous disasters. 

The new fund will be separate from existing disaster assistance payments, 

such as cash outlays equivalent to Newstart for those who have been 

caught up in a disaster and which are available immediately. 

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said the indicative cost to the budget would be 

$500 million this financial year, followed by $1 billion in 2020-21 and 

$500 million in 2021-22, but he said more funding would be brought 

forward if needed. 

The cost of the disaster recovery assistance for Queenslanders hit by 

Cyclone Yasi reached $5.6 billion over the years after the 2011 emergency, 

highlighting the potential cost to the Commonwealth beyond the new 

fund. 

As well, the federal government will suspend debt recovery from welfare 

recipients in the targeted areas, while forming 20 small teams of public 

servants to be located with the ADF and help take questions about 

Centrelink payments and other help. 

"We've already taken a number of decisions in this area to streamline those 

payments – it's important that cash gets in people's hands as soon as 

possible," Mr Morrison said. 

Mr Morrison announced the bushfire recovery fund a day after naming 

former Australian Federal Police commissioner Andrew Colvin to lead a 

new National Bushfire Recovery Agency on Sunday. 

The Australian Tax Office will offer an automatic two-month deferral of 

payment and lodgement obligations for those in fire-affected areas, while 

the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has set up a hotline 

for people worried about bushfire charity scams.


Mr Frydenberg will meet insurance company executives in Canberra on 

Tuesday to discuss their handling of claims from victims, but the meeting 

has caused friction over whether it is necessary when government officials 

admit they have few complaints from customers to date. Insurers have 

handled more than 6000 claims from bushfire regions in NSW, Queensland, 

South Australia and Victoria and estimate the insurance losses to be 

$431 million this bushfire season. 

With the government under political attack over Mr Morrison's holiday in 

Hawaii and social media advertising about his bushfire response, some 

insurers believe the meeting is being held only to project a sense of action 

on an issue that is under control. 

Insurers have closed 93 per cent of the 30,000 claims from the Townsville 

flood last February, according to a brief sent to the government to fend off 

any attacks over the industry's performance. 

Mr Albanese criticised the communication breakdown between the federal 

and NSW governments over the defence deployment and said 

Mr Morrison should have acted more swiftly with a national response to 

the emergency. 

"I do think from the beginning there should have been a national response 

that was agreed to by the Prime Minister on Saturday," he said. 

"I do think that's why people have responded very negatively to the Liberal 

Party ad that was authorised by the Prime Minister on Saturday, which even 

had a button on it for donations, not to the bushfire recovery, but to the 

Liberal Party." 

Greens leader Richard Di Natale said the Prime Minister's actions showed 

he did not understand the scale of the threat from climate change and 

bushfires. 

"Some political leaders rise to a crisis, while others shrink away and show 

themselves to be unfit for the job," Senator Di Natale said. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/bushfire-recovery-fund-to-get-2-billionover-two-years-20200106-p53p8j.html



Australia's fires are 46% bigger than last year's 

Brazilian Amazon blazes. 

There are at least 2 months of fire season to go. 

Aylin Woodward for Insider on January 9, 2020 

Firefighters struggle against the strong wind in an effort to secure nearby houses 

from bushfires near the town of Nowra in the Australian state of New South Wales, 

December 31, 2019. Saeed Khan/AFP/Getty 

• Since September, bushfires have razed an estimated 

25 million acres in Australia. That's an area larger than South Korea, 

and 46% more than the total that burned in the Brazilian 

Amazon last year. 

• Hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to evacuate, 

and more than 1 billion animals are feared dead. 

• Drought conditions and record-breaking temperatures contributed 

to the fires' unprecedented scale and intensity. 

• The carbon dioxide the blazes send into the atmosphere contributes 

to climate change, raising the risk of more large fires in the future.


Australia has become an inferno. More than half of the country is choking 

on smoke, and the skies glow orange as bushfires continue to ravage the 

continent. 

Since the start of the bushfire season in September, an estimated 25.5 

million acres have burned in Australia, according to Reuters, and at least 

25 people have died. More than 1 billion animals are feared dead, and an 

estimated 2,000 homes have been destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of 

people have been forced to evacuate. 

The total damage and economic losses will exceed $100 billion, according 

to Accuweather. 

Australia experiences fires every fall, but this year's crisis — which comes 

on the heels of a heat wave and prolonged drought — is unprecedented. 

By comparison, the fires that plagued the Brazilian Amazon last year 

burned 17.5 million acres of rainforest, which is 7 million fewer acres than 

the impacted area in Australia. (However, most of the Amazon fires were 

deliberately set by ranchers and loggers looking to clear land, whereas 

Australia's bushfires mostly started due to natural causes.) 

A satellite photo of Bateman Bay on the southern coast of New South Wales, 

Australia, on December 31, 2019. Copernicus EMS


The fires could be part of an ominous feedback loop: The more land burns, 

the more carbon dioxide gets released into the atmosphere, and the more 

trees — which act as natural carbon sinks — disappear. Already, Australia's 

fires have released 350 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. 

That's roughly 1% of the total global carbon emissions from 2019. 

Compared to the amount of land that burned during California's 2018 

wildfire season — its most destructive ever — Australia's acreage total is 

more than 13 times bigger. 

A smoke plume 1.3 billion acres in size 

Climate change is linked to more intense fires 

Climate change increases the likelihood, size, and frequency of wildfires, 

since warmer air sucks away moisture from trees and soil, leading to dryer 

land. Rising temperatures also make heat waves and droughts more 

frequent and severe, which exacerbates wildfire risk, since hot, parched 

forests are prone to burning.


"Climate change is exacerbating every risk factor for more frequent and 

intense bushfires," Dale Dominey-Howes, an expert on disaster risk at the 

University of Sydney, told Business Insider Australia. "Widespread drought 

conditions, higher-than-average temperatures — these are all made worse 

by climate change." 

He added: "Take record heat, combine it with unprecedented drought in 

already dry regions, and you get unprecedented bushfires like the ones 

engulfing the Blue Mountains and spreading across the continent. It's not 

complicated." 

Source: 

https://www.insider.com/australia-fires-burned-twice-land-area-as-2019-amazonfires-2020-1



Morrison has proven he is not up to the task of being PM 

By Crispin Hill – The Canberra Times on January 11, 2020 

Scott Morrison: a PR charlatan who has now been found out by the public 

Picture: Karleen Minney 

Scott Morrison is unfit to be prime minister. His inaction in the lead-up to 

the bushfire crisis and his later response to it reveals this. The Hawaii 

holiday might have been just survivable, but the handshake debacles, the 

refusal to change course and the Liberal Party's cliché-ridden 

advertisement spruiking the government's "action" on the bushfires 

cement the conclusion. 

Source: 

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6574162/morrison-has-proven-he-is-notup-to-the-task-of-being-pm/



Run-down of Australia's bushfire season 2019-2020 as at mid-January: 

NSW/ACT 

* 26 people dead 

* More than 136 bushfires burning 

* Almost five million hectares burned, greater than the size of Belgium 

* 1482 homes confirmed destroyed 

VICTORIA 

* Five people dead 

* About 30 bushfires burning 

* More than a million hectares burned 

* More than 110 homes or businesses confirmed destroyed but 

significantly more expected 

SOUTH AUSTRALIA 

* Three people dead 

* 25 bushfires burning, four of significance 

* More than 200,000 hectares burned 

* 88 homes confirmed destroyed 

QUEENSLAND 

* 33 bushfires burning 

* 250,000 hectares burned 

* 45 homes confirmed destroyed but number expected to rise significantly 

WESTERN AUSTRALIA 

* 30 bushfires burning, two of significance 

* 1.5 million hectares burned 

* One home confirmed destroyed 

TASMANIA 

* 23 bushfires burning, two of significance 

* 30,000 hectares burned 

* Two homes confirmed destroyed 

NORTHERN TERRITORY 

* No current bushfires 

* Five homes confirmed destroyed



Australian bushfires: how the Morrison government 

failed to heed warnings of catastrophe 

By Anne Davies for The Guardian on 3 June 2020 

Documents released under freedom of information show that despite 

warnings of dire fire risks, federal follow-up was sluggish 

Questions remain about whether the government ministers responsible adequately 

managed the response to Australia’s summer bushfires. Photograph: Dan 

Himbrechts/EPA 

Scott Morrison’s decision to take a holiday in Hawaii as fires engulfed the 

east coast of Australia will go down as among the most unfortunate 

political missteps in recent history. The trip became emblematic of a 

federal government caught flat-footed for last summer’s unfolding bushfire 

catastrophe. 

New documents, some released under freedom of information provisions, 

have shed more light on the government’s preparations for the bushfire 

season and response to it. The documents show that while some parts of 

the bureaucracy were aware by August that the country was facing a horror 

season, that urgency did not reach their political masters. 

One of the most important questions for the royal commission into the 

bushfire crisis will be whether state and federal authorities effectively 

coordinated their response.


Disaster management is primarily a state responsibility, but the 

commonwealth also has a role, particularly when fires cross state lines 

and states need additional resources. Surprisingly, there is no clear power 

in the constitution to declare a national emergency. 

Some important functions – notably aerial firefighting, telecommunications 

infrastructure, emergency broadcasts on the ABC, electricity grids and 

assistance from the military – are in the hands of the commonwealth, or 

funded by it. 

But despite a scientific assessment in August warning of a dire outlook, 

many of the follow-up actions, such as more funding for aerial firefighting 

equipment, were slow to flow. There appears to have been little 

appreciation at the executive level of just how horrific the bushfire season 

was predicted to be. 

Most notable was the commonwealth’s ad hoc response on aerial 

firefighting, which was well documented during the fires. 

A funding agreement between the states and the commonwealth for 

the National Aerial Firefighting Agency was reached in 2003 after a 

particularly fierce bushfire season. The Howard government agreed 

the commonwealth would provide 50% of the funds each year. 

But by 2017, the federal share of funding had fallen to 23%. 

Despite a formal request in 2017 from the national agency to 

permanently increase its budget, the federal Coalition chose to offer an 

$11 million “one-off” top-up to the centre’s $14.8 million funding in 2018. 

That was renewed on 12 December 2019. But by then the east coast was 

already ablaze. 

On 3 January, after hundreds of houses had been lost and several coastal 

towns were cut off, Morrison announced another $20 million to deploy 

four additional air tankers and agreed to make the $11 million top-up 

ongoing. 

“When you look at that … over the last couple of years and the additional 

resource that is being provided on top of our standing commitment of 

$15 million, it means the resources were delivered,” a defensive Morrison 

said.


Part of the reason for the slow commonwealth response is perhaps 

that no single minister or department, with the possible exception of 

the Department of Home Affairs, has ownership of planning for a 

natural disaster on a national scale. 

At least five portfolios – health, defence, communications, energy and 

home affairs – have control over critical resources. Agencies such as the 

CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology have important roles in predicting 

the likely impact of a bushfire. 

Arguably there are more agencies – notably the environment department, 

which has responsibility for threatened species and climate change – that 

should also be involved in bushfire response planning. 

Heightened fire risks predicted 

In the federal sphere, the main responsibility for assessing the outlook for 

the bushfire season fell to Emergency Management Australia (EMA) – once 

a separate agency, now a branch within the sprawling home affairs 

portfolio. 

The branch told the Guardian it hosted 11 disaster preparedness briefings 

across all states, beginning in August 2019 when the Bushfire and Natural 

Hazards Cooperative Research Centre released its seasonal outlook. 

The outlook warned, quite accurately though in somewhat muted 

language, where the risk lay. 

“Australia faces the likelihood of an active fire season with abovenormal 

fire potential forecast for significant parts of Australia, 

particularly the south-east,” it said. 

“It has been the fifth-driest start to the year on record, and the driest since 

1970. This is especially the case over the southern half of the country, 

which has experienced the driest January to July on record (January to July 

1902 is the second driest).” 

The outlook pinpointed the areas that faced the higher risk. In NSW, it said, 

there was “significant concern for the potential of an above-normal fire 

season in forested areas on and east of the Great Dividing Range”.


The risk for the ACT was said to be “above normal”, while in Victoria 

“above-normal bushfire activity continues across the coastal and foothill 

forests of East Gippsland, extending into West Gippsland and the Great 

Dividing Range”. 

It also highlighted the risks on Kangaroo Island in South Australia, which 

had “a combination of drier than average and wetter than average 

conditions across the island which may result in above average fuel loads 

in parts”. 

These were the areas that were ravaged by fires over Christmas and New 

year. 

EMA said it held a further nine briefings with defence department and 

other agencies that needed to be involved in the co-ordination 

between August and November. 

But for some reason the impending risk does not seem to have permeated 

into the executive or to cabinet. 

EMA’s first briefings with ministers on preparedness for the bushfire season 

took place in November, and by then bushfires had already raged through 

parts of Queensland and northern NSW. It did not say who attended. 

The minister for emergency management, David Littleproud, issued three 

press releases between August and November describing the coming 

bushfire season as “challenging”, “tough”, “testing” and “above average”. 

But the gist of the releases was that communities needed to start getting 

organised, not what the federal government was doing. 

Warnings ‘fobbed off’ 

Some who sought to warn the federal government early, such as the 

former NSW fire chief Greg Mullins, felt they were fobbed off by the federal 

government.


As reported last year, Mullins – in his capacity as head of the Emergency 

Leaders for Climate Action – contacted the prime minister’s office in April, 

seeking a meeting to outline the potential calamity he believed was 

looming. 

In the aftermath of the fires, Morrison has said he didn’t need to hear from 

former chiefs as the government could hear from the current ones. But 

Mullins has said it was precisely their “ex” status that allowed them to 

speak freely both about bushfire preparedness and its link to climate 

change. 

Mullins’s request was referred to the minister for energy and emissions 

reduction, Angus Taylor, in July. 

Taylor responded on 10 September, offering a date in October for a 

meeting in Sydney. 

Mullins immediately wrote back, saying it was “unfortunate” it had taken 

several months to receive an invitation and that the catastrophic conditions 

he and his fellow fire experts had predicted had now manifested. 

“Considering the gravity of the situation, a national response from the 

highest levels of the Australian government is required,” Mullins wrote. He 

requested an urgent meeting with Morrison, Taylor, Littleproud, finance 

minister Matthias Cormann and any other ministers involved. 

Taylor replied that he had copied in Littleproud, and perhaps Mullins 

should seek a meeting with him. 

By then Mullins could see what was unfolding. In November he told the 

ABC how worried he was. He said he been “fobbed off” by the prime 

minister, and that Taylor was “not the right person to meet with”. 

Finally a meeting took place with Littleproud and Taylor on 3 December. 

Mullins told the Guardian: “It was clear that there was never any intention 

by the PM to listen to us. We were treated with open contempt by the PM, 

who said he would deal with the current chiefs. 

“The deputy prime minister [Michael McCormack] said we were timewasters 

and that those who talked about climate change and bushfires 

were latte-sipping greenies.”


Asked in November why he did not meet Mullins, Morrison said the 

government already had advice from “existing fire chiefs doing the existing 

job” and his office said the Mullins group had been offered meetings with 

senior cabinet ministers “several times this year”. 

Documents released under freedom of information also show that Taylor 

did not ask his department for a briefing before the meeting with Mullins – 

the usual step for a minister. 

Ash Wednesday and Black Saturday cited 

A similar request to the then-Department of Environment and Energy 

reveals how little thought had been devoted in that portfolio to the 

potential impact of the bushfire season on the environment, threatened 

species and its relationship to climate change. 

One cabinet document was withheld, its subject unknown. The only other 

document produced was an assessment of what bushfires could do to the 

national electricity network. 

In December the department warned that the Forest Fire Danger Index was 

high around the electricity corridors for the Queensland-NSW 

interconnector and the NSW-Victoria interconnector, and that dust storms 

were possible, which could further threaten the transmission network. 

“The FDDI is tracking similar to those conditions preceding the Ash 

Wednesday and Black Saturday events,” it warned. 

Emergency Management Australia said it activated the COMDISPLAN – 

which outlines how states could access non-financial assistance from the 

commonwealth during disasters – in early September 2019. 

It coordinated the first requests for commonwealth disaster assistance 

itself. The Australian defence forces became involved soon after, and by 

November had liaison officers in the NSW bushfire headquarters. 

There have been suggestions in the media that NSW rebuffed help from 

the federal government, particularly around the use of Navy ships, during 

the crisis.


There were clearly some communication problems. The New South Wales 

RFS commissioner, Shane Fitzsimmons, said neither he nor defence force 

personnel working from the state control centre were informed by Scott 

Morrison of a plan to deploy 3,000 army reservists to assist in the bushfire 

crisis. 

Fitzsimmons said he learned of the plans through the media on 4 January, 

when fire crews were battling some of the most challenging conditions of 

the summer. 

The dispute between Morrison and the NSW premier, Gladys Berejiklian, if 

there was one, appears to have related to whether a naval vessel should be 

sent in to Bermagui to evacuate residents . 

Documents obtained from the Department of Defence show there was 

close co-operation on the aerial firefighting tasks, with the RFS using 

Defence facilities at Richmond, on the fringes of Sydney, and that Defence 

rapidly scaled up to provide teams that could deal with displaced residents 

and help clear roads. 

But after the Mallacoota fires in Victoria on New Year’s Eve, when 

thousands of people were forced on to beaches to escape the fires, the 

government began deploying naval ships to the coast. 

HUFFPOST AUSTRALIA / Mallacoota before and after


At the request of the Victorian authorities, HMAS Choules and MV 

Sycamore left Sydney on 1 January and arrived in the Mallacoota area the 

next day to provide support and evacuate 1,100 people who were sleeping 

on the beach. 

There were fears that a similar scene could unfold in one of several towns 

along the NSW south coast as fires threatened again on 4 January. The 

documents show HMAS Adelaide sailed on 4 January, as the second wave 

of fires tore through communities and cut roads. But Bermagui, while 

ringed by fire, did not burn. 

The documents show the NSW government and the RFS preferred to 

request Defence help clearing the Princes Highway before and after 

4 January and evacuate by road, rather than by sea. 

Berejiklian refused to release an email exchange with the prime 

minister’s office on 2 January, on the grounds that it would damage 

federal-state relations. Morrison’s office refused the request on the 

grounds that it was too wide. 

RFS personnel say the liaison with Defence went very well, barring a few 

hiccups. A briefing note from Defence to the minister on 2 January 

recounted how Defence helicopters had assisted in the rescue of three 

people in Moruya the previous day. 

“The rescue was undertaken in extremely difficult conditions and was only 

successful due to close co-operation between the NSW RFS, NSW 

Ambulance Toll AME and the Australian defence force,” the note said. 

But questions remain about whether the bushfire response was adequately 

managed by the responsible ministers. 

The summer of 2019-20 suggests there is much room for improvement in 

Australia’s arrangements to protect it from natural disasters. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jun/03/australian-bushfires-foisshed-new-light-on-why-morrison-government-was-ill-prepared



New commissioners added to lead royal commission 

into deadly bushfires 

By political reporter Matthew Doran – ABC on 20 February 2020 

The Governor-General has signed off on a royal commission into this 

summer's devastating bushfires, with a specific focus on preparedness for 

future bushfire seasons. 

Key points: 

• A leading environmental lawyer and a former Federal Court Judge will 

join the bushfires royal commission 

• The royal commission will consider how governments can better 

prepare and respond to bushfires 

• The Prime Minister wants a final report handed to the Government by 

the end of August 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-20/bushfire-royal-commission-terms-sethazard-reduction/11982764



Bushfire grants and loans face shake-up 

over lengthy application process 

By Kathleen Ferguson and Anna Henderson – ABC News 2 March 2020 

Key points: 

• The Government has set aside $2 billion to help with recovery, 

including millions for businesses 

• A Bega Valley farmer said it took five or six weeks to assemble all the 

paperwork he needed for an application, while trying to rebuild his 

business 

• Emergency Management Minister David Littleproud has defended 

disaster recovery payments but conceded there are issues with 

processing loans and grants 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-02/government-concedes-bushfire-grantstaking-too-long/12018560



People are still homeless after the fires, 

so where is the $2 billion Morrison promised? 

On 3 March 2020 National Bushfire Recovery Fund 

revealed as a MYTH 

By Dr Jennifer Wilson – The Big Smoke Australia 

Those who lost their homes to the bushfires are still living in tents, without 

power and water. All seemingly abandoned by a government that has 

already shifted to the next crisis 

In Senate Estimates yesterday, the truth was finally revealed when the 

Morrison Government’s National Bushfire Recovery Fund was shown 

not to exist. 

Yesterday’s Finance and Public Administration Committee Estimates 

hearing was told the $2 billion fund has never actually been created: 

Senator WATT: “Can you point me to where this national bushfire recovery 

fund is in the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements? I've had a look and I 

can't find it… 

Ms Bradshaw: The $2 billion fund is a notional fund… 

It was also revealed yesterday that only five Special Disasters Loans for 

farmers and small businesses had been approved. 

Morrison and his government have moved on to the COVID-19 crisis, 

which they no doubt see as an opportunity for them to repair the massive 

loss of confidence, and the credibility they so thoroughly trashed during 

the bushfire disaster. We can only hope that monies promised to deal with 

the pandemic actually exist and, unlike the bushfire fund, are appropriately 

dispersed in time to have some effect.


In the meantime, the Coalition must answer all the questions surrounding 

the national bushfire recovery fund, the most urgent being, does it even 

exist? Because there are people in Cobargo, and I suspect many other fireaffected 

towns and villages across the country, who are living in tents and 

see no immediate relief from hardship, despite Morrison’s promises. 

At the height of the fires, after Prime Minister Scott Morrison was shamed 

into returning to Australia one day early from his Hawaiian holiday, the PM 

announced a $2 billion bushfire recovery fund, presumably to assist people 

like my sister and the people she speaks of in her email. So far, several 

months after the catastrophe, only 10% of that money has been allocated. 

According to this ABC report, from March 2, the very existence of the 

recovery fund is questionable: 

Labor Senator Murray Watt questioned whether the $2 billion fund actually 

existed after National Bushfire Recovery Agency deputy coordinator Abigail 

Bradshaw told the hearing the fund was “notional”. 

“So, the Prime Minister’s announcement on the 6th of January, when he was 

under a lot of pressure, was that he had established a national bushfire 

recovery fund. But there is no fund, is there, it’s not anywhere within the 

budget statements?” Senator Watt asked. 

So, is there or isn’t there a $2 billion bushfire relief fund? And if there is, 

why is it taking so long to distribute the funds to people in desperate 

situations? And if there isn’t, what the hell is the Coalition government 

playing at? 

Winter in the Cobargo area is cold. Nobody wants to be living in a tent. 

Nobody wants to be without power, heating, and water. What do people 

struggling to survive the loss of everything actually have to do to see some 

of this $2 billion, to which they are absolutely entitled? 

Source: 

https://www.thebigsmoke.com.au/2020/03/13/people-are-still-homeless-after-thefires-so-where-is-the-2-billion-morrison-promised/ 

https://www.fionaphillips.com.au/media/speeches-transcripts-mediareleases/media-release-bushfire-fund-revealed-as-a-myth/



'We're all just waiting': NSW south coast residents still in limbo 

three months after bushfires 

Michael McGowan – The Guardian on 12 March 2020 

In the absence of official help, it has often fallen to local volunteers to 

provide assistance. Matthew Strohfeldt, a Cobargo resident who lost his 

home during the bushfires, has been raising money to purchase 1,000-litre 

water containers for people such as Marshall. 

He says that in his district alone there are still dozens of people who 

remain homeless three months on from the fires. 

“People are living in tents, campervans, sheds with nothing but a mattress 

on the floor, or they’re couch surfing,” he said. 

“The temporary housing is near on impossible to find. It was hard enough 

to get a rental around here as it was and now this has all happened.” 

Strohfeldt says he started helping deliver water to properties after his own 

home was destroyed rather than, in his words, “sitting around getting 

depressed and angry and frustrated”. 

He said he approached his local council for funding but was knocked back. 

Instead, he and his friends have been raising money for generators and 

portable drinking water tanks through GoFundMe pages and other small 

donations. 

But the challenges keep coming. 

Since January, hundreds of millions of dollars have been raised for bushfire 

relief. Charities such as the Red Cross raised more than $100m, while a 

significant pool of private fundraising has been generated through appeals 

including the more than $50 million raised by the comedian Celeste Barber. 

At the same time, individual states and the commonwealth have made 

commitments including a one-off payment of $1,000 to people in bushfireaffected 

areas.


Some of those fundraising efforts have hit roadblocks. The Red Cross has 

been criticised for spending up to 10% of bushfire donations on 

administration costs, while Barber’s appeal was hampered by concerns the 

NSW Rural Fire Service trustee could not distribute money to other states 

or to bushfire victims. 

But many charities insist the money is getting to where it is needed. The 

Salvation Army has received $43 million in donations since its bushfire 

recovery appeal was launched in November. To date its spent $21.2 million 

of that money including more than $15 million in “hardship payments” 

paid out to more than 9,400 people affected by the fires. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/mar/12/were-all-just-waitingnsw-south-coast-residents-still-in-limbo-three-months-after-bushfires 

Carol and Troy with their goat that survived the fire



3 May 2020 

Andrew Constance Facebook 

Action was brought on by Eden-Monaro MP Mike Kelly 

resignation, prompting by-election 

These are the pods for those who lost everything in the fires and want to 

live and remain on their blocks. It’s brought about by a partnership 

between Minderoo and the Berejiklian Govt. Proof we are getting on with 

the job and not forgetting the impact of the bushfires. This is Cobargo 

today. 

Andrew Constance Facebook 3 May 2020



Royal commission into bushfire crisis begins hearings 

with focus on impact of climate change 

By political reporter Georgia Hitch – ABC News 

on Monday 25 May 2020 

Key points: 

• The royal commission was formed in the wake of the "Black Summer" 

bushfire crisis 

• The first day of hearings will focus on climate change and the 

financial impact of the fires 

• The commissioner's report is due by the end of August — before the 

next bushfire season 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-25/bushfire-royal-commission-startshearings-evidence-canberra/12276968



Senate inquiry: 

Prime Minister & Cabinet didn’t brief Morrison 

during Hawaii trip, says Gaetjens 

Gaetjens revealed he was also on holiday at the time 

By Shannon Jenkins – The Mandarin on Thursday May 28, 2020 

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet did not brief 

Scott Morrison while he was in Hawaii during Australia’s recent bushfire 

crisis, an inquiry has heard. 

PM&C secretary Phil Gaetjens on Wednesday told the Senate committee 

hearing on the Black Summer bushfires that the department only learnt of 

Morrison’s plans to take leave on December 9. 

The PM was in Hawaii from December 15 - 21 2019 

“I don’t think it’s a correct interpretation to say the Prime 

Minister wasn’t here during the crisis,” he said. 

Gaetjens revealed he was also on holiday at the time. 

Source: 

https://www.themandarin.com.au/134619-pmc-didnt-brief-morrison-during-hawaiitrip-says-gaetjens/



Anthony Albanese blasts 'bureaucratic' fire fund 

By Katie Burgess – Farm-on-line National on 8 June 2020 

Labor's Anthony Albanese. Picture: Sitthixay Ditthavong 

Labor leader Anthony Albanese has lashed the Morrison government's 

$2 billion bushfire recovery fund as overly bureaucratic and poorly 

targeted. 

Just 291,000 of the 7.1 million people who live in local government areas 

impacted directly or indirectly by the 2019-20 bushfires have received 

disaster recovery payments, National Bushfire Recovery Agency deputy 

coordinator Major General Andrew Hocking told a senate inquiry last week. 

A separate senate inquiry earlier heard just 21,405 of the 640,000 

businesses in bushfire-affected areas have received a grant or concessional 

loan from the Commonwealth. 

The state and Commonwealth disaster recovery payments will be reviewed, 

amid concerns some areas have unfairly missed out. 

While Mr Albanese welcomed the multi-billion-dollar bushfire recovery 

fund when it was announced in January, six months on the support 

program increasingly appeared "poorly targeted", with survivors struggling 

to access funds. 

"The rhetoric hasn't matched up with the reality on the ground," 

Mr Albanese said.


"Scott Morrison said when he made announcements of funding way back 

in January, that the funding would flow immediately and we know that isn't 

the case. It's now June and only 4 per cent of residents in the bushfire 

affected areas have received any support at all. 

"When I've been on the ground, individuals will tell you and businesses will 

tell you they simply haven't been able to navigate the bureaucracy and the 

government has failed to have people there directly coordinating the 

process." 

Mr Albanese spoke to one Batemans Bay restaurant owner who was a 

former chartered accountant but was still struggling with the paperwork. 

"He was told after he'd spent all this time filling in a 17-page form that it 

was the wrong application process," Mr Albanese said. 

"The chicken farm we went to last week in Quaama told us that they had 

engaged someone outside to try to get their support and that shouldn't be 

necessary, there should be a government contact who is able to coordinate 

all of that activity for individuals and for businesses." 

Councils were also struggling with the cost of the clean-up, Mr Albanese 

said. 

Mr Albanese said recent expansions to the eligibility for bushfire recovery 

grants and increased support for aerial firefighting only came after the 

Eden-Monaro byelection was called. 

"It shouldn't have taken a byelection to get that response given that the 

business case [for the aerial firefighting expansion] was completed two 

years ago," Mr Albanese said. 

Mr Albanese's comments came ahead of National Bushfire Recovery 

Agency coordinator Andrew Colvin's appearance at the Royal Commission 

into National Natural Disaster Arrangements on Thursday. 

Services Australia's deputy chief executive officer Michelle Lees is also due 

to appear. 

Source: 

https://www.farmonline.com.au/story/6784503/albanese-blasts-bureaucratic-firefund/?cs=5373


Morrison MISMANAGEMENT of the Australian Bushfires



Bushfire royal commission says governments need to 

coordinate for 'more intense' natural disasters 

By political reporters Anna Henderson and Jordan Hayne 

– ABC News on 31 August 2020 

Key points: 

• The bushfire royal commission says a National Cabinet-style 

approach could work for emergencies other than COVID-19 

• The commission says work on a new Australian warning system needs 

to be finished as a priority 

• The interim report warns Australia will face "more frequent and 

intense" natural disasters in coming decades 

The commission says changes to the warning system should be finished quickly. 

(Supplied: Queensland Fire And Emergency Service) 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-31/bushfire-royal-commission-hands-downinterim-report/12612226



Australia's natural disaster preparedness has gaping holes, 

royal commission told 

By Philippa McDonald for ABC News on 22 September 2020 

Key points: 

Natural disasters such as bushfires are now far more common, 

Mark Crosweller says. (AAP: Dan Himbrechts) 

• The bill for natural disasters from September 2019 to July 2020 has 

reached $3.8 billion 

• The inquiry was told Australia does not have a national bushfire risk 

map 

• Mark Crosweller says Australia's recovery capability is "still a long way 

behind" 

Australia has gaping holes in its readiness for natural disasters and is "past 

a tipping point", a royal commission has been told. 

Former director-general of emergency management, Mark Crosweller, 

offered a scathing assessment of the nation's readiness for bushfires and 

floods. 

Mr Crosweller, who until last year was also head of the National Resilience 

Taskforce, told the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster 

Arrangements: "We have to get a handle on what's vulnerable."


"If you try to get a national bushfire risk map, it doesn't exist at the 

moment. I know there's efforts underway to do that," he said. 

Mr Crosweller told the inquiry he had concerns about mapping for floods 

as well. 

"If we wanted to get a comprehensive understanding of the flood plains of 

Australia, well, there's some data on that of course, but is it contemporary? 

Probably not." 

Now working in private enterprise, Mr Crosweller said flooding in some 

areas was so prevalent, in one part of Wagga Wagga there were "one-ineight-year 

floods". 

He told the commission "we're past a tipping point", with natural disasters 

far more common. 

Mr Crosweller took aim at the nation's resilience and recovery capability, 

saying: "We are still a long way behind." 

"We need to anticipate loss," he said. 

"We are going to lose things in these events. No-one wants to think about 

these things, but it is still a reality." 

Bruce Buckley, climate research analyst at Insurance Australia Group, told 

the royal commission the bill from a series of natural disasters from 

September 2019 to July 2020 had reached $3.8 billion. 

He described the summer bushfires as the "the second-most costly disaster 

in Australia since 1980". 

Dr Buckley said there had been a string of "connected extremes" including 

a series of damaging hailstorms and destructive east coast lows causing 

severe flooding and coastal erosion. 

Dr Buckley told the hearing there had been a marked increase in large and 

giant hailstorms in some areas over the past 20 years, including Sydney's 

Terry Hills, north of Newcastle and near Wollongong. 

He said those trends were not identifiable in Perth, Melbourne and 

Adelaide … The hearing continues 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-22/royal-commission-told-australia-notready-for-natural-disasters/12690270



Scott Morrison defends giving long-time staffer called 'Cronie' 

a $242,390 gig working for the National Bushfire Recovery 

Agency 

By AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS for The Daily Mail Australia 


• Mr Morrison defended appointment of Peter Crone to bushfire 

recovery agency 

• Crone was awarded a $137,000 contract within PM's department 

in January 

• On May 11, contract term extended to June 2021 and increased to 

$242,390 

• Bushfire agency boss Andrew Colvin said he'd never heard of Mr 

Crone prior 

Scott Morrison has defended the appointment of a long-time Liberal 

staffer nicknamed 'Cronie' to help the bushfire recovery agency. 

Melbourne-based consultant Peter Crone was awarded a $137,000 contract 

with the National Bushfire Recovery Agency within the prime minister's 

department in January. 

On May 11, the contract term was extended to June 2021 and the value was 

increased to $242,390.


Melbourne-based consultant Peter Crone (pictured) was awarded a $137,000 

contract with the National Bushfire Recovery Agency within the prime minister's 

department in January 

At a Senate estimates hearing on Monday, bushfire agency boss Andrew 

Colvin said he had never heard of Mr Crone prior to his engagement and 

the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was responsible for the 

contract. 

On Tuesday, the department told a hearing Mr Crone was recommended 

by the prime minister's office. 

The department said Mr Crone's contract was terminated mid-year, with his 

payments totalling $136,000 for six months work. 

Mr Crone has been a political staffer for former prime minister John 

Howard and played a key role in Tony Abbott's commission of audit 

undertaken after the 2013 election.


The prime minister said Mr Crone had been employed 'in the appropriate way' 

and was eminently qualified as an economist 

He has also advised Treasurer Josh Frydenberg. 

Mr Crone declined to comment when contacted by AAP. 

Labor deputy leader Richard Marles asked the prime minister in parliament 

why 'the bloke they all call Cronie' was given a job. 

The prime minister said Mr Crone had been employed 'in the appropriate 

way' and was eminently qualified as an economist. 

'His political views are a matter for him,' Mr Morrison said. 

'If you are good at your job you'll get a job - that's how it works.' 

Source: 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8865921/Scott-Morrison-defends-givinglong-time-staffer-called-Cronie-242-390-bushfire-recovery-job.html



Bushfire royal commission recommends 

national state of emergency, aerial firefighting fleet 

By political reporters Anna Henderson and Georgia Hitch 

for ABC News on 30 October 2020 

The introduction of a national state of emergency, an all-hazard emergency 

warning app and a national fleet of water bombers are among the 

recommendations in the bushfire royal commission's final report. 

The inquiry was called in the wake of the devastating 2019-20 summer 

bushfire season, but looked at Australia's readiness for and response to all 

natural disasters. 

The 80 recommendations provide advice on the coordination of all levels 

of government during emergencies, warning systems for the public, 

firefighting resources, climate data, the role of the Australian Defence Force 

and how charities and other groups can best respond in the wake of 

disasters. 

Minister for Emergency Management David Littleproud said the 

Government would "carefully and methodically" consider the report and its 

recommendations. 

The Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements tasked 

the commissioners with an immense job: working out not only how to 

prevent the severity of future bushfire seasons, but all natural disasters. 

Here are ten of the key takeaways. 

National state of emergency 

The royal commission is recommending the Federal Government create a 

law allowing it to declare "a state of national emergency". 

Critically, it says the new law should give the Government powers to take 

action even if states and territories don't specifically ask for help, but only 

in "clearly defined and limited circumstances".


Speaking after the report was released, Mr Littleproud said it would involve 

a clear "trigger point" for the Government and would allow it to mobilise 

national agencies to begin to respond across the country. 

"That doesn't mean the Federal Government would come in and take the 

operational management of the fire over," he said. 

The commission says having the national state of emergency would make 

it clear to the public how serious the disaster was. 

Air quality monitor 

The commission heard the bushfire smoke impacted 80 per cent of the population. 

(AAP: Lukas Coch) 

During the hearings the commission heard smoke from the summer's 

blazes killed an estimated 445 people and there was confusion around 

when it was safe to go outside. 

It is now recommending a nationally consistent guide on air quality that's 

updated in real-time so everyone is on the same page about what is, and 

isn't, a dangerous level of smoke pollution. 

The commission also wants greater community education and guidance on 

the dangers of smoke, and targeted advice to vulnerable groups.


In a separate recommendation it is calling for the development of national 

forecasting abilities on smoke and other pollutants like dust and pollen, "to 

predict plume behaviour" and issue advice accordingly. 

Climate change 

In its report, the commission does not shy away from acknowledging the 

repeated expert evidence that climate change is, and will continue, to 

increase the frequency and intensity of natural disasters 

It flags that there is a "patchwork" of climate datasets across Australia and 

says the states and territories need to work together to fix that by creating 

a national data system where information, analysis and knowledge can be 

shared easily. 

The commission also recommends all governments produce "downscaled 

climate projections" for decision makers and agencies to use to help plan 

their future responses to disasters. 

Fire danger rating system 

As part of its advice on emergency information and warnings, the 

commission recommended state and territory governments "expedite" the 

rollout of a new fire danger rating system. 

It said the visual display of the warning system and the actions that the 

public needed to take in response to each level needed to be nationally 

consistent. 

It also said governments should invest in a nationwide education program 

once the new system is released. 

At the moment, the ratings are different across the country, meaning the 

highest rating in one jurisdiction may not correspond to the highest in 

another.


The report recommends a nationally consistent rating system. 

(ABC South East NSW: Adriane Reardon) 

Hazard reduction burns 

After the summer fires there was considerable discussion about whether 

enough hazard reduction burns had been carried out before the season, 

and whether they were effective. 

The commission recommends all levels of government should review the 

assessment and approval processes for hazard reductions — whether 

prescribed burns, or mechanical slashing to clear land. 

It says governments need to make clear what a land holder's 

responsibilities are, and cut down the time it takes for people to obtain 

approvals for hazard reductions. 

But it also heard that "in extreme bushfires, fuel loads do not appear to 

have a material impact on fire behaviour".


The commission is also encouraging governments to engage further with 

traditional owners to learn more about the relationship between 

Indigenous land and fire management and natural disaster resilience, and 

how it can help in the future. 

More water bombers 

The demands on aerial firefighting equipment last bushfire seaso 

were unprecedented. (AAP: Lukas Coch) 

In the lead-up to the last bushfire season the Government was under 

pressure to fund extra air support for fighting bushfires, but argued its 

budget was too stretched. 

The commission recommends the creation of a national aerial firefighting 

fleet "to be tasked according to greatest national need". 

At the moment states own specific firefighting planes and lend them to 

other jurisdictions when in need, but the states and territories also rely on 

being able to borrow extra-large air tankers from other countries. 

The number of bushfires burning at the same time last season put 

unprecedented pressure on water-bombing aircraft, prompting the call for 

a permanent investment in more resources.


The commission's report says the national fleet should include a very large 

or large air tanker, helicopter capability, and extra pilots and support staff. 

Emergency warning app 

The commission is also calling for state and territory governments to roll 

out an "all-hazard Australian warning system". 

It suggested all levels of government should "explore the feasibility" of a 

national app so information on the warning system could be readily 

available. 

It also wants the Federal Government to work with state and territory 

governments to develop minimum standards on what should be included 

on bushfire warning apps. 

Better communications 

One of the most consistent themes in the evidence given to the 

commission about experiences in the 2019-20 bushfires was how 

frustrating it was for people on the ground who could see their 

counterparts on the other side of the state border but couldn't contact 

them. 

As it says in the report "the fires did not respect state borders". 

In response to that evidence the commission is recommending states and 

territories either update their current strategies or develop a new one so 

that people have the technology to communicate across jurisdictions. 

It also thinks there needs to be a national register that shows the number 

of emergency services personnel, equipment and aerial assets that can be 

drawn on or moved around if needed.


Charity reforms 

The commission says governments need to educate the public 

about the challenges charities face. (Supplied: Red Cross Australia) 

The commission's first recommendation when it comes to charitable 

donations is that state and territory governments need to do more to make 

sure charities are getting what they need. 

It says they need to educate people about the "challenges" charities face 

with the storage and distribution of donated goods. 

Reforms to fundraising laws are also being recommended so that there is a 

"single national scheme" for how charitable fundraising is regulated. 

The commission also wants smaller charity and volunteer organisations to 

be part of disaster recovery, saying the Federal Government should hold 

regular forums with those groups "with a view to continuous improvement 

or coordination of recovery support".


Advice on where we live 

While the commission didn't go as far as saying people need to re-think 

where they live based on the likelihood of future disasters, it says people 

need to be told what the risk is before they buy or move somewhere. 

It recommends state and territory governments should have a process in 

place to communicate that risk to households and prospective buyers. 

The report also suggests governments "work together" with the Federal 

Government to explore the development of a national mechanism to do 

the same. 

It's not just governments that need to make the risk clear — the 

commission wants insurance companies to produce "clear guidance" on 

the the risk mitigation actions insurers will recognise when they set their 

insurance premiums. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-30/bushfire-royal-commission-final-report- 

*recommendations/12815204?utm_source=abc_news_web&utm_medium=content_s 

hared&utm_content=twitter&utm_campaign=abc_news_web#climate 

Local councils have received funding to study fire management for koalas 

(Supplied: M Fillinger)



Federal Government responds to bushfire royal commission, 

will create national state of emergency 

By political reporters Anna Henderson and Georgia Hitch 

for ABC News on 13 November 2020 

The bushfire royal commission made 80 recommendations in its final report. 

(ABC News) 

Key points: 

• The Government has supported or supported in principle most of the 

recommendations 

• It will introduce legislation to give it the power to declare a national 

state of emergency 

• It is not supporting the creation of a national aerial firefighting 

fleet 

The Federal Government says it will create a new law that will allow it to 

declare a national state of emergency if needed during future natural 

disasters. 

The idea was one of a raft of recommendations made by the Royal 

Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, called in the 

wake of the 2019-20 bushfire season.


The national state of emergency would allow the Government to take 

action and provide help to states and territories facing threats, even if they 

have not asked for it. 

In its response to the commission's final report, the Government said it 

would introduce legislation to enable the declaration. 

"The Commonwealth Government supports and welcomes this 

recommendation which recognises that such a declaration is necessary in 

an 'all hazards' approach to national natural disaster events, including 

those beyond fires and floods," it said. 

"A National Emergency Declaration will facilitate expeditious national 

responses, allowing provision of capabilities beyond the capacities of 

individual states and territories." 

The Commonwealth said it would work with states and territories to look at 

what it could do to best "complement actions" made by jurisdictions in 

emergency situations where the declaration is made. 

Emergency Management Minister David Littleproud said the Government 

would introduce the legislation before Christmas. 

"We will define the trigger points in the legislation, as to what is the exact 

juncture in which the Federal Government would surge in with its assets," 

he said. 

"It would depend on the type of disaster as to what agencies would be 

involved." 

The 80 recommendations from the commission provided advice on a 

range of areas, from the coordination of all levels of government during 

emergencies, warning systems for the public, climate data, the role of the 

Australian Defence Force and how charities and other groups can best 

respond in the wake of disasters. 

No support for national aerial firefighting fleet 

While the Government supported, or supported in principle, most of the 55 

recommendations directed at it specifically or all levels of government, it 

will not take on board the recommendation to establish a sovereign aerial 

firefighting fleet.


In its final report, the commission suggested the Australian, state and 

territory governments should create a national firefighting fleet, and 

resource it with at least one very large or large air tanker and extra pilots 

and support staff. 

The commission recommended a national aerial firefighting fleet 

and the purchase of additional aircraft. (Supplied: Jochen Spencer) 

At the moment, states own specific firefighting planes and lend them to 

other jurisdictions when in need, but the states and territories also rely on 

being able to borrow extra-large air tankers from other countries. 

The Government noted the recommendation, but said it acknowledged the 

"maturity, experience and effectiveness" of the current aerial capabilities of 

the states and territories. 

"The Commonwealth has no desire to replicate or replace these 

capabilities," it said. 

"The Commonwealth encourages states and territories to work 

collaboratively and with industry to build Australian-based aerial 

firefighting capacity, consistent with their sovereign obligations to maintain 

appropriate operational response capabilities."


It also noted a suggestion that Emergency Management Australia should 

be in charge of managing the new fleet, saying it was "comfortable" with 

the National Aerial Firefighting Centre (NAFC) retaining control. 

"The Commonwealth will continue its annual contribution of $26 million to 

the NAFC, indexed from 2020-21," it said. 

Mr Littleproud said the Government "does not and has never" decided 

which type of aircraft come into the country, but would support states and 

territories to continue to do so through its current funding arrangements 

with them. 

The royal commission heard emissions had "locked in" future extreme weather 

events and natural disasters. (Supplied: Markus Dirnberger) 

The Government's response comes on the same day as the latest Bureau of 

Meteorology and the CSIRO biannual report on the climate which shows 

Australia is already experiencing climate change. 

"One of the key findings, conclusions, of the royal commission was that the 

locked-in impacts of climate change already that are there largely set an 

elevated risk for the next 20 years," Prime Minister Scott Morrison said. 

"The report actually says that, regardless of what might happen in terms of 

emissions reduction, that is a known quantity.


"As a result, a key part of dealing with climate change in this country is 

dealing with the resilience to what is already there." 

The Government will also be establishing a new national disaster recovery 

agency that will look after all-natural disasters. 

"That will bring together the current flood and drought agencies and 

bushfire agencies," Mr Littleproud said. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-13/government-response-bushfire-royalcommission-recommendations/12879862 

-------------------------------- END -----------------------------


Broken Promise-Drought: $7 

billion Drought Fund = 

Untouched 

$0 Spent 

The Coalition says it is spending $7 billion on drought 

– but does the figure stack up?


Morrison announces $7 billion Drought Fund, 

but figures don’t stack up 

$100 million added to Federal drought support funding 

Source: Prime Minister Scott Morrison, NSW Farmers, AgForce 


SPEAKING at Dalby today Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced plans 

to provide more funding to support farmers and rural communities and 

moves to cut red tape and increase assistance services. 

Mr Morrison said a new support package will deliver nearly $100 million to 

drought-hit communities, which is on top of more than $7 billion in 

drought support funding already provided by the Government. 

“Supporting drought affected communities remains our Government’s 

most urgent priority,” the Prime Minister said. 

“I know that things are only getting harder for many farmers and rural 

communities, and that’s why we are taking further action and providing 

even more support. 

“We’ve been in constant contact with farmers and businesses, and we’re 

using their feedback to keep improving our response. 

“As I’ve said before, this isn’t set and forget. We need to keep listening and 

keep taking action. 

“We know we can’t make it rain, but we must keep finding ways to do 

everything we can to make life just a bit easier and remove some of the 

burden. That’s why our Government is providing more money to help 

people with bills, more money for counselling and more money to local 

councils. 

“We’ve got to get more cash into these communities and cut more red 

tape, making it easier to access support. 

“I will do everything in my power to ease the burden on farmers and their 

communities. That’s our Government’s promise.”


Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack said the package of measures 

would provide an immediate economic stimulus at the local level as well as 

employment for people whose work has been affected by drought. 

“We are delivering $33.42 million to resume the Drought Community 

Support Initiative, which will deliver up to $3000 to eligible farming 

households experiencing hardship due to drought,” the Deputy Prime 

Minister said. 

“And we are providing a $13 million extension to the Drought Community 

Programme to deliver support at the local government level where it 

counts. 

“Thirteen Local Government Areas will be provided up to $1 million for 

local infrastructure and drought relief products.” 

Minister for Agriculture, Senator Bridget McKenzie, said targeted relief 

followed careful assessment of the current challenges farmers were facing. 

“We know that FHA is a vital hand-up for farmers in times of need—but the 

Independent Review of Farm Household Allowance told us it could be 

improved,” Minister McKenzie said. 

“Farming families have told me that the FHA program does not currently 

treat them as business owners and places a real burden on farmers already 

doing it tough. This was reflected in the review. 

“Today we are announcing a radical simplification of the FHA application 

process and key settings. 

“We will remove the requirement for business income reconciliation, 

change the time limit on payment from four years in total to four out of 

every ten years, simplify the assets test, recognise agistment as being part 

of primary production income, and redesign the application process. For 

the first time, couples will be able to apply for the payment using just one 

application. 

“These changes will make FHA quicker and easier to access, better reflect 

the nature of farm businesses, and to acknowledge that farmers may 

experience more than one period of hardship in their lifetime.


“Some of these changes will require amendments to legislation, but 

through Centrelink we will implement as many of the changes to the 

application process immediately.” 

Minister McKenzie also announced today an injection of $740,000 of 

contingency funding to five Rural Financial Counselling Service providers 

who are experiencing pressure from increased demand for their services. 

Minister for Drought David Littleproud said the Coalition Government was 

delivering a comprehensive suite of support measures to farmers in 

hardship. 

“This shows our commitment to stay flexible and respond as needed,” 

Minister Littleproud said. 

“Today’s announcement further strengthens our drought response which 

includes concessional loans, farm management deposits, tax breaks, and 

mental health support. 

“The government is already providing more than $7 billion in assistance 

and concessional loans to support those affected by drought.” 

“This shows the Coalition Government’s commitment and belief in hard 

working farming families.” 

NSW Farmers calls for more action, less talk 

Additional Federal Government drought support must be rolled out 

immediately, according to NSW Farmers. 

NSW Farmers Vice President Chris Groves said farmers are destocking, 

facing failed crops and desperately looking for water to maintain 

permanent plantings. 

“Many have no or little income to service their loans and pay standing 

charges, including Local Government Rates,” Mr Grove said. 

“Coupled with the Bureau of Meteorology’s forecasts of little or no rain, it 

means farmers from the coast to the State’s borders are facing ongoing 

challenges and having to make hard decisions.”


NSW Farmers has welcomed the Federal cash injections through the 

Drought Community Support Initiative and the funding to Councils for 

infrastructure, which includes Kyogle, Temora and Murray in NSW. 

“Again, this drought relief must commence immediately to allow Councils 

to make the decision about how this funding will best support their 

communities.” 

“The Federal Government has fallen behind in terms of providing direct 

drought relief, with their focus being on low interest loan options.” 

Mr Groves said the Association does welcome moves to streamline the 

application process for the Farm Household Allowance (FHA). 

“Any changes that make the FHA quicker and easier to access is good 

news. More and more farm businesses will be making applications and 

Centrelink must step up to ensure that their customer facing staff and 

assessment officers deliver service that is both timely and recognises the 

pressure that farmers are facing.” 

To support those farmers applying for the FHA and other government 

support measures, Federal Minister for Agriculture Bridgette McKenzie has 

also announced a $740,000 injection for the Rural Financial Counselling 

Service as part of the new package. 

“The Prime Minister says this new package is additional to the $7 billion 

commitment, but there is scant detail about how and where this funding 

has been delivered to date, and importantly how the funding has 

supported farmers. 

“Our members are telling us that while they welcome the opportunity to 

access concessional loans, the administration and time lags mean delays in 

infrastructure delivery. Many farm businesses are simply unable to take on 

extra debt.” 

“We recognises that government drought response is a shared effort 

between farmers, local, State and the Commonwealth. The NSW 

Government has been proactive and delivered nearly $2 billion in drought 

support to date.


Mr Groves said NSW farmers is calling for additional Federal funding to 

LGAs for water carting and to offset the cost of rate rebates for cashstrapped 

farmers and agriculture dependent local businesses, 

consideration of farm-exit packages, and subsidies to maintain on-farm 

employment. 

Drought measures ‘life-changing’ for many families: AgForce 

AgForce has described the $100 million of new Federal drought assistance 

measures as “not just welcome, but life-changing”. 

AgForce Grains President Brendan Taylor, whose property is at Bowenville 

near where the announcement was made, said the measures would help 

farming families put food on their table, reduce the stress of finding money 

to pay bills, and keep communities going as conditions continue to 

deteriorate with no rain in sight. 

“We commend Mr Morrison for listening to the advice and requests of 

AgForce and rural producers, and implementing a compassionate and 

forward-looking package of new initiatives,” Mr Taylor said. 

“In particular, the common-sense changes made to the Farm Household 

Allowance in response to our feedback are significant and will make this 

vital assistance package more accessible to more people in tough times. 

“The re-introduction of the Drought Community Support Initiative, through 

which farming families experiencing hardship can receive grants of up to to 

$3,000, will also provide a financial and emotional boost, especially in the 

lead-up to the Christmas period. 

“We also welcome the commitment to reskilling and retraining programs 

that will assist producers to find other work to maintain some income 

during times of hardship. 

“Combined with the money available to 13 local councils to undertake 

drought-related infrastructure projects, this will provide additional 

employment opportunities for producers and economic stimulus to their 

local communities. 

“These are both targeted programs that will provide vital financial 

assistance in the short-term, as well as long-term benefit to the agriculture 

industry and the community.


“Additional funding for essential support services – such as through 

charities and financial counselling – will be critical in helping farming 

families with their backs to the wall to not only survive but to build 

resilience.” 

Mr Taylor said AgForce and the wider industry were appreciative of the 

Morrison Government’s ‘listening style’ and will work with them on 

additional assistance if conditions deteriorated further. 

“Even though farm income slows or even stops during a drought, bills do 

not, and this creates an enormous amount of stress on families,” he said. 

“In addition to essentials like food, fuel and utilities, large long-term 

expenses such as land rent, GST bills and Council rates become impossible 

to pay when no money is coming in. 

“And when you have been in drought for, in many cases, up to seven years, 

it can escalate into a significant financial burden.” 

Source: 

https://www.beefcentral.com/news/100-million-added-to-federal-drought-supportfunding/




The Coalition says it is spending $7 billion on drought 

– but does the figure stack up? 

By Sarah Martin Chief political correspondent for The Guardian 


Labor calls the figure the ‘most audacious lie’, saying very little of it is 

going to drought-affected communities 

Scott Morrison with farmer David Gooding on his drought-affected property 

near Dalby in Queensland on Friday. Photograph: Dan Peled/AAP 

As Australia grapples with extended drought across the country – in many 

places, the worst on record – the Coalition has been talking up its $7 billion 

drought package in support of “struggling farming families”. 

Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon has called it the “most audacious lie” he has 

ever heard in politics, saying very little of the $7 billion is actually 

hitting the ground in drought-affected communities. 

After initially refusing to provide a breakdown of the figure, the 

government has now provided Guardian Australia with details. 

Where does the $7 billion figure come from? 

Most of the $7 billion has not been spent. The bulk of the $7 billion 

figure is attributable to the government’s $5 billion Future Drought Fund, 

which passed the parliament in July.


The government established the fund with an initial $3.9 billion credit, 

which was reallocated from an infrastructure fund set up by Labor called 

the Building Australia Fund. 

Earnings from the fund, which will be managed like the Medical Research 

Future Fund, will be reinvested into the drought fund until the balance 

reaches $5 billion, which is expected to be achieved in 2028-29. 

The prime minister, Scott Morrison, said the fund would ensure “money 

aside for non-rainy days in the future”. 

What is the $5 billion Future Drought Fund being spent on? 

Nothing as yet. 

The fund starts making disbursements from 1 July next year, with 

$100 million being made each year to support Australian farmers and 

communities to become more prepared for, and resilient to, the effects of 

drought. 

The minister for the drought, David Littleproud, said the fund was for the 

future, in the good years and the bad years. 

“This is about foresight of drought policy in this country, saying: we need 

to look to the future and we need to underpin that with money.” 

The government is preparing the Drought Resilience Funding Plan, which is 

a “rolling four-year high level framework” that will guide which drought 

resilience projects are funded. 

What about the rest of the $7 billion figure? 

Littleproud said the future fund was in addition to $2 billon being spent “in 

the here and now”. 

Most of the remaining figure is attributed to $1 billion in loans provided by 

the Regional Investment Corporation. 

Dubbed “Barnaby’s bank” when it was established in 2018, the RIC has, as 

of April, received 97 applications and granted $69 million in loans to 

farmers in need in rural and regional communities across Australia.


The next biggest spending figure is $750 million for the 

National Water Infrastructure Development Fund, which provides funding 

to state governments. 

The figure also includes assistance that has gone directly to farmers, 

including $50 million through the on-farm emergency water infrastructure 

rebate scheme, $183 million through farm household allowance payments, 

$5 million for rural financial counselling, and $130 million for the drought 

communities program that gives grants to councils dealing with drought. 

Other measures include $3.1 million for destocking, $15 million for wild 

dog fencing and other pest and weed management, and $15 million for a 

rural and regional renewal foundation. 

Tax concessions for farmers affected by drought, including accelerated 

fodder storage asset depreciation account for $75 million of the figure. 

The government is also including funding for Bureau of Meteorology 

radars ($77 million), Great Artesian Basin funding ($23 million), regional 

weather and climate guides ($2.7 million) and the National Drought Map 

($4.2 million) in the drought package figure. 

A telehealth measure for empowering communities is costing $26.9 million 

and the Country Women’s Association of Australia has received an 

additional $5 million. 

The Joint Agency Drought Taskforce, which was established within the 

prime minister’s office and led by major general Stephen Day, cost 

taxpayers $5.6 million. 

Day’s report has not been released. 

According to the 2019-20 budget, rural assistance spending between 

2018-2019 and 2022-23 totals $1.6 billion. 

Of this, $336 million was spent last year. 

But the budget papers show the amount was expected to decrease by 13% 

in real terms from 2018-19 to 2019-20, and decrease by 22.4% in real terms 

over the period 2019-20 to 2022-23.


While $336 million was spent last year, this was budgeted to fall to 

$299 million in 2019-20. It climbs again to an estimated $380 million next 

year and $249 million the year after that. 

According to the budget papers, the initial decrease from 2018-19 to 

2019-20 mainly reflects the cessation of additional assistance through the 

Farm Household Allowance, including the Special Drought Supplement, 

which was announced in last year’s midyear economic and financial 

outlook. 

The subsequent decrease from 2019-20 to 2022-23 mainly relates to the 

profile of expenses for concessional loans through the Regional Investment 

Corporation for both the north Queensland flood recovery effort and 

drought assistance. 

Is that it? 

Last week, the government announced an extra $100 million for droughthit 

communities, which it said was “on top of more than $7 billion in 

drought support funding already provided by the government”. 

As part of this, 13 extra local government areas will be provided up to 

$1 million for local infrastructure and drought relief products, bringing the 

total number of councils to receive assistance up to 123. 

The latest round of funding has proven controversial given one south-west 

Victorian council, Moyne Shire, received the $1 million boost despite not 

being in drought. 

Councillor Colin Ryan said the area was not drought-affected. 

“We don’t need the money for drought reasons and I believe it should be 

redirected to more deserving areas of Australia,” he told ABC radio. 

Littleproud has now asked for an audit of the selection criteria, but has 

defended the process, saying it is based on drought mapping by the 

Bureau of Meteorology. 

“I’ll be asking for a forensic audit by the bureau to make sure that data 

collection was right, but that’s the science we predicate our decisions on,” 

he said.


Morrison said the government was happy to accept criticism for being “too 

generous”. 

“If we’re being accused of being too supportive, too generous, too much 

on the front foot in helping rural districts when it comes to supporting 

them in the drought, well I’m happy to take that criticism because we are 

on the front foot when it comes to helping our rural communities,” 

Morrison said. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/30/the-coalition-says-it-isspending-7bn-on-drought-but-cant-back-up-the-claim




Major stimulus package for drought-affected regions 

set to be approved by Federal Government 

Exclusive by political editor Andrew Probyn for ABC News 


Josh Frydenberg and David Littleproud (Twitter: @JoshFrydenberg) 

Key points: 

• The ABC understands the Government is set to announce a stimulus 

package for drought-stricken communities 

• It comes after the Treasurer toured affected regions with Drought 

Minister David Littleproud 

• Cabinet's expenditure review committee will meet next week to 

consider stimulus options 

Drought-stricken towns will be the target of federal stimulus potentially 

worth hundreds of millions of dollars under a program designed to support 

regional communities enduring hardship. 

The ABC understands the stimulus plan is being discussed by Cabinet and 

could be announced as early as next week, with a focus on ensuring 

employers retain workers. 

Documents obtained by the ABC reveal the Nationals wish list 

amounts to $1.3 billion for an improved Government drought 

response, potentially split 50-50 with states. The package would see 

local committees established to divvy up grants, although the federal or 

state MP would have the power of veto. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-23/drought-stricken-towns-to-receivehundreds-of-millions-stimulus/11632838




Drought-affected farmers and businesses to be offered 

super-cheap loans to stay afloat 

Exclusive by political editor Andrew Probyn and national rural 

reporter Kath Sullivan on 6 November 2019 

The Federal Government will announce a half-billion-dollar drought 

stimulus package aimed at helping farmers and regional businesses. 

(Klae McGuinness Photography) 

Key points: 

• Cheap government loans with interest-free periods will be offered to 

drought-affected farmers and businesses 

• The loans will be part of a $500 million federal government drought 

stimulus package 

• Regional councils and roads will also receive funding in a bid to boost 

rural jobs 

Farmers and regional businesses will be offered super-cheap loans to keep 

afloat during the drought under sweeping changes to an existing finance 

scheme.


As part of a $500 million drought stimulus package to be announced on 

Thursday, the Morrison Government plans to overhaul the Regional 

Investment Corporation's (RIC) funding rules. 

The ABC understands $2 million loans under the RIC would be offered to 

farmers under a reconfigured 10-year payback schedule. 

The first two years would be at no interest and no repayment, followed by 

three years interest-only and then another five years to pay loans back. 

The loans would be available to farmers to feed, water, freight and stock 

their businesses, or anything that might keep their operations going. 

Businesses that support or supply farmers in drought-stricken areas would 

be eligible for $500,000 loans under the same interest and repayment 

arrangements. 

While the Government expects the loans could be worth hundreds of 

millions of dollars, most of the cost of this measure would be "off-budget". 

The RIC was established last year to administer low-interest government 

loans. 

It approved 211 drought loans worth more than $200 million in its first 

14 months. 

This financial year, it has already approved 70 drought loan applications 

worth more than $60 million. 

Scott Morrison has made multiple trips to drought-hit regions 

with ministers Bridget McKenzie and David Littleproud. 

(ABC News: Anna Henderson)


Money for regional councils 

It is understood the assistance will extend the Drought Communities 

Program to offer an additional six drought-affected councils $1 million. 

The Government will also provide an additional $1 million to the 

122 councils that have already received funding under the program. 

It will be the second time Mr Morrison has extended the program in less 

than two months. 

The Government was criticised for providing the grant to the Moyne Shire 

in Victoria, which rejected the grant on the basis its farmers were 

experiencing one of their best seasons in decades. 

It was also forced to overturn a decision not to provide the grant to 

Victoria's Moira Shire, which is heavily dependent on agriculture and was 

experiencing dry conditions. 

There will also be $50 million discretionary spending for councils that do 

not meet the funding criteria of the Drought Communities Program. 

The criteria is based on Bureau of Meteorology data and requires that 17 

per cent of all employment in the local government area is directly linked 

to agriculture. 

Money for regional roads 

The Government's stimulus package will also see more than 120 local 

councils in drought-affected regions share in more than $130 million, 

which will be offered as a supplementary payment under the Roads to 

Recovery program. 

The program provides funding direct to local councils to improve roads, 

and the Government hopes it will lead to job creation in drought-affected 

areas. 

The Government is also expected to redirect $200 million from the 

Building Better Regions Fund to create a Special Drought Fund, that 

will provide up to $10 million for local councils. 

It was not yet clear how this funding would be spent.


The Nationals recently proposed a $1.3 billion drought response, which 

included providing $10 million drought grants for local government areas 

to be spent in consultation with community leaders. Under that proposal, 

the funding would be provided on a 50:50 basis between the state and 

federal governments. 

Call for states to do their bit 

Drought Minister David Littleproud, speaking on Sky News, said federal 

funding would not be contingent on state governments matching it. 

But he said the states could do more to help communities confronted by 

drought, including subsiding local government rates, and payroll tax. 

"This would be a real opportunity, a game changer for them to give a 

stimulus that would really piggy back off the stimulus that we're about to 

put into these communities," Mr Littleproud said. 

The National Farmers' Federation (NFF) said extra funding must flow 

immediately to drought-hit communities. 

"We shouldn't have to wait months and months for these measures when 

they get announced to hit the ground," chief executive Tony Mahar said. 

The NFF recently wrote to Prime Minister Scott Morrison, calling for six 

urgent measures to be met to assist regional communities. 

The NFF wish list included funding to help farmers pay their local council 

rates, payroll subsidies equivalent to Newstart for farm businesses, exit 

packages to help farmers leave the land, a $2,000 top up to the Assistance 

for Isolated Children Allowance, two years interest free on government 

loans, and a plan to eradicate feral pigs. 

The Australian pork industry estimates feral pig eradication could cost 

$100 million over five years. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-06/roads-councils-to-benefit-from-federaldrought-funding/11678718 

--------------------------------- END ------------------------------


Broken Promise-ICAC: Excuses to 

establish a federal anti-corruption 

commission 

Currently the government's statement of ministerial standards 

is issued and enforced by the Prime Minister, requiring 

frontbenchers to act with integrity and in the best interest of 

their constituents. 

The thing that people who operate in dark corners fear the 

most is light. The auditor carries a very bright torch. 

…Rex Patrick


Morrison’s excuses for failing to establish 

a federal anti-corruption commission 

Federal ICAC: 

Former judges call for national anti-corruption watchdog 

By Matt Peacock for ABC 7.30 on 2 November 2017 

A group of prominent former judges have called for the establishment of a 

federal anti-corruption agency, saying serious corruption almost certainly 

exists in federal politics. 

"It is already well known that there is abundant corruption in the other 

capital cities around Australia, why on earth does the air suddenly clear 

around Queanbeyan?" former Victorian Supreme Court judge Stephen 

Charles said. 

In most states, anti-corruption agencies with sweeping powers have been 

operating for decades. In New South Wales the Independent Commission 

Against Corruption (ICAC) has even brought down a premier. 

But it's a different story nationally, where there is nobody specifically 

charged with targeting corruption. 

"I've got no doubt that there is corruption at all levels of the Federal 

Government and in Parliament itself," barrister Mark Robinson SC told 7.30. 

"It hasn't been looked at." 

Former NSW Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy is heading the anticorruption 

body Transparency International and he's working with a group 

of other former judges, all of whom believe the time for a national anticorruption 

agency has come. 

"We're all committed to the establishment of a national integrity body," 

Mr Whealy said. 

"I call it the National Integrity Commission. It would be an umbrella-style 

body that would have its spokes protruding over and above the AFP, over 

and above the Parliamentary Expenses Authority, over and above the AEC 

[Australian Electoral Commission], and over and above the public service.


"That one body would, by focusing its attention wherever a complaint was 

made, do its best to expose and educate and where necessary refer issues 

for prosecution if criminality was revealed." 

'People think politicians are engaged in corruption' 

Nick Xenophon Party senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore said faith in 

politicians was at an all-time low. 

"There are reports that have come out from various global agencies that 

say that in Australia, the majority of people think that politicians are 

engaged in some form of corruption and about 12 per cent of people think 

that, if not all politicians are, some would be," she said. 

Vote Compass corruption 

Data gathered by the ABC's Vote Compass in 2016 found a majority of 

Australians supported a national corruption watchdog. 

Senator Kakoschke-Moore sat on a joint Parliamentary inquiry which, 

earlier this year, fell short of directly recommending a federal ICAC. 

Labor senator Jacinta Collins, who chaired the committee, said it was a 

complex issue. 

"If we'd simply come forward with a recommendation without following it 

with, 'The model should work this way', responding to the work of the 

assessment that's currently being done, I just don't think we'd be getting it 

right," she said. 

Government agencies such as the Federal Police, the Federal Ombudsman 

and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission already do some of 

the work, but these former senior judges don't believe they are enough. 

"They just don't have the powers that an ICAC-type body has and nor do 

they have the ability to hold public hearings," Margaret McMurdo, former 

president of the Queensland Court Of Appeal, said. 

Will politicians accept it? 

Despite some spectacular successes, NSW ICAC has drawn criticism for 

ruining reputations and overriding civil rights. Any federal equivalent would 

need better safeguards, argued Mr Robinson.


"You turn up, you're often given two hours' notice. You're put in a taxi with 

a subpoena and you give your evidence," he said. 

"You're forced to incriminate yourself sometimes, and you do so and you 

have no recourse against a finding, except what's available in the courts 

and judicial review and that is far from perfect." 

Mr Charles said he understood the civil libertarian objections. 

"They are entirely justifiable and we have to be very careful in setting up 

these bodies, that there are proper limitations and oversight of the bodies 

and their work," he said. 

The big question is whether politicians are themselves prepared to risk 

scrutiny of their own actions. 

"In many ways it's a protection to politicians to have a body like this 

because it means that the public will have confidence that there is 

oversight of their politicians and there is accountability and if there is 

corruption, it will be exposed," Ms McMurdo said. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-02/former-judges-call-for-federalicac/9112396




Morrison government announces 

new federal anti-corruption commission 

By Amy Remeikis, Political Reporter and Christopher Knaus, Reporter 

for The Guardian on 13 December 2018 

Scott Morrison and Christian Porter have announced a federal Icac-style body called 

the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian 

Scott Morrison will move to establish a federal anti-corruption commission, 

less than a month after dismissing the proposal as a “fringe issue”. 

But the Coalition’s proposed integrity commission will operate outside of 

public view, with the investigative body to make no public findings, hold 

no public hearings, and refer any recommendations directly to prosecutors, 

who will make the ultimate decision on whether or not to go forward with 

a case. 

A former commissioner of the NSW independent commission against 

corruption described the omission of public hearings as “very weak”. 

Morrison said the government was seeking to avoid its body being used as 

a political tool or a “plaything” for those with an agenda. 

Guardian Australia reported last month that the attorney general, Christian 

Porter, had been working on a proposal to convert the Australian 

Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity into a federal anti-corruption 

office under Malcolm Turnbull’s stewardship. 

It is that model Porter and Morrison announced on Thursday. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/13/morrison-governmentannounces-new-federal-anti-corruption-commission


Morrison’s excuses for failing to establish a 

federal anti-corruption commission 

Coalition accused of trying to avoid scrutiny after 

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) budget cut 

By Paul Karp for The Guardian on 8 October 2020 

Concerns grow that watchdog that uncovered sports rorts is being 

whittled away as payback for politically damaging investigations 

Labor MP Julian Hill wants the Australian National Audit Office to become a 

parliamentary department to protect the watchdog from funding cuts. 

Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP 

The agency that uncovered sports rorts and the massive overspend on land 

at the Western Sydney airport should be protected from budget cuts with 

greater independence and special status, Labor’s Julian Hill has said. 

Hill wants the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to become a 

parliamentary department, on par with the Parliamentary Budget Office, to 

protect the watchdog from cuts that will see its audits slashed from a 

target of 48 a year to just 38. 

In Tuesday’s budget the government slashed $14 million from the ANAO’s 

operating budget, prompting concerns from opposition parties and 

independents that the watchdog was being whittled away as payback for 

high-profile and politically damaging investigations.


On Wednesday Scott Morrison dead-batted a question in parliament by 

claiming it would reconsider resourcing issues after a 10-year review being 

conducted by the audit committee. 

Before the budget, the auditor general wrote to Morrison asking for an 

additional $6.3 million in 2020-21 to deliver 48 performance audits a year, 

rising to $9.1 million extra in 2023-24. 

The call received wide political support from Labor, the Greens and 

independents, including senator Rex Patrick and MP Zali Steggall. Even the 

audit committee, which is controlled by Coalition members and chaired by 

Liberal MP Lucy Wicks, made a confidential recommendation for ANAO 

funding to be increased. 

Tuesday’s budget contained no new measures relating to the ANAO, but 

due to its ongoing deficits and the Coalition’s efficiency dividend, the 

watchdog’s resources fell from $112 million in 2019-20 to $98 million in 

2020-21. 

The thing that people who operate in dark corners fear the most is 

light. The auditor carries a very bright torch 

Rex Patrick 

Much of the cut will fall on performance audits, the budget for which 

shrinks from $33.4 million in 2019-20 to $28.9 million in 2023-24. 

Instead of the 42 performance audits delivered last year, the ANAO now 

expects to deliver 40 audits in 2021-22, declining to 38 by 2023-24. 

Patrick told Guardian Australia: “The thing that people who operate in dark 

corners fear the most is light. The auditor carries a very bright torch. The 

prime minister has just taken away one of the torch batteries.” 

Patrick labelled funding cuts “nothing short of an assault on oversight of 

government”. He added it would be “entirely reasonable” to conclude cuts 

were “retribution for [the auditor general’s] continued exposure of 

government maladministration, cost blowouts and highly questionable 

conduct by ministers and officials”. 

The joint committee of public accounts and audit is tasked with advocating 

for the auditor general, but its deputy chair, Hill, said the system “is failing”.


“We haven’t seen the chair or government members of the committee say 

boo about the auditor general’s budget being cut again – and performance 

audits have gone off a cliff,” he told Guardian Australia. 

Although the ANAO is theoretically appointed by the parliament, Hill noted 

in addition to its dependence on the government for funding, the 

watchdog was also subject to directions from the government. 

In 2018 the government gagged the watchdog, suppressing criticism of a 

$1.3 billion arms deal. The finance minister has also used powers over the 

auditor-general to prevent him revealing budget cuts to the audit 

committee, Hill said. 

“We need an audit office that is fully independent from the executive 

government and properly resourced. 

“The ANAO should formally be a department of parliament – removing any 

potential conflict about being a public entity overseen by the prime 

minister and removing any potential conflict around budget matters. 

“It would mean that, like the PBO, the presiding officers, the Speaker of the 

House and the president of the Senate are there to stick up for its 

independence.” 

In question time on Wednesday, Steggall said the ANAO was the only 

government agency “shining a light on misuse of public funds” and asked 

how the government would prevent pork-barrelling and mismanagement 

of taxpayer funding with fewer audits. 

Morrison replied that when the government will “consider the resourcing” 

of the auditor general and make a “fulsome response” after the 10-year 

review of the audit committee. 

The audit committee’s recommendation, revealed by Guardian Australia 

last Thursday, was given to parliament on Tuesday in a speech by Hill on 

behalf of the chair. 

The committee acknowledged the “difficult budgetary environment” but 

provided a “qualified recommendation in support of the auditor-general’s 

request for supplementation”, he said.


“The committee’s majority recommendation is that the ANAO not be 

exempt from this efficiency dividend.” 

The Greens democracy spokeswoman, Larissa Waters, said the government 

“is doing all it can to avoid public scrutiny, this time using the budget to 

stifle our accountability and transparency bodies”. 

“The government has given no extra funding to the ANAO – the agency 

that uncovered sports rorts – knowing full well that it will be forced to cut 

the number of its audits,” she said. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/oct/08/coalition-accused-oftrying-to-avoid-scrutiny-after-audit-office-budget-cut


Morrison’s excuses for failing to establish a 

federal anti-corruption commission 

Scott Morrison’s excuses for failing to establish a 

federal integrity commission don't hold water 



Voters know that ensuring Australia’s institutions work as they should 

is a critical issue – and that the Coalition can multitask when it wants 

to 

It is brave of Scott Morrison to defend the persistent absence of a 

national integrity body with the argument that his government can’t multitask. 

Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP 

The speaker of the House of Representatives, Tony Smith, didn’t like 

Anthony Albanese’s opening jab in question time on Wednesday: “where 

the bloody hell” was the federal integrity body the government has long 

been promising but serially failing to deliver? 

The speaker thought Albanese’s framing was “ironical” (and possibly 

provocative, given “where the bloody hell” was a marketing line developed 

during the prime minister’s Tourism Australia days). 

Smith – not widely known for his “ironical” tendencies – was correct on 

both counts.


But Albanese’s question was apposite. The government bowled up several 

answers to Albanese’s opening question on Wednesday. The first excuse 

was anti-corruption bodies are complex, and we need to consult widely 

before rushing to legislate. 

That’s reasonable enough. These bodies are complex, and considered 

consultation is always better than drawing up a complex proposal on the 

back of a beer coaster. 

The second explanation/justification/excuse was: it’s difficult to conduct a 

proper consultation period during a pandemic. Hmm. Maybe. A bit. But we 

all have Zoom, and we know how to use it. One of the special bequests of 

the pandemic: Zoom, and the mastery of Zoom backgrounds. 

The third explanation/justification/excuse was “don’t you realise there’s a 

crisis, Anthony, you fool”. Supplementary to that side swipe from the prime 

minister was this: “I was not going to have one public servant diverted from 

the task [of managing the pandemic to deal with ICAC].” 

Scott Morrison has never lacked confidence, but it is brave of the prime 

minister to construct a defence that his own government can’t multitask. 

This is particularly brave when Morrison and Co have spent all the months 

of the crisis demonstrating they are pretty efficient at multitasking. 

This government can walk and chew gum at the same time. We’ve watched 

them do it for months. 

Another fact inconvenient to the official explanation/justification/excuse: 

this government has managed to pursue several reforms this year that 

aren’t related to managing the Covid crisis. 

Just a few standout examples. The government is in the throes 

of overhauling the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation 

Act – a complex undertaking requiring wide-ranging consultation. It is also 

pursuing a change the mandate of its clean energy bodies to allow for 

investment in gas and carbon capture and storage.


Then there’s the foreign veto power proposal giving the commonwealth 

the ability to cancel various sub-national and university agreements it 

views as contrary to the national interest. I don’t think that proposal was 

preceded by a huge amount of consultation, but the change is certainly 

consequential and unrelated to Covid-19. 

The government has also had time to pursue powers allowing it to remove 

mobile phones from asylum seekers in immigration detention. No clear 

Covid angle there, but certainly time diverted in a quest to try and cajole 

the Senate crossbench into supporting the legislation. There are other 

examples, like doubling university fees for some future humanities 

students. 

Should I keep going? I can. But it is probably unnecessary because you get 

the drift. 

Then there’s the inconvenience of the timelines. A cabinet submission 

outlining a proposal recommending that the Australian Commission for 

Law Enforcement Integrity be converted into a federal integrity commission 

with two wings – one for law enforcement agencies and the other for 

public servants and politicians – was being worked up in the weeks before 

Malcolm Turnbull was removed as prime minister. So that preparatory work 

was happening back in 2018. 

The government had an exposure draft of its preferred legislation ready in 

January this year. While the draft was ready, the attorney general proffered 

another excuse in January for why he would be hastening slowly. 

“Rather than starting the consultation process during the holiday period, 

which is not an ideal time to start a process of public scrutiny, I have 

decided to release the full 300-plus pages of the draft early in the new 

year,” Christian Porter said back then. Guys, don’t you know it’s Christmas? 

Porter has been one of the busiest cabinet ministers during the pandemic. 

I’ve witnessed his frenetic juggling of responsibilities ranging from 

emergency public health regulations to reforming labour market rules 

allowing businesses to function during the crisis. When parliament sits, 

Porter runs the government’s tactics too.


But voters know an excuse when they hear one, particularly when they hear 

a sequence of ad-hoc, dog-ate-my-homework improvisations orbiting 

around the persistent absence of a national integrity body. 

Before senior players in the government started their flourishing cottage 

industry in self-exonerating talking points and excuses (perhaps an 

unheralded subset of the Coalition’s modern manufacturing strategy), 

Morrison and Porter were more direct about what the hold-up was. 

Back in 2018, Porter said reforming the current anti-corruption functions 

was not the “first and foremost priority” of the government. Morrison once 

dismissed a federal integrity commission as a “fringe issue”. 

The problem for the government is while creating a body charged with 

policing their beat apparently isn’t a priority, the problems keep piling up. 

Sports grants. The unsolved mystery of how Angus Taylor came to use 

completely false figures in a political attack against the Sydney lord mayor, 

Clover Moore. A persistent head-scratcher: how did the government come 

to roll out a potentially unlawful program in robodebt? 

More recently there’s the persistent stink around the Leppington land 

purchase, where officials paid $30m for land worth $3m – a process so 

freewheeling and so dubious it prompted the Australian National Audit 

Office to refer the transaction to the Australian federal police. Grant Hehir, 

the commonwealth auditor-general, told Senate estimates this week that 

was the first time in his tenure where he had referred an issue to the police 

for investigation. 

So a quick hint for the prime minister: ensuring our institutions work in the 

interests of voters, ensuring public servants actually serve the public, 

ensuring there are consequences when powerful people abuse their power 

and cross lines that should not be crossed, is not a fringe issue. 

It is one of the most important issues there is. And I reckon voters know it. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/oct/21/scott-morrisons-excusesfor-failing-to-establish-a-federal-integrity-commission-dont-hold-water




The Morrison government received a draft of a bill to establish 

a national anti-corruption commission in December last year. 

By AAP for SBS on 21 October 2020 

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison speaks during Question Time 

at Parliament House in Canberra on Wednesday. Source: AAP 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has defended delaying establishing a 

national corruption watchdog despite his government receiving a draft bill 

more than nine months ago. 

Senior officials from the attorney-general's department presented the 

minister with an exposure draft of the legislation in December. 

Mr Morrison said coronavirus was taking precedence over the corruption 

commission he promised to establish almost two years ago. 

"I was not going to have one public servant diverted from the task of ... 

dealing with this pandemic," he told parliament on Wednesday. 

"That has been part of the reason for delaying release of that exposure 

draft." 

Labor senator Murray Watt was flabbergasted by the delay. 

"Wow. So he's been sitting on it since last year?" he said. 

Mr Albanese, meanwhile, tweeted that Australia needed a federal anticorruption 

commission to bring back public accountability.


The coalition committed to establishing a federal anti-corruption 

commission almost two years ago. 

A corruption scandal engulfing former NSW Liberal MP Daryl Maguire and 

a controversial federal land purchase have reignited calls for a national 

body. 

Government minister Zed Seselja said Mr Porter would release the 

exposure draft soon. 

"We have been dealing with the COVID crisis and the attorney-general in a 

range of capacities of course has been dealing with that response," he said. 

Senator Watt questioned if the coalition had decided fighting corruption 

could wait. 

"The government's argument as to why it has not been able to deliver a 

Commonwealth integrity commission that it promised nearly two years ago 

is that there's just too much going on," he said. 

Department secretary Chris Moraitis said some resources had been 

diverted to industrial relations reform and bushfires, which the government 

considered more pressing. 

He said the department had progressed work relating to the commission 

as far as it could and was now waiting for the exposure draft's release. 

The committee also heard the 76 integrity commission staff referenced in 

the federal budget was an error. 

"It was an oversight from previous budget measures that shouldn't have 

been included in that paper and would ordinarily have been edited, but 

that was missed," Ms Chidgey said. 

Source: 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/scott-morrison-defends-delay-on-corruptionwatchdog-promised-nearly-two-years-ago




Scott Morrison's promised integrity commission 

can't hide behind coronavirus much longer – can it? 

The Conversation / By Michelle Grattan 23 October 2020 

The Coalition has been cornered by the politics into committing to a 

federal integrity commission. (ABC News: Luke Stephenson) 

The Government can act super-fast on integrity issues when it wants. 

On Thursday, a Senate estimates committee was told the governmentowned 

Australia Post bought Cartier watches worth $3,000 each for four 

senior employees as rewards. 

Scott Morrison said he was "appalled" — immediately the Government 

ordered post's chief executive Christine Holgate to stand aside (or quit 

entirely if she preferred) and launched an inquiry, which will report to 

Cabinet. 

But when it comes to structural reform to improve integrity, the pace has 

been snail's, the slowness justified by COVID-19. 

On any reasonable timetable, Parliament would be voting about now to set 

up a national integrity commission. Instead, draft legislation sits in the files 

of Attorney-General Christian Porter. In Senate estimates this week it was 

confirmed he's had it since December last year.


The Government was not inclined to conduct the necessary detailed 

consultations during the pandemic, Porter told Parliament. Morrison said 

he wasn't having a single public servant diverted from COVID-19. 

Now COVID-19 is more or less under control, and Morrison this week 

indicated to the Coalition parties he intends to run full term — that is, into 

early 2022. 

So he has all next year to get this commission legislated and ready to start, 

assuming he really wants to. 

He'd prefer not to be going down this path. The Coalition has been 

cornered by the politics into committing to a commission. Even Labor, 

which has become a passionate advocate, didn't see the need for a federal 

body until recent years. 

The New South Wales ICAC hearings about disgraced former state Liberal 

MP Daryl Maguire and Premier Gladys Berejiklian have reignited the debate 

about integrity and a federal body. 

More directly, a recent report from the federal auditor-general exposed 

that the Commonwealth paid $30 million for a parcel of land later valued at 

only $3 million, near Badgerys Creek, site for Sydney's second airport. 

The sale, now being investigated by the police, didn't reach ministerial 

level. 

But the other major scandal uncovered by the Audit Office this year had a 

minister at its core. "Sports rorts" claimed the scalp of Nationals' Bridget 

McKenzie, though Morrison forced her out on a technicality and never 

admitted the political rorting. 

Committed to a commission with blunted teeth 

Issues of accountability and transparency tend to be "nerdy" except when 

they break into spectacular headlines. But they're at the heart of achieving 

good government. 

Ministerial standards in practice vary from time to time but federally they're 

lower than they used to be (for example, in periods of the Fraser and 

Hawke governments and the first days of the Howard government).


The inclination of governments is to hang onto ministers, however 

compromised. McKenzie was only chopped when it was politically 

impossible to sustain her. 

The top of the public service has also become increasingly politicised, 

reducing the checks in the system. On the other hand, Senate estimates 

hearings have proved themselves invaluable forums to mine information 

that's embarrassing or worse, as we saw again this week. 

ICAC hearings in NSW have reignited the debate about 

integrity and a federal body. (AAP: Dan Himbrechts) 

Though the Government says it is committed to an integrity commission, it 

has blunted its proposed teeth, so far as they would apply to politicians, 

their staff and public servants. 

The commission would have a law enforcement division and a public sector 

division — the latter (which we are concerned with here) covering federal 

parliamentarians, staffers and bureaucrats. 

While Porter says its powers would be "greater than a royal commission", 

the hearings in this division would be in secret. Those who favour secrecy 

argue it is necessary to avoid the "kangaroo court" aspect of ICAC; others 

believe open hearings are in the public interest and the threat of them can 

be a deterrent. 

Crossbenchers have been strong proponents of integrity measures.


On Monday, Helen Haines, independent member for Indi, will introduce her 

private member's bill for an integrity body; she describes it as "a consensus 

bill with strong safeguards". 

Senate independent Rex Patrick (formerly of Centre Alliance) says the 

pandemic is no excuse for the government failing to table its draft 

legislation immediately. 

"They haven't progressed it fast enough," he says. "Their heart isn't in it. 

They are trying to hide behind COVID." 

Patrick believes the commission should be able to hold open hearings at 

the discretion of the commissioner. But, he says, a threshold should be met 

before people's names become public. 

A shout out to the Audit Office 

Julian Hill claims the Government has cut the Audit Office's funds in "revenge". 

(ABC News) 

If anyone needed evidence of the Morrison Government's lack of 

enthusiasm for scrutiny bodies, they've only to consider the treatment of 

the Audit Office in this month's budget. 

The office unsuccessfully sought $6.3 million extra funding for 2020- 

21. Its finances are complicated — the best measure of what is happening 

to it is actually how much work it can do.


Its target is 48 performance audits a year. Auditor-general Grant Hehir told 

Senate estimates: "We are forecasting that in 2020-21 we will produce 42 

audits, falling to 40 in the following year, and then, by 2022-23, down to 

38." 

In what might be less-than-welcome news for the Government, Hehir 

noted in the office's annual report that its program in the longer term "will 

need to address the delivery of the intended outcomes of the COVID-19 

response, including at a macro level, and we will plan for audits of recovery 

programs". 

Given the Coalition's attacks on Labor's programs responding to the global 

financial crisis, it will be interesting to see how its programs fare under 

forensic scrutiny. 

Labor's Julian Hill, deputy chair of the parliamentary joint standing 

committee of public accounts and audit, accuses both that committee 

(which receives the office's draft budget estimates) and Morrison of failing 

to stand up for the office. 

He claims the Government has cut the office's funds in "revenge" for it 

exposing sports rorts, the Badgerys Creek land deal and defence spending 

blowouts. 

Hill proposes changes to strengthen the independence of the auditorgeneral 

— who is already an "officer of the parliament" but sits within the 

Prime Minister's department administratively and has to look to the PM to 

support budget pitches. 

The Audit Office deserves a big shout-out this year. But it can't fill the gap 

that exists because of the absence of an integrity commission. 

Surely the Government can only dally on that for so long, shielded by 

COVID-19. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-23/morrisons-promised-integritycommission-cant-hide-covid19-longer/12805682




Audit office funding slashed, 

renewing calls for integrity commission 

by Katina Curtis, Political Reporter based at Parliament House in 

Canberra for The Sydney Morning Herald on October 26, 2020 

The Commonwealth's default integrity watchdog has lost nearly a fifth of 

its funding since the Coalition came to power. 

As the Law Council of Australia joins calls for a Commonwealth integrity 

commission to be established as soon as possible, a Parliamentary Library 

analysis of the Australian National Audit Office's budget since 2012- 

13 shows its total resourcing fell from $77.8 million to $63.6 million in 

2012-13 dollars, a cut of more than 18 per cent in real terms 

The Law Council of Australia warns if Christian Porter and Scott Morrison delay a 

federal integrity watchdog further, Australia may fall behind its UN obligations. 


Auditor-General Grant Hehir has said that budget constraints have 

already hindered the audit office's work and will continue to do so in 

the future unless it receives more funding. 

The analysis, commissioned by Labor MP Julian Hill, also shows the office's 

annual resourcing has steadily trended down over that time while its 

expenses rose sharply in 2018-19.


Mr Hehir told Senate estimates last week his budget had been squeezed by 

a combination of efficiency dividends, indexation adjustments and savings 

measures over a number of years. The audit office also has to do more 

mandatory audits of government organisation financial statements, which 

are growing in complexity. 

Mr Hehir said the October 6 federal budget showed funding will fall by 

$661,000 but he had already built in that expectation. 

A government spokesman said Parliament's public accounts and audit 

committee would look at appropriate funding and workloads in a review 

that is now under way, looking at the audit office's operations, business 

model and resourcing. 

"Given the breadth of this once-in-a-decade inquiry ... it would be highly 

premature for the government to consider changes to the funding model 

for the organisation ahead of this review," he said. 

Mr Hill, who is deputy chair of that committee, accused the government of 

deliberately starving the independent watchdog of funds. 

"Government spending under the Liberals is at a record high and Australia 

is hurtling towards $1 trillion of debt, so the ANAO needs more funding, 

not less," he said. 

"While relentlessly attacking the Auditor-General, the Morrison 

government is also stalling on its promise to establish an independent 

commission to investigate corruption, amidst the ever-growing list of 

government scandals, waste and rorts." 

Legislation to set up the federal watchdog has been ready since December, 

but Attorney-General Christian Porter is yet to publish a draft for 

consultation. 

The government has said it has been concentrating on responding to the 

coronavirus pandemic. 

"The government is focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, the COVID-19 

recession, saving lives, saving livelihoods, protecting Australians at a time 

of their greatest crisis. And the Labor Party comes in here to throw mud 

around," Prime Minister Scott Morrison told Parliament.


The Law Council of Australia says the country is falling behind its 

international obligations by delaying the establishment of a 

Commonwealth integrity commission. 

President Pauline Wright said it was unclear what was delaying the 

publication of draft legislation. 

"Corruption has many corrosive effects on society. It undermines 

democracy and the rule of law as well as being capable of distorting 

market forces," she said. 

Independent MP Helen Haines introduced bills to Parliament on Monday 

to establish a national integrity commission and an integrity officer to 

advise politicians. 

Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese accused the government of being 

"weighed down by scandal and integrity issues", reeling off a list including 

the sports rorts grants and the $33 million purchase of land later valued at 

$3 million – both uncovered by the audit office – Australia Post spending 

nearly $20,000 on Cartier watches to reward four executives, and the 

corporate watchdog's chair and deputy chair having to repay more than 

$180,000 in expenses. 

"The watch is ticking on the need for a national integrity commission," he 

said. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/audit-office-funding-slashed-renewingcalls-for-integrity-commission-20201026-p568q5.html




'Weak powers' to expose federal MPs: 

former judge blasts corruption watchdog plan 

By Michaela Whitbourn, legal affairs reporter with Timna Jacks 

at The Sydney Morning Herald on November 4, 2020 

Former ICAC Assistant Commissioner Anthony Whealy, QC, 

pictured in 2013. CREDIT:PETER RAE 

A former top NSW judge who presided over a corruption inquiry that led 

to the jailing of Eddie Obeid says the Morrison government's proposed 

anti-corruption commission has "weak" powers to expose federal 

politicians and is an expensive exercise in doing very little. Anthony 

Whealy, QC, chair of the Centre for Public Integrity and a former Court of 

Appeal judge, made corruption findings against Obeid in 2014 after 

heading a NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry into 

the former state Labor MP's business dealings at Circular Quay. 

Mr Whealy said the federal government's proposed Commonwealth 

Integrity Commission (CIC), draft legislation for which was released publicly 

on Monday for consultation along with a promise of almost $150 million in 

funding, had "fundamental deficiencies" that had not been addressed 

following earlier consultation. 

"It won't work in the majority of cases," Mr Whealy said. "It's an awfully 

expensive exercise to create a mammoth body and spend millions of 

dollars on it knowing that it won't work."


The CIC is split into two divisions with "completely different powers", Mr 

Whealy said, with the division responsible for investigating alleged 

corruption by federal MPs, their staff or departments unable to hold public 

hearings, make corruption findings, or act directly on tip-offs from the 

public. 

The proposed body could only launch an inquiry in such cases when asked 

by other agencies. 

Spot the difference: State anti-corruption bodies and the proposed 

federal commission 

• Tip-offs: In NSW and Victoria, any person can send an anonymous 

tip-off to a corruption agency. Under the federal government's plan, 

the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission (CIC) cannot act 

on public complaints about politicians and public servants, but can 

act on public tip-offs about law enforcement officers. 

• Public hearings: Unlike the state models, the proposed federal anticorruption 

commission would not allow public hearings to be held in 

cases involving politicians and public servants, but would allow them 

in other cases. 

• Defining corruption: The proposed federal law uses a narrower 

definition of corruption for politicians and public servants than is 

used under state law and requires them to have committed one of a 

number of listed crimes. 

• Findings: Unlike the state agencies, the CIC could not make 

corruption findings about politicians or public servants, but could 

about others. 

• Threshold for initiating an inquiry: The bar to initiating an 

investigation is also higher under the federal plan and, in the case of 

politicians and public servants, requires the CIC to reasonably suspect 

that one of a number of listed crimes has been committed before it 

even starts looking into it. 

In NSW and Victoria, the ICAC and the Independent Broad-based Anti- 

Corruption Commission (IBAC) can hold public hearings if necessary, act on 

public tip-offs, and make corruption findings.


Whealy said the Obeid Circular Quay inquiry "just initiated with someone 

suggesting that there was something suspicious about the Obeids having 

an interest in cafes down there; it didn't come from anyone in the 

government". In 2019-20, 43 per cent of the 2416 matters received by the 

ICAC came from the public. 

The 2014 inquiry into Obeid's Circular Quay cafe leases led to a criminal 

trial, and the former MP was jailed in December 2016 for a maximum of 

five years for misconduct in public office for lobbying ministers to favour 

his undeclared business interests. He was released on parole in December 

last year after three years. 

Obeid is now standing trial in the NSW Supreme Court over allegations at 

the centre of a separate ICAC inquiry that was also spurred by a public tipoff. 

Under the CIC blueprint a separate law enforcement integrity division 

covering the Australian Federal Police, border control officials and the 

Australian Tax Office, among other bodies, would be able to hold public 

hearings in some cases as well as make corruption findings, and would be 

able to act on public tip-offs.


"Why are there two divisions with completely different powers; one [with] 

strong powers and the other with weak powers? There's been no 

justification," Mr Whealy said. 

Before launching an investigation in the public sector integrity division, the 

CIC must also have a "reasonable suspicion" that corruption in the form of 

a specific criminal offence listed in the legislation had taken place, a higher 

threshold than exists in NSW and Victoria. The same requirement does not 

apply in the law enforcement division. 

Its powers in the public sector division are limited to conducting 

investigations behind closed doors, before referring matters to the Director 

of Public Prosecutions to consider charges. 

Mr Whealy said Attorney-General Christian Porter viewed the role of the 

federal corruption watchdog as being "a kind of police force" to collect 

evidence secretly "and then just send it off to the Director of Public 

Prosecutions" for use in a potential criminal trial. 

This "misunderstands completely the nature of an anti-corruption body," 

Mr Whealy said. While the ICAC has the power to refer matters to the DPP 

to consider laying charges, "its principal function is to uncover corruption 

and to expose it publicly". 

Mr Whealy said anti-corruption agencies had special powers police did not 

have, including the ability "to force people to answer questions that 

incriminate them". The powers were valuable because they had "the 

capacity to reveal the truth" but the "trade-off" was that such evidence was 

often inadmissible in court. 

"Anti-corruption bodies don't measure their success by prosecutions that 

are successful in court," Mr Whealy said. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/weak-powers-to-expose-federal-mps-formerjudge-blasts-corruption-watchdog-plan-20201103-p56b3a.html 

----------------------------------- END -------------------------------


No Integrity: How National 

Integrity Commission lost its way 

The Australian Border Force is the target of a corruption 

investigation over allegations that it improperly funneled 

$39 million from a national security project to sharemarketlisted 

defence company Austal to prop up its financial position. 

February 2020 

• Attorney-General Christian Porter replaced Michael Griffin 

with Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe as lead in the Australian 

Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI). 

• Former judge Mr Charles questioned if Ms Hinchcliffe was 

too subservient to Mr Porter. 

• Just weeks after the Austal inquiry was redirected by 

Ms Hinchcliffe, Austal was awarded a $324 million contract 

to supply six Cape Class Patrol Boats for Royal Australian 

Navy. 

• After her appointment, Hinchcliffe immediately indicated a 

shift: she would use hearings as a last resort and improve 

the strike rate of prosecutions. Hinchcliffe ended 16 

investigations, 13 of which were into Home Affairs.


How National Integrity Commission lost its way 

Christian Porter, Attorney-General for Australia 

Media Release 7 February 2020 

Attorney-General Christian Porter is pleased to announce that Ms Jaala 

Hinchcliffe has been appointed to lead the Australian Commission for Law 

Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI). 

Ms Hinchcliffe is currently the Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman, a 

position she has held since November 2017. 

From 2015 to 2017, Ms Hinchcliffe was an Assistant Secretary in the 

Department of Parliamentary Services, and held senior executive positions 

in the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions from 

2007 to 2015. 

Her appointment comes at a key time for ACLEI—the agency responsible 

for detecting, investigating and preventing criminality and corruption in 

Commonwealth law enforcement agencies. 

“I congratulate Ms Hinchcliffe on her appointment and I am confident she 

will be a strong and diligent leader in the Morrison Government’s ongoing 

efforts to prevent corruption within the public sector,” the Attorney- 

General said. 

Ms Hinchcliffe commences her appointment on February 10 for a period of 

five years. 

Source: 

https://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/media/media-releases/new-acleicommissioner-appointed-7-february-2020



Timeline : 

The Australian Border Force is the target of a corruption investigation 

over allegations that it improperly funneled $39 million from a 

national security project to sharemarket-listed defence company 

Austal to prop up its financial position. 

• May 2010 

Federal budget allocates $573.6 million for acquisition and operation of 

fleet of eight patrol boats. 

• April 2013 

Austal delivers first Cape Class Patrol Boat 

• August 2015 

Austal slated to be paid $44.6 million to mark completion of acquisition 

phase after the final boat was delivered. 

• August 2015 

Department of Home Affairs provides Austal with a list of 62 problems 

with boats.


• December 17, 2015 

Austal submits a claim for final payment. 


Austal advised by department payment would be withheld until 

performance targets met. Letters sent between Austal and department 

resulting in performance requirement being removed. 


$31 million taxpayer funded payment made to Austal, despite ongoing 

defects with boats. 

• April 4, 2016 

Andrew Bellamy resigns as Austal CEO, replaced by David Singleton. 

• May 6, 2016 

Macquarie investor presentation where Austal talks of “strong cash 

generation” and describes itself as the “leading shipbuilding exporter”. 

• June 29, 2016 

$8 million payment made by Australian government despite issues with 

ships still not being resolved. 

• June 30, 2016 

Austal placed in trading halt pending an announcement. 

• July 4, 2016 

Austal reports significantly higher level of modifications required to US 

ships would mean a $116 to 121 million loss. 

• December 2018 

Auditor-General report highlights milestone payments made without 

proper basis.


• 2019 

ACLEI orders secret but aggressive investigation into corruption over 

milestone payments. 

• January 2019 

Austal’s US offices raided by American corporate regulator. 

• February 2020 

Jaala Hinchcliffe replaces Griffin as ACLEI commissioner, Austal 

investigation wound back. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/border-force-subject-to-corruptioninvestigation-after-millions-paid-to-ship-builder-20201021-p5676z.html



Border Force subject to corruption investigation 

after millions paid to ship builder 

by Nick McKenzie and Charlotte Grieve for The Sydney Morning 

Herald on October 21, 2020 

The Australian Border Force is the target of a corruption investigation over 

allegations that it improperly funneled $39 million from a national security 

project to sharemarket-listed defence company Austal to prop up its 

financial position. 

But the investigation into the suspected corruption of the $573 million 

Cape-class patrol boats contract has created divisions within the federal 

anti-corruption agency running the probe with planned hearings scrapped, 

counsel assisting removed and claims that the agency is weak 

Austal's Cape-class patrol boat for the Australian Border Force. The eight 58-metre 

aluminum monohulls were delivered between March 2013 and September 2015. 

The revelations about the probe come as debate about the need for a 

strong national anti-corruption commission is fueled by the NSW ICAC’s 

recent hearings involving NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian. 

Sources with knowledge of the investigation by the Australian Commission 

for Law Enforcement Integrity, but who are not authorised to speak 

publicly, have confirmed that in early 2019, Australia's then integrity 

commissioner, Michael Griffin, ordered the commission to undertake an 

investigation into Austal and Border Force over the shipbuilding contract.


The investigation is looking into why the Australian Border Force, in late 

2015 and early 2016, disregarded internal advice that it should not pay 

Austal part of a $44.6 million success fee for delivering patrol boats used to 

target people and contraband smugglers and illegal fishing. 

The fee was meant to be paid only if Austal met key milestones to deliver 

eight problem-free patrol boats. The boats were delivered but the Border 

Force advice stated the ASX200 company had failed to reach the 

milestones because the boats were plagued with problems. 

However, after intense lobbying by Austal, Border Force paid out 

$39 million, with the first $31 million handed over two days before 

Christmas in 2015. A further $8 million was paid in June 2016, according to 

Border Force records. 

In the 2015-16 year, donations records reveal Austal donated $60,000 

to the Liberal Party, including $20,000 to the party’s West Australian 

branch. It donated $1500 that same year to the ALP. There is no 

suggestion the donations had any impact on the funds being released by 

Border Force to Austal, an Australian-listed shipbuilder and defence 

contractor with 5500 employees around the world. 

Information received by Mr Griffin pointed his inquiries towards a senior 

Border Force official involved in authorising the payments, leading to 

suspicions that the official may have engaged in corruption. 

The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) inquiry 

into Austal was partly triggered by a December 2018 Auditor-General’s 

report, which highlighted how the $39 million milestone payment was 

made to the defence company without a proper basis. Auditor-General 

Grant Hehir found that even by October 2018, almost three years after 

the first payment, the Cape-class patrol boat program had failed to 

reach its milestones and the Border Force patrol boat fleet faced 

ongoing "capability and support system deficiencies". 

The revelation of the Austal inquiry also raises major questions for the 

company itself, with sources saying the investigation, along with ongoing 

probes by corporate regulators in the US and Australia, has uncovered 

evidence that the defence giant misled markets.


Sources familiar with the various probes said the company wanted the 

$44.6 million in taxpayer funds as it faced major problems with the 

Cape-class project and a major US naval contract. 

Australian Securities and Investments Commission investigators are also 

probing Austal, with Federal Court files revealing the corporate watchdog 

has demanded the firm release "communications involving a dispute with 

the Australian Border Force" – a reference to the milestone payments. ASIC 

and American corporate corruption investigators are also examining if 

Austal misled investors in connection to its US shipyards, which supply the 

US Navy. 

In a statement, Austal said it had not been told of the corruption probe but 

it would assist the integrity commission and was already assisting ASIC and 

US regulators. The company denied any knowledge of wrongdoing. 

As part of his investigative strategy, former commission for law 

enforcement integrity chief Mr Griffin approved the use of secret 

corruption hearings in which witnesses are compelled to answer 

questions honestly or face criminal charges. Procurement records 

published by the Federal government reveal he appointed two barristers as 

counsel assisting, corruption specialist Jonathan Hyde and Dianna Tang. 

Border Force staff being circled by Mr Griffin’s probe include a senior 

former official who helped push through the Austal payments but left the 

agency in 2017 under a corruption cloud and travelled overseas. This 

former official, who The Age and Herald are not naming for legal reasons, 

could not be contacted. 

Mr Griffin authorised secret hearings in Perth, the headquarters of Austal, 

and dispatched investigators to the US to gather evidence from American 

agencies looking into Austal’s US operations. The US agencies raided the 

company's Alabama shipyard in January 2019, according to two official 

sources who are not authorised to speak to the media and requested 

anonymity.


However, Mr Griffin’s approach to the investigation was scrapped 

around April 2020 by his replacement as commission chief, Jaala 

Hinchcliffe, who was previously the Deputy Commonwealth 

Ombudsman. Ms Hinchcliffe was appointed in February by Attorney- 

General Christian Porter. 

ACLEI chief Jaala Hinchcliffe. 

It is the second time Ms Hinchcliffe has scrapped an anti-corruption 

inquiry endorsed by Mr Griffin, having also ditched his planned public 

hearings into Home Affairs' dealings with scandal-ridden casino firm 

Crown Resorts with a relatively limited investigation and public 

report. In that case, Ms Hinchcliffe removed two counsel assisting, Sydney 

SC David McLure and Shipra Chordia, who had been appointed by Mr 

Griffin to conduct private and public hearings and directed investigators 

not to use certain anti-corruption powers, the sources said. 

This case exposes a philosophical difference between corruption fighters. 

Sources with knowledge of the commission's operations said Ms 

Hinchcliffe's preference is for its investigators to avoid coercive hearings, 

partly because information they gather cannot be used in criminal 

prosecutions. 

But other agencies, including NSW's ICAC, prefer holding hearings because 

they force suspects to answer questions truthfully during grillings run by 

lawyers, thereby exposing corruption that would otherwise remain hidden.


The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity is the key pillar 

of the Morrison government’s proposed Commonwealth Integrity 

Commission, which has been attacked by Labor, the Greens and 

independents as weak and ineffective. The federal government believes the 

ICAC model proposed by Labor is at risk of running overzealous, 

sensational corruption hearings that shred reputations but lead to few 

prosecutions. 

Former Court of Appeal judge Stephen Charles has called for a powerful 

federal ICAC that holds coercive hearings and described ACLEI's track 

record as "hopeless". Its small budget was partly to blame, he said, as was a 

lack of will. 

One commission insider was critical of the handling of the Austal probe, 

saying of the payment by Border Force to Austal: "It's either corruption, 

maladministration or inexplicable incompetence [by ABF] but whatever it is, 

the Australian public deserve to know about it". 

Another official said Ms Hinchcliffe was hired as the commission's chief 

because she was an astute manager with a background in criminal 

prosecution who would improve the organisation's mixed record under 

Mr Griffin, who secured few notable corruption convictions. Under him, the 

commission's highest profile scalps were former ABF Commissioner Roman 

Quaedvlieg and former AFP Deputy Commissioner Ramzi Jabbour, both of 

whom lost their jobs over relatively minor conduct breaches. Mr 

Quaedvlieg was found to have acted corruptly by helping his girlfriend get 

a job at Australian Border Force, while Mr Jabbour is facing charges for 

using his service firearm on a recreational hunting trip. Mr Jabbour has 

pleaded not guilty. 

Officials who have had dealings with Mr Griffin criticised his approach of 

"briefing everything out to the NSW bar", a reference to hiring external 

barristers to run coercive hearings rather than relying on the commission's 

own investigators. 

Attorney General Christian Porter said Ms Hinchcliffe was "absolutely 

the right person for the job" and the key measure of the commission's 

success was not its use of coercive hearing powers but "successful 

prosecutions".


But former judge Mr Charles questioned if Ms Hinchcliffe was too 

subservient to Mr Porter, as well as questioning her decision to remove 

the barristers. 

In a statement on Wednesday evening, Ms Hinchcliffe said she couldn't 

discuss ongoing probes but dismissed the criticism, rejecting any claim that 

"I would exercise my powers and functions in a way that is partisan or 

biased." She said that since replacing Mr Griffin, "I have moved to institute 

a range of changes within ACLEI". 

"It is especially important as a small agency that we are directing our 

limited resources towards ... serious and systemic corruption." 

The use of public and private hearings to fight corruption has been thrust 

into the spotlight recently with the NSW ICAC’s inquiry into ex MP Daryl 

Maguire, including his dealings with Ms Berejiklian. In Victoria, IBAC has 

held private hearings, and is preparing public hearings, into allegations of 

corruption in the public transport sector. 

Mr Griffin favoured private coercive hearings and moved to use the 

commission's controversial corruption busting public hearing power just 

once during his five-year tenure via a major public inquiry to be led by star 

Sydney SC David McClure. 

Ms Hinchcliffe's April decision to scrap private hearings into Crown was 

announced in a short statement that received little media coverage. 

A more limited inquiry into the Crown scandal found no corruption, merely 

corruption vulnerabilities. Investigators interviewed no Crown staff and very 

few Border Force and Home Affairs officials. 

Ms Hinchcliffe defended the decision saying other investigative measures 

had exhausted key leads. She said coercive hearings "impacts on a person’s 

rights" and should not be used lightly. "From a more practical perspective, 

coercive hearings are also more resource intensive than other methods of 

investigation," she said.


Just weeks after the Austal inquiry was redirected by Ms Hinchcliffe, 

Austal was awarded a $324 million contract to supply six Cape Class 

Patrol Boats for the Royal Australian Navy. 

The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity is only 

permitted to launch an investigation if it believes it may expose 

corruption involving a serving law enforcement official. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/border-force-subject-to-corruptioninvestigation-after-millions-paid-to-ship-builder-20201021-p5676z.html



Corruption commission chief cancelled coercive hearings in 

Border Force probe 

By Nick McKenzie and Charlotte Grieve for The Sydney Morning 


The chief of Australia's national anti-corruption commission rejected advice 

from external barristers that her agency should hold private coercive 

hearings as part of its investigation into suspected corruption in the 

Australian Border Force. 

Instead, Jaala Hinchcliffe, head of the Australian Commission for Law 

Enforcement Integrity, sacked the barrister who made the 

recommendation and ignored his memo laying out a plan to 

interrogate officials suspected of making tens of millions of dollars in 

corrupt payments. 

ACLEI chief Jaala Hinchcliffe. 

The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald reported on Thursday that the 

commission was investigating $39 million in payments made by the ABF, 

against internal advice, to listed boat builder Austal in connection with the 

$573 million Cape Class patrol boat contract. 

Austal released a statement to the ASX on Thursday morning, approved 

and authorised by chief executive David Singleton, wrongly claiming the 

corruption probe “has been discontinued”. More than two hours later, the 

company released a clarification claiming it was in the dark about the 

status of the ongoing investigation.


“Austal has had no contact with [the anti-corruption commission], so has 

no first-hand knowledge of any investigation, its status, or the substance or 

detail of any allegations that have been made.” 

Austal is also being probed by the Australian Securities and Investment 

Commission for a series of misleading market announcements between 

2015 and 2016. Austal denies the allegations. 

Australia's Cape Class patrol boat, built by WA-based Austal. 

Three official sources have confirmed that in April, barrister and counsel 

assisting ACLEI’s Austal probe Jonathan Hyde sent a memo to Ms 

Hinchcliffe setting out the alleged corruption in the ABF. Mr Hyde had 

been leading the inquiry into the Austal claims and argued for the ongoing 

use of coercive questioning hearings to investigate the allegations. 

Ms Hinchcliffe disagreed with the advice and removed Mr Hyde, a barrister 

who specialises in corruption hearings and commissions of inquiry and 

who also serves as a defence force judge. She also removed a second 

counsel assisting, Dianna Tang. 

Mr Hyde was appointed by Ms Hinchcliffe’s predecessor at the ACLEI, 

Michael Griffin, to probe the payments to Austal but was removed two 

months after Ms Hinchcliffe was appointed by Attorney-General Christian 

Porter to be the integrity commission’s chief. 

In a short statement, Mr Hyde said: “I was retained by the former 

commissioner Michael Griffin, AM, and terminated by the incoming 

commissioner, following a significant difference of opinion.”


He added that “while I wish I could comment” further, he was 

“unfortunately constrained in what I can say”. Ms Tang, a former NSW 

barrister of the year, declined to respond to questions. 

In coercive hearings, suspects must answer questions honestly or face jail. 

They can also be a precursor to public coercive hearings such as the NSW 

ICAC's investigation into disgraced former MP Daryl Maguire. 

As counsel assisting the commission, Mr Hyde had wanted to interrogate 

senior ABF and Austal figures about why $39 million in “milestone” fees 

were paid to Austal even though the patrol boat project did not meet its 

milestones. 

The suspect payments were discovered in 2018 by the Auditor-General, 

who also uncovered explicit internal ABF advice stating the payments 

should not be made. 

The ACLEI is a small, secretive agency with extensive powers which 

oversees law enforcement agencies and is a key pillar of the Coalition’s 

planned Commonwealth Integrity Commission. But Labor, the Greens and 

multiple legal experts have called it, and the government’s proposed 

broader integrity commission, too weak and secretive. 

Attorney-General Christian Porter appointed Ms Hinchcliffe earlier this year. 


Ms Hinchcliffe defended her leadership on Wednesday, saying she was 

trying to improve the commission’s prosecution strike rate, which was 

regarded even by supporters of Mr Griffin as poor during his five-year stint.


Mr Porter insists prosecution success is the key test of any anti-corruption 

commission, while many legal experts argue corruption is too hard to 

prosecute via traditional investigative means. They back the use of private 

and public coercive hearings to expose corruption even if prosecutions do 

not follow. Answers gathered under coercion cannot be used in as 

evidence in a court. 

As well as removing Mr Hyde and Ms Tang in April, Ms Hinchcliffe 

also scrapped Mr Griffin’s planned public coercive hearings into 

corruption allegations surrounding gaming giant Crown Resorts. 

She removed Sydney barrister David McLure, SC, and his colleague 

Shipra Chordia as counsel assisting that inquiry, and instead released a 

limited report. That found Home Affairs gave preferential visa treatment 

to Crown Resorts’ high-roller gamblers, including people who had 

initially been refused entry on character grounds, but it made no finding 

of corruption. 

In a statement, Ms Hinchcliffe said she could not comment on the Austal 

probe because it was ongoing. But she said “decisions about the 

investigative strategy … are based on the evidence available to ACLEI and 

the advice of my team”. Coercive hearings led by counsel assisting were 

not the only means to uncover corruption, she said. 

“It is important that these other avenues are exhausted before the more 

significant step of instigating coercive hearings is taken.” 

ASIC is investigating a series of Austal announcements to the sharemarket 

that coincide with the period in which two of the Australian taxpayerfunded 

milestone payments were made, one of $31 million and one of $8 

million. 

The second payment was issued on June 29, 2016, the day before the 

company was placed into a trading halt pending a major announcement 

with its problematic US combat ships. Construction and design defects 

forced Austal to report a loss of between $116 million and $121 million.


A Sydney-based fund manager had become a substantial shareholder in 

January and said he felt hoodwinked by the profit downgrade. “Clearly the 

market wasn’t informed. As a shareholder, I wouldn’t have been there if I 

thought there was a major earnings shock to come.” 

One market watcher, who declined to be named, said Austal had sacked its 

audit team in early 2018 and the accounting treatment of the milestone 

payments would be central to ASIC’s investigation. In 2018, Austal changed 

its auditor from Ernst and Young to Deloitte. EY was contacted for 

comment. 

Major Austal investor Blackrock met with the company on June 3 to probe 

the company’s business oversight, risk management and corporate 

strategy. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/corruption-commission-chief-cancelled-coercivehearings-in-border-force-probe-20201022-p567lk.html



How a secret investigation into Austal was downgraded 

by investigators 

Google News - Crime Au | 23 October, 2020 

Griffin’s final annual public remarks, issued last September, revealed ACLEI 

was planning to hold the first public hearings in its 15-year history, led by 

star Sydney SC David McLure, into dealings between Home Affairs and 

Border Force and gaming company Crown Resorts. 

The gaming giant faced accusations that, with Home Affairs help, it 

had facilitated suspected criminals obtaining visas to gamble at its 

casinos. 

But a far more secretive operation was running in the background. Griffin’s 

investigators were probing dealings between Border Force and another 

listed Australian company: Austal. Well-placed sources say investigators 

were “peeling the onion” – working through layers of evidence in search of 

a possibly rotten core. 

Griffin had dispatched investigators across Australia and overseas to line 

up witnesses and suspects to be quizzed in private coercive hearings – in 

which people are forced to answer questions honestly or confront a jail 

term. In these rooms, the rules of evidence do not apply. Records show 

Griffin had authorised $210,000 to be paid to two barristers, Jonathan Hyde 

and Diana Tang, to work as counsel assisting. 

At the centre of this inquiry was an extraordinary allegation: that Australian 

Border Force improperly directed almost $40 million of taxpayer funds to 

Austal, the nation’s leading shipbuilder and a large political donor, in the 

2015-16 financial year. 

The law under which Griffin’s agency operated meant he could only 

investigate something if it amounted to serious abuse of office, perversion 

of the course of justice or significant corruption involving a law 

enforcement official.


Sources speaking on condition of anonymity have confirmed that he 

authorised the probe in the belief it may expose “procurement corruption” 

involving a senior Border Force official in bed with the defence firm. 

These planned coercive hearings into Crown and Austal – and the findings 

that would presumably result – would prove that ACLEI could tackle 

“serious and systemic corruption” and demonstrate, as Griffin wrote in his 

2019 annual report, how it would “play a key role in the development of a 

Commonwealth Integrity Commission” – the Coalition’s national anticorruption 

framework. 

Crown’s new Barangaroo development, whose business model 

is based on the high-roller gambling trade. Credit:Wolter Peeters 

As it turned out, his plans would never be realised. 

‘Useless and underfunded’ 

For most of Griffin’s five-year stint at the helm of ACLEI, the silver-haired 

barrister and former judicial officer kept both himself and his agency out of 

the spotlight. 

Former Victorian judge turned national ICAC proponent Stephen Charles, 

QC, who was asked by then premier Ted Baillieu to design Victoria’s 

corruption watchdog, says Griffin’s approach of keeping his agency’s work 

secret has undermined public confidence, as has its small budget, limited 

jurisdiction – it can only oversee certain law enforcement agencies – and 

mixed track record. 

“It’s been useless, but this hasn’t been helped by underfunding,” Charles 

says.


Michael Griffin 

Michael Griffin, former head of the Australian Commission for Law 

Enforcement Integrity. 

Since May 2016, ACLEI has released just over a dozen press releases about 

its work. Its major investigation reports are slim and bland compared to 

those released by state anti-corruption agencies such as ICAC in NSW and 

IBAC in Victoria. 

By August 2019, four years into his stint as Integrity Commissioner, Griffin 

had never held a public hearing into corruption, preferring private hearings 

or confidential inquiries that occasionally led to prosecutions of allegedly 

corrupt officials in court. 

A drawback in coercive corruption hearings is that the information 

uncovered cannot be used as evidence in later criminal prosecutions. On 

the other hand, such hearings unearth hard-to-find corruption that 

traditional investigative methods, such as interviewing suspects alongside 

their lawyers, do not. When such hearings are public, they also offer 

immense public exposure. The mere threat of public hearings could deter 

corruption from occurring in the first place. 

Former judge and famed corruption fighter Tony Fitzgerald, QC, says public 

hearings are a necessary feature of democracy, even if they embarrass 

people who never go on to face any charges. 

“In a truly open society citizens are entitled to full knowledge of 

government affairs,” he says. 

Others, including the federal Coalition, senior barrister and prosecutor 

Margaret Cunneen – who was subject to a NSW ICAC probe that collapsed 

– and Arthur Moses, the silk now representing NSW Premier Gladys 

Berejiklian, oppose such a body at the federal level.


ICAC, they argue, chases scalps and is overly eager to hold public hearings, 

which can unfairly destroy reputations. 

Marca, Zeus and Dureau 

Griffin avoided multiple opportunities to let the public in on ACLEI’s work. 

A former Director of Military Prosecutions and secret hearing interrogator 

at the nation’s peak criminal intelligence organisation, the Australian Crime 

Commission, he said his first challenge after being appointed in 2014 was 

dealing with the washup of the most important corruption inquiry in the 

agency’s 15-year history, Operation Marca. 

The investigation had led to the charging of eight Customs officers with 

corruption-related offences in 2012-13 and major reforms to Border Force 

(then known as Customs). It had opened a window on serious corruption at 

the border that facilitated international drug trafficking and involved 

federal officials. 

Federal police and border force officers who worked with ACLEI on Marca 

were angry that, despite its success, the operation was wrapped up 

prematurely. It had likely left suspected corrupt officers in the field, they 

said. 

After Marca, ACLEI’s successes were few. In 2017, backed by Australian 

Federal Police resources, ACLEI’s Operation Zeus led to guilty pleas by a 

serving Border Force official, Craig Eakin, and a former official accused of 

helping an international drug syndicate beat Australia’s border controls. 

Other investigations floundered. According to officials with knowledge of 

ACLEI’s operations, an investigation codenamed Dureau – into allegations a 

corrupt ex-Border Force official had facilitated drug trafficking for at least 

five years – led to only minor charges. Former investigators say this was 

partly because NSW Police failed to add resources to boost ACLEI’s 

inadequate surveillance capability. 

“Most of what we found was never aired,” either in court or a public 

hearing, says one former ACLEI insider.


Griffin’s highest-profile operations were those that involved catching big 

scalps out in what many senior law enforcement officials viewed as 

relatively minor offending. In 2017, Griffin launched investigations into 

Border Force commissioner Roman Quaedvlieg (who was later sacked 

and who Griffin ultimately found had acted corruptly) over allegations 

he’d tried to get his girlfriend, a junior officer, a job. 

In June 2018, Griffin approved a secret inquiry into former AFP deputy 

commissioner Ramzi Jabbour, who was later charged over allegations he 

misused his service weapon. The genesis of the Jabbour inquiry was far 

more serious – allegations that he may have leaked sensitive information 

about a covert war crimes inquiry to former AFP commissioner Mick Keelty, 

who relayed them to the target of that inquiry, Ben Roberts-Smith. But that 

alleged conduct was not charged. 

Ben Roberts-Smith and Mick Keelty (inset). 

Credit:Getty Images, Alex Ellinghausen 

Confronting power 

While the merit of these investigations still divides senior police, the 

investigations into Jabbour and Quaedvlieg made it clear that, as he neared 

the end of his five years as Integrity Commissioner, Griffin was prepared to 

confront the upper echelons of law enforcement. 

Even so, Griffin’s decision to launch a secret probe into Border Force’s 

dealings with defence giant Austal in early 2019 was bold.


Home Affairs was already under intense fire over the way it had paid 

millions in taxpayer funds to security firm Paladin for securing offshore 

detention centres, and Austal was a $1.8 billion company with impeccable 

contacts in Canberra via its dealings with Defence and Border Force. 

It was also a political donor, having given $60,000 in the 2016 financial year 

to the Liberal Party (the same year it gave $1500 to the ALP). In 2017-18, it 

donated more than $70,000 to Labor. 

Independent senator Rex Patrick used parliamentary privilege on 

Thursday evening to declare Austal had recently changed its lobbying 

tactics, taking high-profile federal politicians – including Prime 

Minister Scott Morrison and Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton – out 

to lavish dinner parties. 

Among the catalysts for ACLEI’s investigation into Austal was a December 

2018 inquiry by Australia’s auditor-general, Grant Hehir, into Border Force’s 

handling of the bungled Cape class patrol boat program. 

Hehir’s report criticised Border Force for its handling of the $520 million 

contract with Austal to deliver a new fleet of steel ships to prowl Australia’s 

naval borders. The patrol boats were defective and their delivery 

plagued by problems. Even so, Hehir found Border Force had paid the 

firm almost $39 million as a “milestone” payment tied to successful 

delivery. 

ACLEI’s investigation was told that Border Force’s internal advice said the 

funds should not be remitted because the milestones had not been met. 

ACLEI’s Integrity Commissioner can only start an inquiry if they believe it 

relates to a serious corruption issue involving a serving law enforcement 

official. Exactly how Griffin reached this threshold is unknown – he couldn’t 

be contacted for this story – but by early 2019 an investigation was 

underway. 

In May 2019, records filed by ACLEI show Griffin hired the two Sydney 

barristers who, according to ACLEI insiders, were intending to grill suspects 

in Perth, where Austal has its headquarters. Griffin also dispatched 

members of ACLEI’s investigative team to the United States, where 

Department of Justice and Securities Exchange Commission investigators 

had also begun investigating Austal.


Soon ASIC was also sharing information and had launched court action to 

force Austal to hand over information relating to its “dispute with Border 

Force”. 

The US investigation overlapped with ACLEI’s interest on the question of 

how Austal had reported to investors about the true state of its financial 

affairs in the 2015-16 financial year. Corporate law in Australia and the US 

mandates accurate disclosure of impending financial news, good or bad. 

One theory being probed is that, at around the same time that 

Austal was seeking to hide bad financial news from its investors, a 

senior Border Force official agreed to help by giving it $39 million 

dollars in milestone payments in two instalments: $31 million two 

days before Christmas in 2015 and a further $8 million in June 2016, 

the day before Austal went into a trading halt and later revealed it 

was in the red. 

According to a former Border Force senior official, those payments 

may have involved a high-ranking officer who left the agency in 2017 

under a cloud. Griffin directed his investigators to find out if this senior 

officer, or any other Border Force official, had acted corruptly. 

But then his plans began to unravel. 

The mark of success 

In February 2020, federal Attorney-General Christian Porter replaced 

Griffin as Integrity Commissioner with a little-known public servant, 

deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman and former prosecutor Jaala 

Hinchcliffe. Her mandate? Reform. 

Government sources say Griffin fell out of favour because of ACLEI’s limited 

success. Porter didn’t confirm this but told The Age and Herald he believes 

the true mark of ACLEI’s success is not its ability to hold hearings that 

might uncover corruption but to successfully prosecute wrongdoers in the 

courts.


After her appointment, Hinchcliffe immediately indicated a shift: she would 

use hearings as a last resort and improve the strike rate of prosecutions. 

Hinchcliffe ended 16 investigations, 13 of which were into Home 

Affairs. 

She started winding back the backlog of investigations to focus only on 

those that showed signs of “serious and systemic” corruption. She enforced 

scheduled reviews to ensure these investigations were wrapped up in a 

timely fashion. 

In April, she scrapped the planned public hearings into Crown’s 

dealings with Home Affairs and removed counsel assisting and his 

junior. Only three former or serving Border Force officials and not a single 

Crown staff member were interviewed. 

The inquiry found no corruption, although Hinchcliffe impressed upon a 

parliamentary committee in September that she had still “called out” 

corruption risks in a report published online. 

Australian Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Jaala Hinchcliffe 

at Senate estimates on Thursday night. 

The Austal investigation also changed course. Official sources say plans 

approved by Griffin – including for private coercive hearings – were ditched 

and the two barristers, Hyde and Tang, removed. Hyde didn’t go quietly. 

Sources have confirmed he sent Hinchcliffe a memo outlining why the 

Austal allegations were so serious, what the probe had found and why the 

planned coercive hearings were needed. 

Hinchcliffe said there was a divergence of opinions and the barristers 

returned the brief.


In a short statement, Hyde said: “While I wish I could comment … I am 

unfortunately constrained in what I can say, save that I was retained by the 

former commissioner Michael Griffin, AM, and terminated by the incoming 

commissioner, following a significant difference of opinion.” 

Senator Patrick accused the new Integrity Commissioner of 

being influenced by political forces, an allegation Hinchcliffe 

strongly rejected. 

Ultimately, the dispute over the handling of the Austal probe and the 

cancelling of the Crown public hearings goes to the heart of the 

debate about how corruption is confronted in Australia. 

Hinchcliffe declined to comment for this story, though she confirmed the 

Austal investigation was serious, active and ongoing. 

She stressed there are “many investigative tools” outside of coercive 

hearings that can be used to combat corruption and which do not impact 

“on a person’s rights, particularly the right to not incriminate oneself”. 

“I have moved to institute a range of changes within ACLEI,” she said. “They 

[hearings] are an important power within our toolkit, but one of the many 

powers or tools we have.” 

In the absence of public hearings and until ACLEI’s track record improves, 

the public will have to trust her on that. 

Source: 

http://communitywatch.com.au/2020/10/23/how-a-secret-investigation-into-austalwas-downgraded-by-investigators/



Watchdog muzzled: 

How national integrity commission lost its way 

by Nick McKenzie and Charlotte Grieve for The Sydney Morning 


Australia’s newly appointed Integrity Commissioner Jaala Hinchcliffe was 

forced this week to defend her own integrity. 

“I am an independent statutory officer,” she told a fiery Senate estimates 

hearing. “I have operated in integrity work for most of my career ... 

including as the Commonwealth Deputy Ombudsman, and I completely 

reject any allegation that I am without integrity.” 

An Austal Cape class vessel built for Australian Border Force 

The scrutiny was prompted by revelations of her decision to change the 

course of a secret corruption investigation into taxpayer-funded payments 

from Border Force to an ASX-listed arms manufacturer. But Hinchcliffe 

defended her approach to leading little-known corruption busting body 

the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI). 

Hinchcliffe’s focus on prosecuting corruption using traditional investigative 

tools rather than the special corruption-busting powers favoured by state 

corruption watchdogs is distinct from the approach of her predecessor, 

Michael Griffin. It is a divergence that goes to the heart of the debate over 

proposals for a federal corruption body.


Griffin’s final annual public remarks, issued last September, revealed ACLEI 

was planning to hold the first public hearings in its 15-year history, led by 

star Sydney SC David McLure, into dealings between Home Affairs and 

Border Force and gaming company Crown Resorts. The gaming giant faced 

accusations that, with Home Affairs help, it had facilitated suspected 

criminals obtaining visas to gamble at its casinos. 

But a far more secretive operation was running in the background. Griffin’s 

investigators were probing dealings between Border Force and another 

listed Australian company: Austal. Well-placed sources say investigators 

were “peeling the onion” – working through layers of evidence in search of 

a possibly rotten core. 

Griffin had dispatched investigators across Australia and overseas to line 

up witnesses and suspects to be quizzed in private coercive hearings – in 

which people are forced to answer questions honestly or confront a jail 

term. In these rooms, the rules of evidence do not apply. Records show 

Griffin had authorised $210,000 to be paid to two barristers, Jonathan Hyde 

and Diana Tang, to work as counsel assisting. 

At the centre of this inquiry was an extraordinary allegation: that Australian 

Border Force improperly directed almost $40 million of taxpayer funds to 

Austal, the nation’s leading shipbuilder and a large political donor, in the 

2015-16 financial year. 

The law under which Griffin's agency operated meant he could only 

investigate something if it amounted to serious abuse of office, perversion 

of the course of justice or significant corruption involving a law 

enforcement official. Sources speaking on condition of anonymity have 

confirmed that he authorised the probe in the belief it may expose 

“procurement corruption” involving a senior Border Force official in bed 

with the defence firm. 

These planned coercive hearings into Crown and Austal – and the findings 

that would presumably result – would prove that ACLEI could tackle 

“serious and systemic corruption” and demonstrate, as Griffin wrote in his 

2019 annual report, how it would “play a key role in the development of a 

Commonwealth Integrity Commission” – the Coalition’s national anticorruption 

framework.


As it turned out, his plans would never be realised. 

‘Useless and underfunded’ 

For most of Griffin’s five-year stint at the helm of ACLEI, the silver-haired 

barrister and former judicial officer kept both himself and his agency out of 

the spotlight. 

Former Victorian judge turned national ICAC proponent Stephen Charles, 

QC, who was asked by then premier Ted Baillieu to design Victoria’s 

corruption watchdog, says Griffin’s approach of keeping his agency’s work 

secret has undermined public confidence, as has its small budget, limited 

jurisdiction – it can only oversee certain law enforcement agencies – and 

mixed track record. 

“It’s been useless, but this hasn’t been helped by underfunding,” Charles 

says. 

Michael Griffin, former head of the Australian Commission 

for Law Enforcement Integrity. 

Since May 2016, ACLEI has released just over a dozen press releases about 

its work. Its major investigation reports are slim and bland compared to 

those released by state anti-corruption agencies such as ICAC in NSW and 

IBAC in Victoria. 

By August 2019, four years into his stint as Integrity Commissioner, Griffin 

had never held a public hearing into corruption, preferring private hearings 

or confidential inquiries that occasionally led to prosecutions of allegedly 

corrupt officials in court.


A drawback in coercive corruption hearings is that the information 

uncovered cannot be used as evidence in later criminal prosecutions. On 

the other hand, such hearings unearth hard-to-find corruption that 

traditional investigative methods, such as interviewing suspects alongside 

their lawyers, do not. When such hearings are public, they also offer 

immense public exposure. The mere threat of public hearings could deter 

corruption from occurring in the first place. 

Former judge and famed corruption fighter Tony Fitzgerald, QC, says public 

hearings are a necessary feature of democracy, even if they embarrass 

people who never go on to face any charges. 

“In a truly open society citizens are entitled to full knowledge of 

government affairs,” he says. 

Others, including the federal Coalition, senior barrister and prosecutor 

Margaret Cunneen – who was subject to a NSW ICAC probe that collapsed 

– and Arthur Moses, the silk now representing NSW Premier Gladys 

Berejiklian, oppose such a body at the federal level. 

ICAC, they argue, chases scalps and is overly eager to hold public hearings, 

which can unfairly destroy reputations. 

Marca, Zeus and Dureau 

Griffin avoided multiple opportunities to let the public in on ACLEI’s work. 

A former Director of Military Prosecutions and secret hearing interrogator 

at the nation’s peak criminal intelligence organisation, the Australian Crime 

Commission, he said his first challenge after being appointed in 2014 was 

dealing with the washup of the most important corruption inquiry in the 

agency’s 15-year history, Operation Marca. 

The investigation had led to the charging of eight Customs officers with 

corruption-related offences in 2012-13 and major reforms to Border Force 

(then known as Customs). It had opened a window on serious corruption at 

the border that facilitated international drug trafficking and involved 

federal officials.


Federal police and border force officers who worked with ACLEI on Marca 

were angry that, despite its success, the operation was wrapped up 

prematurely. It had likely left suspected corrupt officers in the field, they 

said. 

After Marca, ACLEI’s successes were few. In 2017, backed by Australian 

Federal Police resources, ACLEI’s Operation Zeus led to guilty pleas by a 

serving Border Force official, Craig Eakin, and a former official accused 

of helping an international drug syndicate beat Australia’s border 

controls. 

Other investigations floundered. According to officials with knowledge of 

ACLEI’s operations, an investigation codenamed Dureau – into allegations a 

corrupt ex-Border Force official had facilitated drug trafficking for at least 

five years – led to only minor charges. Former investigators say this was 

partly because NSW Police failed to add resources to boost ACLEI’s 

inadequate surveillance capability. 

“Most of what we found was never aired,” either in court or a public 

hearing, says one former ACLEI insider. 

Griffin’s highest-profile operations were those that involved catching big 

scalps out in what many senior law enforcement officials viewed as 

relatively minor offending. In 2017, Griffin launched investigations into 

Border Force commissioner Roman Quaedvlieg (who was later sacked and 

who Griffin ultimately found had acted corruptly) over allegations he’d 

tried to get his girlfriend, a junior officer, a job. 

In June 2018, Griffin approved a secret inquiry into former AFP deputy 

commissioner Ramzi Jabbour, who was later charged over allegations he 

misused his service weapon. The genesis of the Jabbour inquiry was far 

more serious – allegations that he may have leaked sensitive information 

about a covert war crimes inquiry to former AFP commissioner Mick Keelty, 

who relayed them to the target of that inquiry, Ben Roberts-Smith. But that 

alleged conduct was not charged. 

While the merit of these investigations still divides senior police, the 

investigations into Jabbour and Quaedvlieg made it clear that, as he neared 

the end of his five years as Integrity Commissioner, Griffin was prepared to 

confront the upper echelons of law enforcement.


Even so, Griffin's decision to launch a secret probe into Border Force’s 

dealings with defence giant Austal in early 2019 was bold. Home Affairs 

was already under intense fire over the way it had paid millions in taxpayer 

funds to security firm Paladin for securing offshore detention centres, and 

Austal was a $1.8 billion company with impeccable contacts in Canberra via 

its dealings with Defence and Border Force. 

It was also a political donor, having given $60,000 in the 2016 financial year 

to the Liberal Party (the same year it gave $1500 to the ALP). In 2017-18, it 

donated more than $70,000 to Labor. Independent senator Rex Patrick 

used parliamentary privilege on Thursday evening to declare Austal had 

recently changed its lobbying tactics, taking high-profile federal politicians 

– including Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Home Affairs Minister Peter 

Dutton – out to lavish dinner parties. 

Among the catalysts for ACLEI’s investigation into Austal was a December 

2018 inquiry by Australia’s auditor-general, Grant Hehir, into Border Force’s 

handling of the bungled Cape class patrol boat program. 

Hehir’s report criticised Border Force for its handling of the $520 million 

contract with Austal to deliver a new fleet of steel ships to prowl Australia’s 

naval borders. The patrol boats were defective and their delivery plagued 

by problems. Even so, Hehir found Border Force had paid the firm almost 

$39 million as a “milestone” payment tied to successful delivery. 

ACLEI’s investigation was told that Border Force's internal advice said the 

funds should not be remitted because the milestones had not been met. 

ACLEI’s Integrity Commissioner can only start an inquiry if they believe it 

relates to a serious corruption issue involving a serving law enforcement 

official. Exactly how Griffin reached this threshold is unknown – he couldn’t 

be contacted for this story – but by early 2019 an investigation was 

underway. 

In May 2019, records filed by ACLEI show Griffin hired the two Sydney 

barristers who, according to ACLEI insiders, were intending to grill suspects 

in Perth, where Austal has its headquarters. Griffin also dispatched 

members of ACLEI’s investigative team to the United States, where 

Department of Justice and Securities Exchange Commission investigators 

had also begun investigating Austal.


Soon ASIC was also sharing information and had launched court action to 

force Austal to hand over information relating to its “dispute with Border 

Force”. 

The US investigation overlapped with ACLEI’s interest on the question of 

how Austal had reported to investors about the true state of its financial 

affairs in the 2015-16 financial year. Corporate law in Australia and the US 

mandates accurate disclosure of impending financial news, good or bad. 

One theory being probed is that, at around the same time that Austal was 

seeking to hide bad financial news from its investors, a senior Border Force 

official agreed to help by giving it $39 million dollars in milestone 

payments in two instalments: $31 million two days before Christmas in 

2015 and a further $8 million in June 2016, the day before Austal went into 

a trading halt and later revealed it was in the red. 

According to a former Border Force senior official, those payments may 

have involved a high-ranking officer who left the agency in 2017 under a 

cloud. Griffin directed his investigators to find out if this senior officer, or 

any other Border Force official, had acted corruptly. 

But then his plans began to unravel. 

The mark of success 

In February 2020, federal Attorney-General Christian Porter replaced 

Griffin as Integrity Commissioner with a little-known public servant, 

deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman and former prosecutor Jaala 

Hinchcliffe. Her mandate? Reform. 

Government sources say Griffin fell out of favour because of ACLEI’s limited 

success. Porter didn't confirm this but told The Age and Herald he believes 

the true mark of ACLEI’s success is not its ability to hold hearings that 

might uncover corruption but to successfully prosecute wrongdoers in the 

courts. 

After her appointment, Hinchcliffe immediately indicated a shift: she would 

use hearings as a last resort and improve the strike rate of prosecutions. 

She ended 16 investigations, 13 of which were into Home Affairs. She 

started winding back the backlog of investigations to focus only on those 

that showed signs of "serious and systemic" corruption.


She enforced scheduled reviews to ensure these investigations were 

wrapped up in a timely fashion. 

In April, she scrapped the planned public hearings into Crown’s dealings 

with Home Affairs and removed counsel assisting and his junior. Only three 

former or serving Border Force officials and not a single Crown staff 

member were interviewed. 

The inquiry found no corruption, although Hinchcliffe impressed upon a 

parliamentary committee in September that she had still “called out” 

corruption risks in a report published online. 

The Austal investigation also changed course. Official sources say plans 

approved by Griffin – including for private coercive hearings – were ditched 

and the two barristers, Hyde and Tang, removed. Hyde didn’t go quietly. 

Sources have confirmed he sent Hinchcliffe a memo outlining why the 

Austal allegations were so serious, what the probe had found and why the 

planned coercive hearings were needed. 

Hinchcliffe said there was a divergence of opinions and the barristers 

returned the brief. 

In a short statement, Hyde said: “While I wish I could comment ... I am 

unfortunately constrained in what I can say, save that I was retained by the 

former commissioner Michael Griffin, AM, and terminated by the incoming 

commissioner, following a significant difference of opinion.” 

Senator Patrick accused the new Integrity Commissioner of being 

influenced by political forces, an allegation Hinchcliffe strongly rejected. 

Ultimately, the dispute over the handling of the Austal probe and the 

cancelling of the Crown public hearings goes to the heart of the debate 

about how corruption is confronted in Australia. 

Hinchcliffe declined to comment for this story, though she confirmed the 

Austal investigation was serious, active and ongoing. 

She stressed there are “many investigative tools” outside of coercive 

hearings that can be used to combat corruption and which do not impact 

“on a person’s rights, particularly the right to not incriminate oneself”.


“I have moved to institute a range of changes within ACLEI," she said. "They 

[hearings] are an important power within our toolkit, but one of the many 

powers or tools we have." 

In the absence of public hearings and until ACLEI's track record improves, 

the public will have to trust her on that. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/watchdog-muzzled-how-national-integritycommission-lost-its-way-20201022-p567s4.html



Influence 

Why it pays to donate: 

Liberals come to the aid of troubled local shipbuilder 

BERNARD KEANE, Politics Editor for Crikey Inq on November 23, 2020 

A new report illustrates the risks to Tasmanian taxpayers after Scott 

Morrison intervened in a key state decision — with a major Liberalaligned 

company set to be the winner. 

(IMAGE: AAP/MICK TSIKAS) 

The Liberal Party-linked Perth shipbuilder Austal is in trouble. The 

company, chaired by long-time Liberal Party donor and supporter 

John Rothwell, built eight Cape Class patrol boats for what is now the 

Australian Border Force so badly that the Department of Home Affairs 

resisted making a final payment for them, prompting a savage 2018 

national audit office review of the half-billion-dollar contract. 

That report was so serious it prompted what passes for the Commonwealth 

integrity body, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity 

(ACLEI), to stir into action and launch a high-powered investigation into the 

relationship between Home Affairs officials and Austal, which desperately 

needed payments from the government.


Austal is also under investigation by both the Australian Securities and 

Investments Commission (ASIC) and US authorities: in Australia over 

market disclosures in 2015 and 2016, and in the US over “a number of 

areas of the group’s US operations” relating to its US naval contract. The 

SEC investigation led to its Mobile, Alabama facility being raided by federal 

agents last year. 

The company has tried to use legal privilege to prevent ASIC from 

obtaining large volumes of documents, but has admitted in its 2020 annual 

report about the investigations “it is possible that those proceedings could 

lead to civil or criminal penalties, damages, and / or suspension or 

debarment from future US Government contracts, which could have a 

material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of 

operations, or cash flows.” 

Material indeed: according to Austal’s 2020 annual report, it derives 77% of 

its revenue from its US contracts. 

But luckily for Austal, the Liberals are in government. 

Austal is an irregular political donor: it has lodged returns for five of the 

last 15 years. Occasionally it contributes a small amount to the Western 

Australian Labor Party, but it’s the Liberal Party that has enjoyed Austal’s 

largesse, particularly before the 2016 election when it gave $20,000 to the 

West Australian Liberals and nearly $40,000 to the federal Liberal Party. 

According to Senator Rex Patrick, Austal has also adopted a habit many 

companies and both sides of politics have embraced in recent years: 

sponsoring and subscribing to political events that enable donors to talk to 

beneficiary politicians without having to disclose it under federal law. 

Earlier this month, Patrick told a Senate estimates hearing “my 

understanding is that post 2015-16, Austal changed their strategy in terms 

of lobbying and making payments to the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. 

The method by which they did that was instead of accepting donations, 

members of parliament would attend dinners that were hosted by 

Austal and significant payments were made in respect of the price to 

attend”.


Patrick claims Scott Morrison, Mathias Cormann, Ben Morton (former 

head of the WA Liberal Party), Peter Dutton, Michaelia Cash, Linda 

Reynolds Simon Birmingham and Christian Porter all participated. 

Austal is also represented in Canberra by Perth outfit FTI Consulting, which 

has a former state Liberal MP and former Coalition adviser on its staff. 

In February this year, Porter replaced the outgoing head of the ACLEI, 

Michael Griffin, with Jaala Hinchcliffe, who immediately killed off 

Griffin’s high-level investigation of the Austal scandal at Home Affairs, 

in circumstances Fairfax’s Nick McKenzie has detailed. 

Enter eminent economist Saul Eslake, who suggests that Austal may be 

about to receive some further help, this time from Tasmanian taxpayers. 

Eslake was commissioned by Tasmanian Labor to examine the Tasmanian 

government’s recent backflip about the construction of two new Bass Strait 

ferries. In 2018 the Tasmanian Liberal government announced it would 

be replacing the current two Spirit of Tasmania vessels with two larger 

vessels to accommodate the growing passenger and freight traffic to and 

from the island state. At the time, the government of Will Hodgman said 

“there are no Australian shipyards with the capacity to build the new 

Spirits”. 

The contract was set to be awarded to a Finnish company, until Scott 

Morrison — who was immigration and border protection minister 

while Austal’s Cape Class fiasco unfolded — intervened. 

In July, the Tasmanian government, now led by Peter Gutwein, killed 

off the contract process and announced, after consultation with 

Morrison, that a “taskforce” would look at local building options. 

Within four weeks, Austal had lobbed a bid for the contract — except 

that, contrary to the idea of a “local build”, Austal would make most 

of the vessels in the Philippines (Eslake also notes that “the ships’ 

engines, propellors, drive shafts, and other sophisticated electronic and 

electrical gear … would all be imported from Europe, since no one else has 

the relevant capabilities”).


Austal’s chances will be furthered bolstered by the fact that it is 

represented in Hobart by Font Public Relations, which is led by Brad 

Stansfield, a former senior Liberal staffer at state and federal level and 

key player in the Godwin Grech scandal, and Brad Nowland, a former 

Hodgman staffer. Austal has also taken to sponsoring fundraising 

events for the Gutwein government. 

Eslake argues that the project is likely to either cost much more than 

anticipated, be significantly delayed, or the final product will underperform 

requirements — something Austal knows all about. He notes industry 

suggestions that what was supposed to be an $850 million contract 

could end up costing Tasmanian taxpayers over $1 billion. 

What little work will be done in Australia would likely be done in Western 

Australia (allegedly by underpaid Filipino labourers), meaning Tasmanian 

taxpayers will in effect be subsidising West Australian jobs. 

As Eslake notes, “while there might well be legitimate reasons for the 

Australian government to want to create jobs in another part of Australia, 

or to expand Australia’s manufacturing capabilities, why should Tasmanian 

taxpayers, or Tasmanian businesses, pay for it?” 

Source: 

https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/11/23/austal-tasmaniacontrac/?ins=MTNBSXpYY2Q2M0RIVGpIYnI4ZmV5QT09 

Bernard Keane 


POLITICS EDITOR @BERNARDKEANE 



Canberra press gallery correspondent, 

covering politics, national security 

and economics 

---------------------------- END --------------------------


No Code of Conduct: Morrison 

rejects code of conduct for 

ministerial advisers


Coalition rejects ‘code of conduct’ for ministerial advisers 



Scott Morrison resists Thodey review recommendations for increased 

accountability and mandated public-sector experience 

Scott Morrison’s government has rejected the Thodey review’s recommendation 

that it establish a legislated code of conduct for ministerial advisers. 

Photograph: Daniel Pockett/Getty Images 

The Morrison government has rebuffed a recommendation that it establish 

a legislated code of conduct for ministerial advisers, professing itself happy 

with the status quo. 

The recommendation to bring ministerial advisers into a clearer 

accountability framework is contained in the long awaited Thodey 

review of the public service, which was released by the prime minister, 

Scott Morrison, on Friday. The review also recommended that the 

government set guidance for ministerial offices to have at least half of 

ministerial policy advisers with public service experience. 

The Thodey review referenced debates in recent years that ministerial 

advisers – who, controversially, exert significant influence without much 

external scrutiny – should be made more accountable through 

parliamentary scrutiny in the same way public servants are held to account 

by committees, like Senate estimates.


“Given the significant role they play in the Australian political system, the 

review considers it appropriate that the roles and responsibilities of 

ministerial advisers be formally recognised in a legislated code of conduct, 

with effective mechanisms for accountability and compliance with the 

code,” it said. 

But the prime minister pushed back on both increased accountability 

and mandated public-sector experience. The government argued the 

current expectation was that “all ministerial staff to uphold the 

highest standards of integrity” and appropriate behaviour was already 

enforced. 

“The government does not consider it necessary to amend the Members of 

Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 as proposed,” the official response said. 

“The government, and successive governments before it, have maintained 

a high number of policy advisers with public service experience and the 

government does not consider it necessary to set a formal guidance about 

the number of advisers in each office who should have public service 

experience.” 

The review, which was sought by Martin Parkinson, the former head of the 

prime minister’s department, and former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, 

then reshaped and completed by Morrison, found the public service was 

“ill-prepared to grasp the opportunities of the future for several reasons. It 

lacks a clear unified purpose and is too internally focused”. 

“There has been long-running underinvestment in the APS’s people, capital 

and digital capability, while siloed approaches, rigid hierarchies and 

bureaucratic rules create barriers to effective delivery,” the review said. 

“APS leaders do not always act as a unified team. Most of all, the APS is not 

changing fast enough to meet government expectations and deliver for 

Australians in a changing world”. 

The review says the public service is not broken and “there are many 

examples of excellence across the service, but the APS is not performing at 

its best today and it is not ready for the big changes and challenges that 

Australia will face between now and 2030”.


The review made 40 recommendations to ensure the public service can 

evolve to be more fit for purpose. Morrison has endorsed most of the 

proposals and asked departmental heads to proceed with the changes. 

Morrison said the government would invest an additional $15.1 million to 

support the Secretaries Board and the Australian Public Service 

Commission to begin reforms. 

The release of the review follows Morrison’s decision to abolish four 

federal departments in a public-sector restructure, which also included 

the sacking of five departmental secretaries: Kerri Hartland, Renée 

Leon, Mike Mrdak, Daryl Quinlivan and Heather Smith. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/13/coalition-rejects-codeof-conduct-for-ministerial-advisers 

https://aboutregional.com.au/thodey-review-calls-for-return-to-core-pay-andconditions-in-united-public-service/ 

The panel on the Thodey Review 

Apart from Thodey, a former Telstra chief executive, the panel includes 

former Environment secretary Gordon de Brouwer, former University of 

Melbourne vice-chancellor Glyn Davis, Coca-Cola Amatil managing director 

Alison Watkins, ANZ’s digital banking boss Maile Carnegie and University 

of Sydney chancellor Belinda Hutchinson, who also chairs the board of 

defence contractor Thales Australia. 

------------------------------ END ------------------------------


No Fuel: Australia has less than 

half required fuel reserves


Australia’s lack of fuel our national security ‘Achilles’ heel’ 

By Benedict Brook for news.com.au on July 5, 2020 

Australia has a huge national security “Achilles’ heel” that could see 

our economy tank within 30 days. Now a town 8000km away is being 

asked to solve the problem. 

The town of Winnie in Texas, close to the border with Louisiana, is a very 

long way from Australia – more than 8000 kilometres as the crow flies. 

It’s an unremarkable place. Two freeways bisect its main street – itself a 

four-lane highway – that is lined with a branch of Texas First Bank, iconic 

diner Dairy Queen and a scattering of car dealerships, liquor stores and 

churches. 

Yet, quite suddenly, Winnie has become central to Australia’s security and 

resilience in the face of a future crisis. 

It’s not the town itself. But a few miles to the south east, in an area known 

as Big Hill, where the vast Texan flatlands become pockmarked with 

clearings. 

These are entrances to a huge underground network of storage tanks that 

can hold up to millions of barrels of oil to be used in times of dire need. 

It’s one of several sites that make up the US’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

(SPR), designed so the country doesn’t run out of fuel should the 

unexpected happen. And in the past few months the Australian 

Government has scooped up almost $100 million of that fuel to “boost the 

nation’s long-term fuel security”. 

But it has some scratching their heads about how Australia’s domestic fuel 

security is safeguarded by having that fuel stored half a world away from 

Australia.


Winnie, Texas, a town that probably has no idea how important it is to 

Australia’s national security. Picture: Google Maps.Source:Supplied 

“It‘s an issue of national security – having something in the US doesn’t 

provide for our national interest to be protected in the way that it should,” 

Labor leader Anthony Albanese said in April. 

“It’s a solution but not the solution we need,” a security analyst has 

told news.com.au, adding the lack of fuel security was Australia’s 

“Achilles’ heel”. 

AUSTRALIA HAS ONLY 30 DAYS OF PETROL 

Signatories to the International Energy Agency, of which Australia is one, 

should have a minimum of 90 days oil on tap, “in the event of a severe oil 

supply disruption”. 

According to the monthly Australia Petroleum Statistics report Australia 

had 79 days’ worth of fuel in April. 

However, that figure includes not only fuel stored in Australia but also oil 

on ships heading our way and oil sitting at overseas terminals destined for 

Australia. 

Take those away and Australia only has 61 days’ worth of fuel. Indeed, we 

haven’t had 90 days’ worth of fuel since 2012. 

In terms of petrol and jet fuel, it’s worse. We have only 30 days’ worth in 

the national tank and a mere 20 days of diesel.


“The average person thinks of fuel security as fuel for the car. But it impacts 

across the economy,” Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) security 

analyst John Coyne told news.com.au.


“It’s high-grade jet fuel to deep fat fryer oil. It’s diesel, and petroleum 

products to make bitumen and plastics.” 

Throughout the pandemic, Australians were assured that we produced 

three times the food we could consume. That’s true, but food security is 

dependent on oil security. 

“If you don’t have fuel, you can’t go out and muster cattle; you can’t work 

the combine harvester, you can’t run the generators that irrigate the fields 

or fuel the trucks to move those commodities.” 

Australia is almost entirely reliant on imported fuel. Source: Supplied 

The Bryan Mound storage facility in Texas which is one of four Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve sites in the US that are used as a first line of defence against an interruption 

to the usual oil supply. Source: AFP


AUSTRALIA’S ACHILLES’ HEEL 

Australia now imports 90 per cent of its liquid fuel. Big fuel firms have 

decreased our domestic refinery and storage capacity as it costs less to 

ship oil in. In 10 years, Australia has gone from seven to just four refineries. 

Sydney now has no refineries at all. 

“Your petrol in Sydney may have originated in Saudi Arabia, been refined in 

Singapore and shipped from there. It’s an incredibly long supply chain 

which works because it’s cheaper and less complex than storing large 

quantities of crude oil,” said Mr Coyne. 

Minister Energy Angus Taylor participates in a virtual signing ceremony to finalise 

the US-Australia Strategic Petroleum Reserve Lease Agreement on June 3, 2020. 

Picture: Mick Tsikas/AAPSource:AAP 

ECONOMY COMES TO A HALT 

But the pandemic has shown how supply chains can be shaken. And this is 

just a virus, not a deliberate effort to disrupt supply. 

This week, the Prime Minister announced a multi billion dollar boost to the 

Defence budget, part of which will be to ensure vital shipping routes to 

Australia remain open. 

“If there was a war in the Middle East then fuel would be all over the ocean 

and Australia would be competing for it and that would have a risk to the 

availability of supply,” said Mr Coyne. 

“The US keeps a strategic reserve so they can hold out for 90 days. We 

don’t so we’re highly vulnerable to sudden changes in demand and supply.


“Oil supply is a critical Achilles heel for Australia because you only have to 

constrain the supply of liquid fuel to Australia for 30 or 40 days and the 

whole economy comes to a halt.” 

Australia has just 30 days of petrol on tap. 

Picture: Tait SchmaalSource:News Corp Australia 

Step forward Winnie and the other locations of the US’s SPR which include 

Bryan Mound, a storage area close to Houston, and another in Louisiana. 

Speaking in April, Energy Minister Angus Taylor said the SPR was one of 

the world’s cheapest and best places to store fuel long term. 

“The Government is taking action to improve Australia’s fuel security and 

enhance our ability to withstand global shocks, such as the COVID-19 

pandemic, when they reach our shores,” he said. 

But, asked Labor’s Mr Albanese, how will the fuel – that would take a 

month to travel from Texas to the Tasman at the best of times – even get 

here in a crisis? 

“The US isn't New Zealand. It’s not next door. If there’s the sort of 

international conflict or issues that provide disruption to sea lanes, that 

may well occur at some stage in the future, then that is why nation states 

need to have this fuel capacity.” 

CALL TO INCREASE DOMESTIC FUEL STORAGE 

A crisis of such magnitude that all shipping would seize up is unlikely. 

Nevertheless, Mr Taylor said the US-based stockpile was only a “down 

payment” on “a stronger and more secure fuel supply” for Australia.


Earlier this month, he called for proposals from the fuel industry to boost 

domestic reserves from 7 to 15 million barrels. 

ASPI’s Mr Coyne was sceptical about whether the industry would fully 

deliver on Mr Taylor’s wish. 

“It was the industry that said it wasn’t viable to have storage in Australia, so 

it’s asking the people responsible for the problem to find the solution,” he 

said. 

In the end the costs will be likely paid for by the taxpayer, either at the 

pump or because the government will have to directly intervene and fund 

some of the storage costs. 

The Sydney Shell Clyde refinery being demolished in 2016. 

Picture: Cameron RichardsonSource:News Corp Australia 

But even then, said Mr Coyne, Australia would be vulnerable. 

“It only buys us time, maybe an extra 30 days. It doesn’t fix the issue of 

national resilience. We need a review of the whole oil supply chain,” he 

said. 

Some experts have called for more support for home grown oil production 

or innovative industries that will keep the wheels moving, such as electric 

vehicles. 

However, there was another, perhaps unexpected, benefit to Australia’s 

offshore oil reserve. 

The nation bought the fuel at rock bottom prices just as COVID-19 hit. Oil 

companies were desperate for anyone to buy their wares.


If we don’t ever need to use the fuel in the reserve, we can sell down the 

line for a hefty profit, Mr Coyne said. 

“It’s like an insurance policy that will have economic dividends regardless.” 

The residents of Winnie, pulling in for a bite at Dairy Queen, may have no 

idea a nation 8000km away is using its ground as a national security 

bulwark – or as an offshore bank account. 

Source: 

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/australias-lack-offuel-our-national-security-achilles-heel/newsstory/494ddda75ae802b007d085a7727566cb


Australia’s lack of fuel our national security ‘Achilles’ heel’


Australia’s lack of fuel our national security ‘Achilles’ heel’ 

BP to shut Australian oil refinery, 

leaving just three in the country 

By Nick Toscano, Business Reporter for The Sydney Morning Herald 


British energy giant BP will permanently shut down one of Australia's last 

remaining oil refineries, triggering hundreds of job losses, increasing the 

nation's reliance on imported fuel and prompting union calls for urgent 

government intervention. 

BP on Friday announced it would close its 65-year-old Kwinana refinery in 

Perth and convert the site into a fuel import terminal, saying the refining 

business was no longer economically viable. 

BP has announced the closure of one of Australia's four remaining oil refineries. 

CREDIT:GLENN HUNT 

"Having explored multiple possibilities for the refinery’s future, BP has 

concluded that conversion to an import terminal is the best option," the 

company said in a statement. 

Kwinana is Australia's largest oil refinery with capacity of 150,000 barrels of 

oil per day. 

BP and the nation's three other refiners in Brisbane, Melbourne and 

Geelong – which process crude oil into refined fuels – have been suffering 

enormous pressure since the onset of travel restrictions to arrest the 

spread of coronavirus.


With planes grounded and cars kept in driveways, demand for fuel has 

collapsed to historic lows, forcing oil refineries to slash their ouput and 

sending their profit margins crashing. 

The Kwinana oil refinery employs about 650 workers, comprising 400 

permanent staff and 250 contractors. Refining activities would wind down 

over the next six months, the company said. 

Once the conversion to a fuel import terminal was complete, the Kwinana 

site was expected to support about 60 jobs, it added. 

"Today's decision to cease refining is a difficult one and not in any way a 

result of local policy settings," BP head of Australia Frédéric Baudry said. "It 

comes in response to the long-term structural changes to the regional 

fuels market." 

In the past decade, three refineries have shut across Australia, increasing 

the country's reliance on imported fuels, as the local sector struggles to 

compete against the mega-refineries of south-east Asia with their vastly 

larger scale and lower operating costs. 

Union leaders called on Prime Minister Scott Morrison to "urgently 

intervene" to stop the refinery's closure, saying its continuity was vital for 

the nation's military and economic security. 

"This a matter of national security," Australian Workers Union national 

secretary Daniel Walton said. "BP cannot be allowed to breezily announce 

this on a Friday afternoon as if it's some run-of-the-mill commercial 

decision." 

Mr Walton said Australia's capacity to make its own fuel "cuts to the heart 

of our viability as a sovereign nation". 

"If we can't independently fuel our trucks, our farmers and our defence 

industry then we leave ourselves incredibly vulnerable," he said. "This is an 

occasion where the prime minister needs to get on the phone to BP and 

tell them to stop dead in their tracks. He should tell BP they will lose their 

social licence to operate in Australia if they don't throw this decision into 

reverse immediately." 

BP's closure decision was met with disappointment by the Morrison 

government, which has been developing a rescue package to help sustain 

the nation's struggling oil refiners.


Following months of industry consultation, Federal Energy Minister Angus 

Taylor last month revealed a series of measures to buffer against potential 

supply shocks caused by global events such as wars or pandemics, and to 

help keep refineries open "wherever commercially possible". Under the 

plan, refiners would receive a direct payment of 1.15¢ a litre for locally 

made fuel. 

However, oil refiners have warned the measures may not be enough to 

support the viability of their businesses amid the unprecedented pressure 

caused by the virus-driven fuel oversupply. 

Mr Taylor said the government expected BP to deliver on its commitment 

to do everything it could to support its workers. "Our thoughts are with 

BP’s workers, their families and local business owners who rely on the 

refinery for their livelihoods," he said. 

"We will work with BP and the Western Australian government to ensure 

workers and the community are supported." 

Ampol, formerly known as Caltex Australia, said it had launched a review of 

its refinery in Brisbane examining options including permanently closing 

the plant which employs 500 staff and converting the site to a fuel import 

terminal. 

ASX-listed Viva Energy has also placed its 65-year-old refinery in Geelong 

under a review, which may result in closure. 

The federal government on Friday said it was helping to support the 

domestic refining sector through the JobKeeper program to maintain 

operations and jobs, while its fuel security package would enhance the 

nation's long-term fuel supply 

"We will ensure Australia maintains a sovereign refining capability to 

support local industry, meet our nation's needs during an emergency, and 

protect motorists from future higher prices," Mr Taylor said. "Closure of the 

refinery will not negatively impact Australian fuel supplies." 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/bp-to-shut-australian-oil-refineryleaving-just-three-in-the-country-20201030-p56a5f.html 

----------------------------------- END -------------------------------


Failure: Morrison government has 

failed on Climate Change


Morrison government has failed on Climate Change 

The 2017 budget has axed research to help 

Australia adapt to climate change 

Misha Ketchell, Editor – The Conversation on May 11, 2017 

Flooding on the Coomera River near Queensland’s Gold Coast 

AAP Image/Ed Jackson 

The 2017 federal budget has axed funding for the National Climate Change 

Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF), an agency that provides 

information to decision-makers on how best to manage the risks of climate 

change and sea level rise. 

The NCCARF received A$50 million in 2008 to coordinate Australia’s 

national research effort into climate adaptation measures. That 

was reduced in 2014 to just under A$9 million. For 2017-18, a mere 

A$600,000 will be spread between CSIRO and NCCARF to support existing 

online platforms only. From 2018, funding is axed entirely. 

This decision follows on from the 2014 streamlining of CSIRO’s Climate 

Adaptation Flagship, and comes at a time when a national review of 

Australia’s climate policies is still underway.


Despite a growing global impetus to address the risks of climate change, 

there is evidence that Australia is being hampered by policy inertia. 

A review of 79 submissions to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry 

on Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation, published in 

2014, found that: 

adaptation first and foremost requires clear governance, and 

appropriate policy and legislation to implement change. 

Earlier this year the World Economic Forum listed “failure of climate change 

mitigation and adaptation” as one of the top five risks to the world, in 

terms of its potential impact. Meanwhile, in Australia, local governments, 

professionals and community groups have consistently called for more 

national policy guidance on how best to adapt to climate risks. 

The government’s decision to slash funding for climate adaptation research 

is therefore at odds with the growing urgency of the problem. The 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its most recent major 

assessment report, pointed out that Australia can benefit significantly from 

taking adaptation action in highly vulnerable sectors. 

These areas of vulnerability include: the risk of more frequent and intense 

floods; water shortages in southern regions; deaths and infrastructure 

damage caused by heatwaves; bushfires; and impacts on low-lying coastal 

communities. 

To put it simply, lives and money will be saved by strong climate 

adaptation measures. 

Australia needs a coherent policy approach that goes beyond the current 

focus on energy policy, although climate adaptation is indeed an important 

issue for our electricity grid as well as for many other elements of our 

infrastructure. A coherent, whole-of-government, approach to climate risk 

is the economical and sensible approach in the long term. 

Like it or not, the federal government has to take a leading role in climate 

adaptation. This includes the ongoing need to address existing knowledge 

gaps through well-funded research.


The federal government is the major funder of leading research in 

Australia, delivered through CSIRO, the National Health and Medical 

Research Council, the Cooperative Research Centres, the Australian 

Research Council and universities. This role should not be divested. 

Without climate adaptation research, Australia can expect significantly 

higher infrastructure damage and repair costs, more death and disease, 

and more frequent disruption to services – much of which would be 

avoidable with the right knowledge and preparation. 

The damage bill from the 2010-11 Queensland floods alone exceeded 

A$6 billion. Since 2009, natural disasters have cost the Australian 

government more than A$12 billion, and the private sector has 

begun trying in earnest to reduce its risk exposure. 

In response to these known risks, there is demand for robust policy 

guidance. Effective partnerships between government, industry and the 

community are crucial. One such example led by the NCCARF 

is CoastAdapt, an online tool that collates details of climate risks and 

potential costs in coastal areas. 

For projects like this, success hinges on full engagement with all relevant 

spheres of government, industry, research, and the community. There is 

more to be done, and it needs leadership at the highest level. 

Source: 

https://theconversation.com/the-2017-budget-has-axed-research-to-help-australiaadapt-to-climate-change-77477



Morrison government pushing coal in Asia 

Visit took place 22 to 24 August 2019 

Freedom of Information reveal fresh details of Morrison Government’s 

coal spruiking have emerged as Australia was blocked from speaking 

at this week’s UN climate summit. 

New documents were released under Freedom of Information as Australia 

was blocked from speaking at the United Nations climate summit in New 

York due to the Morrison Government’s ongoing support for coal and lack 

on new climate commitments. 

The documents reveal the lengths the Morrison Government is going to 

spruik polluting coal across the world, despite worsening climate damage 

and increasing hits to Australia’s international reputation. 

Sales pitch in Vietnam, Bangladesh 

They suggest coal was a central topic of Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s 

visit to Vietnam in August, with the Department of Industry, Innovation and 

Science urging the strong focus to “partially mitigate declining [coal] 

exports elsewhere, notably China”. 

The documents, released to the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), 

also show Resources Minister Matt Canavan spruiked coal to officials from 

Bangladesh, where millions of rural and poor people are at extreme risk 

from climate damage, on a recent trip during in which he also flogged coal 

to India. 

“Our government is trashing Australia’s international reputation because of 

its addiction to polluting coal,” ACF Climate Change Campaigner, Christian 

Slattery, said. 

“As major importers of Australian coal transition to cleaner forms of 

energy, the Morrison Government is doing the industry’s bidding by trying 

to push more coal on other markets.


The Morrison Government seems instead intent on selling a twentieth 

century technology to a twenty-first century world and doing a great deal 

more climate damage while they are at it. 

The briefing note to Senator Canavan, said that with “a significant 

expansion of coal-fired power in Bangladesh expected in the near future”, 

there were opportunities for Australia “to establish a new export market for 

thermal coal”. 

It outlined three new coal-fired power plants expected to open in the lowlying 

south Asian nation, in addition to one existing plant, noting reports 

that Bangladesh coal imports “could reach 45 million tonnes by 2025”. 

“After ostentatiously not attending the UN climate action summit, our ‘man 

of titanium’ capped off his American tour by insisting that China, as a rising 

power, must do more to reduce emissions. 

The effrontery was gobsmacking, not merely because the statement 

coincided with analysts and former diplomats accusing Scott Morrison of 

leading a ‘denialist government’ – but also because, in 2018, Australia sold 

China about $15 billion worth of coal, a substance that, as you might have 

heard, bears some link to carbon pollution.” 

Source: 

https://fossilfool.com.au/morrison-govt-pushing-coal-in-asia/ 

Scott Morrison with a lump of coal. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian


Alpha Males and the Lump of Coal 

“Don’t be afraid, don’t be scared, it won’t hurt you. It’s coal.” With these 

words Australia’s Treasurer Scott Morrison taunted the Opposition, 

attempting to ridicule its commitment to renewable energy. 

He handed the lump of Hunter Valley coal to a delighted Deputy Prime 

Minister Barnaby Joyce and it was then passed, to much hilarity, along the 

front bench and over to the back benches. Handling a lump of coal leaves 

hands black, but this lump had been turned into clean coal with a coat of 

lacquer. 

Source: 

https://theconversation.com/that-lump-of-coal-73046



Littleproud fiddles while Australia burns 

By Michelle Pini | Independent Australia | 12 September 2019 

Image by Dan Jensen 

As bushfires ravage Queensland and NSW, David Littleproud and the 

entire Coalition appear deaf, dumb and blind to manmade climate 

change, and the devastating consequences of their coal-loving actions, 

writes executive editor Michelle Pini. 

YOU'VE GOT to hand it to David Littleproud. It’s a rare person who can 

stand in front of a nation burning before his eyes under raging bushfires, 

and pronounce proudly (pun intended) that he doesn’t “know if climate 

change is manmade” — and that the question is “irrelevant”. 

Indeed, when asked about the role of climate change in the Queensland 

and New South Wales fires – currently even devastating a rainforest – 

Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and 

Emergency Management David Littleproud stated that it was not one of 

his “major concerns”.


NO IDEA 

Questioned by David Speers as to whether the fires could be attributed to 

the effects of man-made climate change, the Minister responded: 

“I’ve got no idea … I’m not a scientist, I haven’t made an opinion one 

way or the other. ... I don’t have an opinion but I don’t think it really 

matters.” 

Not that anyone is claiming that Littleproud is a scientist. Most would 

indeed agree he has “no idea”. And perhaps only few would suggest his 

opinion should matter. Unfortunately, as he and his climate change 

denying Government continue to ignore the ravages of our climate 

emergency, his ill-informed opinion does matter. 

Firstly, he is being paid to be apprised of the facts — with a whopping base 

salary (not including expenses) of $211,250. 

CLIMATE EMERGENCY 

Secondly, informed he has been. His Government’s own Climate Change 

Authority is preparing a report to advise on ‘Australia’s response to climate 

change’. 

This, then, would be regarding our responsibilities under the Paris Climate 

Agreement, which states: 

‘In 2013 the IPCC provided more clarity about the role of human activities in 

climate change when it released its Fifth Assessment Report. It is categorical 

in its conclusion: climate change is real and human activities are the 

main cause.’ 

Currently, 97 per cent of the world’s climate scientists agree that climate 

change is manmade. The world has known of the anthropomorphic effects 

of climate change for 30 odd years. 

Certainly, the world has known since 2009, as this statement from 

the NASA website indicates: 

‘Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is 

occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse 

gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.’ 

~ 'Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations', 2009


This is only one of 200 international scientific organisations listed by 

NASA ‘that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human 

action'. 

But we need to remember who we are dealing with. 

Littleproud also said of the SA Murray-Darling Basin Royal 

Commission Report: 

“There are 750 pages, nearly, to read. It would be very pre-emptive to 

make any assumptions from me.” 

Naturally, since some of the words might be too big for the Minister. 

But Littleproud is not alone. 

COLLECTIVE FIDDLING 

His idiotic comments regarding the role of manmade climate change on 

the current fire events were, as this Guardian report, states: 

‘... supported by the Nationals Deputy Leader, Bridget McKenzie, the 

Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Matt Canavan and the 

Environment Minister, Sussan Ley, all of who denied knowledge of or 

downplayed the link.’ 

Given Mr Littleproud and Co’s serious reading problem, perhaps a 

mandatory comprehension test should be administered as a prerequisite 

for parliamentary office in future? 

But Littleproud is not alone. 

With this Government in charge of our precious natural resources and our 

precarious position with regard to climate change, it’s a pretty sure bet we 

will all go out in a laydown misère. 

Slow clap for David Littleproud and the Morrison Government, Australia. 

Source: 

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/littleproud-fiddles-whileaustralia-burns,13099



Scott Morrison won't attend UN climate summit 

despite being in the US 

By Katharine Murphy, Political Editor for The Guardian on 

12 September 2019 

Exclusive: PM has signalled Australia isn’t making any new emissions 

reduction targets, at least at this point. 

Scott Morrison won’t be at the UN climate action summit, sending foreign minister 

Marise Payne and environment ambassador Patrick Suckling instead. 

Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian 

Scott Morrison will not attend the UN climate action summit despite him 

being in America to visit the Trump administration at the time – deploying 

the foreign minister, Marise Payne, and the Australian ambassador for the 

environment, Patrick Suckling, instead. 

Guardian Australia understands speaking slots at the event in New York on 

23 September were reserved for countries announcing new emissions 

reduction targets or financial commitments to the UN Green Climate Fund 

– and Morrison has been signalling Australia won’t be going further, at 

least at this point, than commitments previously announced. 

A draft program for the summit, and a list of member states intending to 

present at the event, seen by Guardian Australia, did not include any 

reference to Australian participation.


Morrison was asked by the Greens in question time on Wednesday 

whether he would attend the UN summit, and he said Australia would be 

represented at the event. Australian natural disasters minister David 

Littleproud: 'I don't know if climate change is manmade' 

Asked by Guardian Australia to confirm whether the prime minister would 

be the Australian representative, and whether the government would offer 

any new commitments, a spokesman for Morrison said: “Australia has 

already outlined our policies to tackle climate change including cutting our 

emissions by 26-28% and investing directly into climate resilience projects 

through our regional partners”. 

The spokesman confirmed Payne would attend the summit, not Morrison. 

“The foreign minister, accompanied by the ambassador for the 

environment, will be highlighting [the Coalition’s previously announced 

policies] when she represents Australia at the UN Climate Action Summit.” 

Morrison will go to New York later in the week as part of his US visit to 

address the UN General Assembly. 

Guardian Australia reported in July that the UN secretary general, António 

Guterres, as a prelude to the special climate summit on 23 September, had 

written to all heads of state, including Australia, asking countries to outline 

plans to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. 

Morrison at the time dead batted what Australia might do at the UN event, 

but signalled Australia was only engaging on the process to 2030, not on 

the next round of commitments to 2050 flagged by the secretary general. 

Despite well-publicised differences at the recent Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) 

between regional leaders and Morrison about coal, Australia at the 

forum signed up to a statement that commits Australia to pursuing efforts 

to limit global warming to 1.5C, and to produce a 2050 strategy by 2020. 

Earlier this year, Australian government officials also restated a 

commitment to “review and refine” domestic policies aligned with the fiveyearly 

review process under the Paris agreement. The Morrison 

government was challenged by the European Union and by China in June 

about whether Australia could meet its Paris commitments given the trend 

of rising emissions evident since the repeal of the carbon price, including 

increased pollution from vehicles.


Australia needs to submit a new pollution reduction goal for post-2030 as 

part of the “review, refine and ratchet” mechanism under the Paris 

agreement. In response to questions ahead of a climate meeting in Bonn in 

June, Australian officials said of refine and review: “This approach will 

provide for integrated consideration of domestic policy and international 

targets, and provide guidance for industry about future policy review 

processes.” 

While Australia has made a commitment at PIF to develop a 2050 strategy 

next year, Morrison has made it clear the Coalition won’t be investing more 

in the UN climate fund, and will instead pursue investments in climate 

resilience directly with Australia’s regional partners. 

Morrison’s spokesman said Australia was pursuing direct investments 

because countries in the region had faced “frustrations with the UN’s Green 

Climate Fund”. Morrison at PIF offered $500 million over five years from 

2020 from existing aid funds for climate projects. 

Britain has been confirmed as the host of the COP26 meeting in December 

2020. That meeting at the end of next year under UN auspices is regarded 

as the most important on the climate since the Paris process, because 

parties to the Paris agreement will review their pledges. 

The British government has privately appealed to senior Coalition 

ministers – including the energy minister, Angus Taylor, and Payne – to 

develop a more “ambitious” climate policy, amid growing concern that 

Australia is not doing enough to cut emissions. 

While the criticism of the government’s current policy offering on climate 

change is persistent from a range of stakeholders, Morrison declared in 

parliament on Wednesday Australia had no case to answer. “We are doing 

our heavy lifting. We are setting our targets. We are meeting our targets. 

We have the programs in place.” 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/12/scott-morrison-wontattend-un-climate-summit-despite-being-in-the-us


On 23 September 2019 documents obtained through Freedom 

of Information revealed Australia was reportedly been blocked 

from speaking at the United Nations CLIMATE SUMMIT in New 

York due to the Morrison Government’s ongoing support for 

coal and lack on new climate commitments.



ENERGY TRANSFORMATION on 23 SEPTEMBER 2019 

The new documents come as Australia has reportedly been blocked 

from speaking at the United Nations CLIMATE SUMMIT in New York 

due to the Morrison Government’s ongoing support for coal and lack 

on new climate commitments. 

New documents released under Freedom of Information have revealed 

the lengths the Morrison Government is going to spruik polluting coal 

across the world despite worsening climate damage and increasing hits to 

Australia’s international reputation. 

The documents suggest coal was a central topic of Prime Minister Scott 

Morrison’s visit to Vietnam in August, with the Department of Industry, 

Innovation and Science urging the strong focus to “partially mitigate 

declining [coal] exports elsewhere, notably China”. 

The documents, released to the Australian Conservation Foundation 

(ACF), also show Resources Minister Matt Canavan spruiked coal to 

officials from Bangladesh, where millions of rural and poor people are 

at extreme risk from climate damage, on a recent trip during in which 

he also flogged coal to India. 

It comes as Australia has reportedly been blocked from speaking at the 

United Nations climate summit in New York due to the Morrison 

Government’s ongoing support for coal and lack on new climate 

commitments. 

“Our government is trashing Australia’s international reputation because of 

its addiction to polluting coal,” ACF Climate Change Campaigner, Christian 

Slattery, said. 

“As major importers of Australian coal transition to cleaner forms of 

energy, the Morrison Government is doing the industry’s bidding by trying 

to push more coal on other markets.


“Burning coal is the number one cause of climate damage. Unless we stop 

digging up and burning coal the planet will suffer unmanageable damage 

from more extreme fires, droughts, storms and coral bleaching that will 

harm hundreds of millions of people.” 

“Australia could become a clean industry superpower. A recent study from 

the Australian-German Energy Transition Hub detailed how we could 

become a net exporter of clean energy through green hydrogen, green 

steel and aluminium produced from green electricity. 

“But the Morrison Government seems instead intent on selling a twentieth 

century technology to a twenty-first century world and doing a great deal 

more climate damage while they are at it. 

“Australia’s reported blocking by the UN Secretary-General from speaking 

at the special climate summit in New York is nothing short of an 

embarrassment for a wealthy country like ours that prides itself on being a 

good international citizen. 

“Australia is taking increasing hits to our international reputation for being 

a climate laggard. Only last month the Morrison Government suffered 

another stern rebuke from our friends in the Pacific for its continued 

intransigence on stopping climate pollution.” 

Source: 

https://www.acf.org.au/fresh_details_of_morrison_government_s_coal_spruiking_eme 

rge_as_australia_is_blocked_from_speaking_at_un_climate_summit



Morrison uses UN speech to slam 'internal and global critics' of 

Australia's climate change policy 

Reported by ABC on 25 September 2019 

• Scott Morrison tells the UN that critics "willingly overlook or ignore" 

Australia's work on climate change 

• Earlier, he suggested media was responsible for "misinformation" 

spread about his Government's climate policies 

• Seemingly referencing Greta Thunberg, Mr Morrison said "we should 

let our kids be kids" 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-26/scott-morrison-un-speech-slamaustralias-climate-change-critics/11549154 


Morrison responds to Greta Thunberg by warning children 

against 'needless' climate anxiety 

Katharine Murphy in New York – The Guardian 25 September 2020 

Australian observers in New York have told Guardian Australia Morrison’s 

failure to attend a UN climate action summit on Monday despite being in 

the US, and his apparent rejection of the need for Australia to do more to 

address its rising greenhouse gas emissions, had eroded goodwill for the 

country on the issue. 

Scott Morrison has responded to an impassioned speech by the Swedish 

teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg at the United Nations by declaring 

the climate change debate is subjecting Australian children to “needless 

anxiety”. “We’ve got to let kids be kids. We can’t have them growing up 

as mushrooms, but we’ve got to get a bit of context into this.” 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/25/morrison-responds-togreta-thunberg-speech-by-warning-children-against-needless-climate-anxiety



The week Australia failed on climate change 

By Rick Morton – The Saturday Paper 28 September 2019 

While Scott Morrison toured Trump’s America, the world’s top climate 

scientists fought it out over their latest warning of the coming disaster. 

By Rick Morton. 

This was the week into which Prime Minister Scott Morrison flew on the 

Australian government’s new VIP jet, an Airbus A330 his office has taken to 

calling “Shark One”, for a series of events with United States President 

Donald Trump. 

Australia was not invited to speak at the climate summit in New York 

– along with Japan, Saudi Arabia and the US – because only those nations 

with ambitious emissions reduction plans were given the floor. 

Morrison addressed the UN General Assembly on Thursday, after the 

climate summit, and said Australia is “doing our bit”. 

As the prime minister’s trip to the US entered full swing, freedom of 

information documents released to the Australian Conservation 

Foundation revealed the extent to which the Australian government is 

pushing coal exports overseas. 

The background briefs for Resources Minister Matt Canavan’s August visit 

to Bangladesh, India and Singapore highlighted the potential of coal 

exports to India growing even further on the back of the nation’s 

investment in the Adani project in the Galilee Basin. This, despite 

“sensitivities” concerning environmental groups. 

Ahead of Morrison’s trip to Vietnam, also in August, a briefing notes: 

“We strongly recommend a focus on coal exports to Vietnam as part 

of the Prime Minister’s planned visit.” 

Speaking at the UN this week, Morrison appeared to direct a specific 

comment at Thunberg, and her fellow young climate activists. 

“We should let our kids be kids, teenagers be teenagers,” he said.


Earlier, he cautioned against “needless anxiety”. 

According to the world’s leading climate scientists, though, there is urgent 

need for alarm. 

The global temperature is one degree warmer than it was in pre-industrial 

times. But these averages can have the unfortunate effect of masking the 

true scale of the extremes that are built into the calculation. 

“That one-degree average is across the entire globe,” says Howden. “If you 

look only at the land area, that has gone up to 1.5 degrees Celsius 

According to the IPCC, once-in-a-century events are projected to occur at 

least once a year by 2050, regardless of any further progress the world 

makes in controlling carbon output. 

It is already too late, even if humans manage to limit warming to 1.5 

degrees, to stop warm-water corals – such as those that form the Great 

Barrier Reef – from moving into the “very high risk” category with 

significant losses and local extinctions. 

The report cites Tasmania as a case study, noting a marine heatwave that 

stretched for 256 days from 2015 and into 2016. This coincided with 

drought, fires and floods in Tasmania. The total damage bill was $US300 

million. 

Man-made climate change meant the duration of that heatwave was 

330 times more likely and its intensity almost seven times more likely than 

it otherwise would have been. 

Source: 

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2019/09/28/the-weekaustralia-failed-climate-change/15695928008836 

The Saturday Paper is a quality weekly newspaper, dedicated to 

narrative journalism. It offers the biggest names and best writing in 

news, culture, and analysis, with a particular focus on Australia.



If now isn’t the ‘right time’ to ‘talk about’ climate change, 

when on earth is? 

By Bernard Keane, Politics Editor – Crikey INQ on 11 November 2019 

Despite what politicians say, now is precisely the time to talk about the link 

between bushfires, drought and climate change. Anything less is 

recklessness and corruption that kills Australians. 

Now is not the time to talk about the connection between climate 

change and the “unprecedented” bushfires that have taken lives and 

burnt out colossal swathes of NSW, said Scott Morrison and Gladys 

Berejiklian over the weekend. Morrison instead offered his “thoughts 

and prayers” to those affected. 

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack went further, calling any 

mention of climate change “disgusting” and the work of “raving inner-city 

lunatics” eager to prosecute an agenda. 

“Now is not the time.” “Thoughts and prayers”. Accusation of running an 

agenda. If it all sounds familiar, it’s because they’re exactly the talking 

points used by Republicans in the wake of gun massacres in the US, 

designed to direct the anger about the wholly preventable and routine 

deaths of Americans away from the possibility of taking any action. 

A BUSHFIRE BURNS CLOSE TO HOMES IN WOODFORD ON FRIDAY NOVEMBER 8 

(IMAGE: AAP/DAN HIMBRECHTS)


Climate denialism used to look like vaccine denialism — the result of wilful 

stupidity, a willingness to resort to conspiracy theory and a conviction that 

you’re smarter than both scientists and the sheeple who surround you. 

But at a political level, climate denialism, like gun rights advocacy in the 

United States, isn’t some psychological tic or eccentricity; it is bought and 

paid for by the fossil fuel industry lobbyists and donors who litter the 

donation returns of the Liberal and National parties. 

And that denialism, and the soft corruption that funds it, has a growing 

body count. The victims of bushfires. The elderly who die during 

heatwaves. The premature deaths from smoke haze. Rural and regional 

Australians driven to suicide by drought and economic dislocation. 

It’s never time to talk about climate change for the Morrison government, 

even with some of the country’s biggest corporations screaming for some 

kind, any kind, of climate policy to provide investment certainty. 

A WATER BOMBING HELICOPTER NEAR HARRINGTON ON FRIDAY NOVEMBER 8 

(IMAGE: AAP/SHANE CHALKER)


Yes, let’s say it. These are preventable deaths, caused by fossil fuel 

industry-funded politicians here and overseas blocking climate action at 

every turn. 

What’s particularly ironic is that the same set of politicians who deny 

climate change, or falsely insist it’s being addressed, are often the ones to 

be found hyping the threat of terrorism as the basis for spending billions of 

dollars on security theatre and systematically eroding civil liberties. 

Climate change is causing far more deaths in Western countries than 

terrorism, much more economic damage. But those usually quick to accuse 

others of being soft on terrorism are themselves soft to the point of 

vacuum on a far more serious threat to the lives, health and prosperity of 

Australians. 

Want to talk about politicians who ignore warnings about security threats? 

How many warnings have climate denialist politicians like Scott Morrison 

been given? Even the government’s own 2016 Defence White Paper 

warned that climate change was a “major challenge”. 

Instead of following NRA-style talking points, this is what Australian 

governments should be saying as natural disasters mount up from climate 

change. It’s a pretty straightforward logic: 

1. Australia is the developed economy most at risk from climate change, 

due to our geography and the nature of our economy 

2. Australia thus desperately needs the world to move more rapidly to 

cap and begin reducing global emissions in order to keep 

temperature rises below 2 degrees (and hopefully 1.5 degrees) above 

pre-industrial levels 

3. To do this, we need to show global leadership by moving to 

decarbonise an economy that is one of the developed world’s most 

carbon intensive. If we undertake a serious program to achieve that, 

we can then demand that other economies, and especially big ones 

like the US, China and India, do the same


4. It appears we can’t stop serious impacts from existing temperature 

rises even if we’re successful at capping global emissions, so 

adaptation and resilience must be much more prominent in 

policymaking, across areas like drought relief, infrastructure funding 

and regional development 

5. If there’s no political will to achieve abatement, and enable mitigation 

using market mechanisms, then taxpayer funding will have to be 

used. It’s less efficient, but the alternative of doing nothing, of staying 

paralysed, is not acceptable. 

Anything short of this — whether it’s Morrison’s “thoughts and 

prayers” or McCormack’s insults — is recklessness of the same kind that 

would leave us unprotected against terrorists, only on a much vaster scale. 

And it is costing lives right now. 

Not the right time? There was never a more important time to talk 

seriously about climate change. Each day of delay and denialism will cost 

more lives. 

It’s time that responsibility was sheeted home to those who have refused 

to take action. 

Source: 

https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/11/11/climate-denialists-politicians-bushfires/ 




Canberra press gallery 

correspondent, covering politics, 

national security and economics. 

Bernard Keane



'Missed opportunity': 

Australia avoids tougher emissions reduction targets 

The 2019 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also 

known as COP25, is the 25th United Nations Climate Change 

conference. 

It was held in Madrid, Spain, from 2 to 13 December 2019 

under the presidency of the Chilean government. 

By Mike Foley, climate and energy correspondent for 

The Sydney Morning Herald on December 16, 2019 

Australia has avoided tougher emissions reduction targets by banding 

together with a small group of nations to oppose a measure that 

would have stopped it using controversial "carry-over credits" to meet 

its climate goals. 

The United Nations' annual climate change summit wound up in the 

Spanish capital of Madrid on Sunday without the consensus required 

among the almost 200 member countries to finalise new international 

standards on emissions reductions. 

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was "disappointed" with the 

outcome of the Madrid climate talks. CREDIT:AP 

As the meeting dragged on into the weekend, a bloc of 31 countries - 

including Germany, France, the UK, New Zealand and Pacific nations - on 

Saturday proposed a minimum set of standards to develop global carbon 

markets.


The so-called "San Jose principles" would have included a ban on 

countries' use of carry-over credits accrued for beating their targets under 

the soon-to-expire Kyoto Protocol to meet current climate goals. 

But Australia, one of only a handful of countries that plans to use the 

credits to meet its Paris Agreement targets, joined with Brazil and Saudi 

Arabia in opposing various aspects of the measure. Carbon markets and 

carry-over credits are now set to stay on the agenda at the next UN 

Conference of the Parties in Glasgow, Scotland next year. 

Angus Taylor faces challenge at UN climate talks over Australia’s plan 

to use carryover credits to meet emissions target. 

Photograph: Juan Carlos Hidalgo/EPA 

Figures released ahead of meeting show Australia from will need the 

Kyoto credits to achieve about half its Paris target of a 26 – 28 per 

cent in emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. Opponents argue the use of 

Kyoto credits goes against the spirit of the Paris accord and more ambition 

is needed to achieve its ultimate goal of limiting global warming to 

1.5° Celsius. 

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was "disappointed" with 

the outcome of the Madrid meeting. "The international community lost an 

important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, 

adaptation and finance to tackle the climate crisis," he said.


Costa Rica's Environment Minister, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez, said 

opponents of the San Jose principles had taken a position that was "totally 

unacceptable" to the Paris agreement, and French diplomat and architect 

of the Paris deal Laurence Tubiana said using carry-over credits was 

"cheating". 

"Australia was willing in a way to destroy the whole system, because that is 

the way to destroy the whole Paris agreement," Ms Tubiana reportedly told 

the Financial Times. 

But Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor said carry-over 

credits rewarded those who had achieved strong emissions reductions and 

argued Australia's use of its Kyoto credits wouldn't undermine international 

markets because it would not sell or trade them. 

+"It is important that no country is penalised for beating its target, either 

under the Kyoto or Paris [treaties] - this is the basis for greater ambition," 

he said. 

The nation has scored zero out of 100 on policy in the latest international 

Climate Change Performance Index. 

Carbon Market Institute John Connor said Australia had missed a chance to 

contribute towards the development of a new market to benefit domestic 

businesses. 

"The failure to agree rules for international co-ordination of carbon 

markets is a disappointing missed opportunity," Mr Connor said. "This 

would have led to many billions of potential investments in climate 

solutions and better international co-operation." But he said Australia "was 

constructive in supporting indigenous and human rights being built into 

the integrity rules 

Climate Council head of research Martin Rice said Australia's reluctance to 

commit to more ambitious targets showed "there is a chasm between 

politicians and what the science says is necessary". A resolution from 

Madrid for all countries to update their emissions reduction goals would 

keep the heat on Australia, Dr Rice said.


Australia Institute executive director Ben Oquist said Australia had been a 

"big player" in blocking the San Jose principles, which would have 

delivered twin benefits to Australia. 

"It would mean farmers and businesses wanting to undertake carbon offset 

projects could do so more easily with access to an international market 

generating economic returns as well as helping to reduce emissions in 

Australia," he said. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/missed-opportunity-australia-avoidstougher-emissions-reduction-targets-20191216-p53kcw.html 


Mike Foley 

Mike is the climate and energy correspondent for The Age and 

The Sydney Morning Herald.



Craig Kelly … Liberal Party Member - Committee member for 

the Environment and Energy from 14.9.2016 to 11.4.2019 

By Sarah Martin, chief political correspondent for The Guardian 


Senior government ministers have sought to distance themselves from 

conservative Liberal MP Craig Kelly who sparked controversy by telling UK 

television there was no link between climate change and Australia’s 

bushfire crisis. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/07/craig-kelly-interviewpiers-morgan-calls-mp-disgraceful-for-denying-climate-link-to-bushfires



Who to Blame for Australia's Bullshit Approach to 

Climate Change? 

By Royce Kurmelovs – Vice.com on 16 January 2020 

Look these coal lobbyists in the eye. Remember their names. 

IMAGE BY PRIANKA JAIN WITH COMPONENTS FROM WIKIMEDIA COMMONS 

Dr John Kunkel 

Chief of Staff, Scott Morrison’s Prime Minister’s Office 

(on left of photo) 

Helen Coonan 

Chair of the Minerals Council of Australia (centre of photo) 

Ian “Chainsaw” Macfarlane 

CEO, Queensland Resources Council (on right of photo) 

As the smoke begins to clear on 10.3 million hectares of charred earth, 

many Australians have started asking questions. The largest natural disaster 

in the country’s history has left over two dozen people dead; over a billion 

native animals dead or dying, along with tens of thousands of livestock; 

and some species pushed to the point of extinction. 

Now people are asking: “why?”


When confronted with the suggestion his government was not acting 

in a meaningful way on climate change, Prime Minister Scott Morrison 

has simply said he “did not accept that” and insisted, like his Minister 

for Emissions Reduction Angus Taylor, that Australia has been “doing 

its part”. 

The truth is that Australia is the fourth largest coal producer in the world, 

and has relied on tricky accounting practices to book progress toward 

reducing its carbon emissions while actually doing the bare minimum. 

Because of this, Australia was recently rated 57th on a list of countries for 

its handling of climate change—placing it just slightly above Iran with its 

oil-dependent national economy. 

And yet just eight years ago, Australia was leading the world on climate 

change action. In 2012 we’d achieved what many pundits believed was a 

political impossibility. Australia had levied a tax on carbon that forced an 

almost immediate drop in the country’s CO2 emissions. That was until a 

new conservative government took power and repealed the carbon tax a 

short two years later. 

Since then, emissions have again been climbing. In the year to March 2019, 

Australia saw a total emissions increase of 0.6 percent, according to the 

Government’s own calculations. 

The story of how we got here is one of money, mates, and mines. The 

influence of the resources industry in Australian politics over the last two 

decades is no secret. When the mining boom flooded the country with 

dumb money last decade, those who owned the mines became 

untouchable. A rising ocean of dollars meant they could buy the loyalties 

of their workforce with six-figure salaries—along with the nation’s media 

companies—gain access to politicians keen to appear “business-friendly”, 

and run expensive advertising campaigns. 

Figures like Gina Rinehart, Twiggy Forrest, and Clive Palmer became 

household names, with two out of the three joining forces to rail against 

the mining tax. They would triumph, helped along by friends in high places 

from both Labor and the Coalition.


Until recently the revolving door between industry and government forged 

a political dialogue hostile to even the merest mention of the words 

“climate change”. Though there are many former politicians who have 

taken jobs in the fossil fuel sector, the current conservative government has 

seemingly taken its talking points from the industry with a unique 

enthusiasm. Of them all, there remain three figures who are by far the most 

influential. 

Dr John Kunkel 

Chief Of Staff, Prime Minister’s Office (on left of top photo) 

The only person more significant than Coonan to date may be the figure 

John Kunkel, who is perhaps the most powerful Australian in public life. The 

veteran of the Howard government boasts a Phd in economics on US trade 

policy and a CV that includes a stint with the MCA. But his defining role 

was head of government relations at Rio Tinto. And success in that role is 

defined entirely by access, and the ability to schmooze. 

Following eight years in the private sector, Kunkel’s return to public life 

began when he went to work for Scott Morrison, back when Morrison was 

still Treasurer. When Kunkel stepped up to challenge Malcolm Turnbull 

after his own party refused to allow him to pass legislation to combat 

climate change, Kunkel followed Morrison into the Prime Minister’s Office. 

As Chief of Staff, Kunkel now controls Scott Morrison’s diary, controls 

access to Morrison, and has input on every major decision facing the 

country. 

In that role he is joined by Brendan Pearson. Back before he went to work 

in parliament, Pearson served as head of government relations at Peabody 

Energy, the largest coal miner in the US, before getting hired as the 

aggressively pro-coal deputy CEO of the MCA. In fact, when he later came 

to lead the organisation, it was they who supplied Scott Morrison with the 

notorious lump of coal that he brought into parliament.


People like these are the real reason why Australia entered 2020 aflame 

and with rivers running dry, but no credible plan to do anything 

meaningful about climate change. When confronted with a regulation or 

law it does not like, the coal industry has consistently been able to rely on 

their mates in politics to help them out. Laws that gave us the carbon tax 

and the emissions trading scheme have been reworded, if not repealed, in 

their entirety. Regulations have been softened in campaigns to cut “green 

tape”. Critics have been sued, gagged, and restrained. Meanwhile, fossil 

fuels more broadly have enjoyed $29 billion in post-tax 

subsidies, according to the IMF. 

Ian “Chainsaw” Macfarlane 

CEO, Queensland Resources Council (on right of top photo) 

In many ways, Ian Macfarlane has done more than anyone else in Australia 

to stall action on climate change. So much so, that on his way out the door 

in 2016 Macfarlane was saluted on the floor of parliament by former Prime 

Minister Tony Abbott, who called on the resources industry to 

“acknowledge and demonstrate their gratitude to him”. 

“The member from Groom, Ian Macfarlane, was the resources minister 

who scrapped the mining tax,” Abbott said. “This was the jobdestroying, 

investment-killing tax which did not raise any revenue. It was a 

magnificent achievement by the member for Groom in his time as minister 

reborn, as it were. I hope this sector will acknowledge and demonstrate 

their gratitude to him in his years of retirement from this place.” 

Soon after, Macfarlane was appointed head of the Queensland Resources 

Council (QRC), where he would pull over $500,000 a year. While not 

as aggressive as its counterpart, the New South Wales Minerals Council, 

the QRC represents around 70 companies involved in coal mining in 

Queensland, giving it some seriously destructive weight. And like other 

mining associations, the QRC cheered the demise of both the carbon tax 

and the mining tax. With those battles won, the organisation has since 

shifted focus under Macfarlane to promoting “clean coal” as a way to 

combat climate change.


Though Macfarlane has made waves calling for the construction of new 

coal-fired power plants in Queensland, his crowning achievement postoffice 

has been to make sure the Adani coal mine gets built, despite 

its shaky financial foundations. In June last year, Macfarlane described the 

Adani mine as the “ice-breaker” project that would install the infrastructure 

required for six more mines in the Galilee Basin. 

And keep in mind that if the mines go ahead, they’re slated to put an 

extra 705 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, which is 

about 1.3 times Australia’s total current emissions. 

If there was any doubt about the influence of the coal lobby, nowhere has 

this been more on display than the confrontation between environmental 

activists and Adani, the company looking to mine the Galilee Basin. 

Macfarlane has frequently fumed in the press about “militant activism” 

which he has described as “economic vandalism”. In one interview with the 

Australian Financial Review, he described the attempts to target 

contractors working with Adani as “anti-democratic” 

"I think they genuinely believe they can bully people out of making 

commercial decisions. And that's what this tactic is about," Macfarlane said. 

"These people are fanatics who will do anything to get their way regardless 

of what the democratically elected government has decided. I think it 

shows in the end, they are anarchists rather than anything. 

In recent months, this sentiment has crystallised into action. The Labor 

Queensland state government recently passed regressive “anti-protest 

laws” that have alarmed the UN, while contractors like freight company 

Aurizon, which is in negotiations with Adani, have engaged in legal warfare 

to bankrupt troublesome activists in court. 

Helen Coonan 

Chair of the Minerals Council of Australia (centre of top photo) 

When it comes to the coal industry, it is easy to get lost in the torrent of 

acronyms, names, and biographies. That’s the point. You might gloss over a 

lot of it, but if there’s one thing you should remember it's that the Minerals 

Council of Australia (MCA) is the lobby group for Big Mining in Australia. 

And nothing has demonstrated its attempts at influence more than the 

appointment of Helen Coonan to the organisation’s chair in July 2019.


Coonan had spent the previous 15 years in federal politics as a 

NSW Senator with the Liberal Party, which meant she was extremely well 

connected, with a superhero-like ability to “open doors in Canberra”. 

Now, why is this a problem? Because ex-bureaucrats, former politicians, 

and political staffers are vital hires for mining companies that want to exert 

power in Canberra. Every former politician or bureaucrat picked up by a 

mining lobby group brings years of insider knowledge and personal 

connections along with them, allowing them to do the mining company’s 

bidding in a way straight mining executives never could. Liberal politiciansturned 

lobbyists are such a powerful tool for mining companies that 

Australia was recently called out in a Transparency International report on 

corruption in the mining approval process. 

Interestingly though, the appointment of Coonan to chair has been read by 

some industry observers as a move away from a hardline endorsement of 

coal. For the last two years, the MCA has been grappling with an internal 

rebellion as activist shareholders within BHP—a main member of the 

MCA—have been working to force company management to quit the 

organisation due to the lengths it has taken to defend coal. 

Indeed, the MCA famously applauded, if not outright contributed to, the 

repeal of the mining tax, the carbon tax, and the end of Kevin Rudd's prime 

ministership in 2010. However, it’s unclear at this stage whether 

Helen Coonan will use her connections to move away from or double down 

on their pro-coal agenda in favour of fracking or some other fossil fuel 

industry. Either way, Coonan’s appointment makes her the most powerful 

industry figure in the country. 

And in the end, the rest of us are being left to carry the cost. 

Source: 

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/dygvjy/who-to-blame-for-australia-coalmining-lobbyists-fires-bushfires-bullshit-approach-to-climate-change



Bureau of Meteorology: 

under pressure to toe the Coalition line on climate change 

by Sandi Keane | Energy | Michael West Media 

Reported on August 7, 2020 

After receiving tip-offs from former Bureau of Meteorology 

employees, Michael West Media conducted further investigation and 

found some disturbing evidence of the BoM suppressing the role of 


While the UK’s Met Office is out there educating the public, BoM is 

remarkably coy about any public discussion of climate change. Questions 

have also been asked whether its senior leadership is too close to the gas 

industry. Sandi Keane investigates. 

Since the days of the Howard government, effective action on climate 

change has been held hostage by the big polluters’ stranglehold on policy. 

Last week’s leaked report from the National Covid-19 Coordination 

Commission Manufacturing Taskforce comes as no surprise from a 

commission stacked with executives from the gas and mining lobbies. 

Its recommendations are a bonanza for the fossil fuel industry and a 

chilling harbinger of the nightmare to come if, courtesy of the taxpayer, Big 

Gas is unleashed across our prime farmland. 

During Australia’s catastrophic bushfires, there was little surprise when 

Scott Morrison continually batted away questions about whether climate 

change was a factor in the bushfires. 

The following was a typical response in answer to such questions: 

“My only thoughts today are with those who have lost their lives and their 

families.” 

Pressure to toe Coalition party line? 

But are supposedly independent, government-funded organisations also 

coming under pressure to toe the government line?


After receiving tip-offs from former Bureau of Meteorology 

employees, Michael West Media conducted further investigation and 

found some disturbing evidence of the BoM suppressing the role of 


BoM reports to the Minister of Environment (who rejected the call for an 

independent “green cop” to monitor the Environment Protection and 

Biodiversity Conservation Act) and the Minister for Agriculture and Water. 

According to one of our sources – who wishes to remain anonymous – 

forecasters were regularly told “not to attribute individual events to climate 

change”. 

“It’s just a convenient tagline that we can’t attribute climate change to any 

one weather or seasonal event,” according to another source who 

explained further: “It has now expired. Scientists within can use methods to 

credibly attribute events … I witnessed climate change censorship and 

suppression many, many times. 

From the pre-fire season briefings to the aftermath assessments, climate 

change discussion was being suppressed in all public dialogue from federal 

and state government, including the Bureau… If the science is alarming 

then the public need to be alarmed as that is the point of having an 

‘apolitical, unbiased scientific agency with utmost integrity’ or so we would 

all hope.” 

A spokesperson for the Bureau of Meteorology said BoM communicates 

regularly to the community about Australia’s changing climate. “Attributing 

individual events to climate change is the subject of ongoing research by 

many organisations, including the Bureau of Meteorology.” 

Furthermore, “the 2018 State of the Climate report produced by the Bureau 

and CSIRO clearly links increasing bushfire risk to changes in Australia’s 

changing and inherently variable climate”. 

Failure to educate public on climate change 

In BoM’s November 2019 video “bushfires and exceptional heat: what’s 

driving our weather right now?” it runs for a full five minutes without once 

referencing “climate change”.


By comparison, the UK’s Met Office also answers to government, but its 

scientists warn constantly about the danger of “climate change”, especially 

as a driver of the weather. In its article headed “Effects of Climate Change”, 

aspects of weather such as heat waves, heavy rain and tropical storms are 

all “linked to climate change”. 

BoM’s Special Climate Statements from December 2019 and March 2020 

mentioned several climate drivers but “climate change” was conspicuously 

absent. 

Again, in a year that saw the warmest month and warmest day on record, 

BoM’s Climate Report 2019, “climate change” received few mentions. This, 

despite four million hectares burnt by bushfires, record-breaking 

heatwaves with both January 2019 Australia’s warmest month and 

December 18 the warmest day ever recorded. 

At the March 2 Senate Estimates hearing, Dr Andrew Johnson, BoM’s chief 

executive, was questioned about climate change and its impact on 

bushfires. While climate change got a guernsey it was played down, yet 

Labor’s senator Marielle Smith was persistent (cf. p26) 

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: “I appreciate there are multiple factors, but how 

much of a factor was climate change in contributing to the severity of the 

bushfires?” 

Dr JOHNSON: “I wouldn’t want to speculate on that. I’m not sure it’s even 

possible to apportion components. All I would say is that those terrible 

fires were the result of many factors coming together simultaneously, one 

of which was very dry and hot conditions, and on the particular days on 

which those fires occurred, very windy conditions. As you know, there are a 

range of other things, including land use, terrain, the source of ignition and 

so on, that contribute to the fires occurring and how they behave.” 

And later, on the role of emissions, Johnson responded: “That’s a matter of 

speculation. It’s not within the purview of the bureau to be predicting 

emissions scenarios.”


BoM’s links to the CSG industry 

A check on who is in charge at the Bureau of Meteorology reveals strong 

links to the coal seam gas industry. 

CEO and director of meteorology Dr Andrew Johnson and chief customer 

officer Dr Peter Stone both held executive posts at CSIRO, which was a 

partner with Big Gas in the joint research venture the Gas Industry Social 

and Economic Research Alliance (GISERA). 

According to his LinkedIn page, Dr Johnson was also chairman of IESC 

(the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and 

Large Coal Mining Development) from 2012 to 2017. 

He joined the bureau of Meteorology in 2016 while still at IESC. 

The bureau’s CCO Dr Stone was deputy chief Ecosystem Sciences at CSIRO, 

from 2009-2013. Dr Stone established GISERA in 2011 and directed it until 

2013 before joining BoM in 2017. 

GISERA’s report “fails pub test” 

GISERA recently conducted research into the impact of hydraulic fracking 

in Queensland’s Surat Basin to address “community concerns about the 

potential environmental impacts”. Its March 2020 report found “little to no 

impacts” from fracking on “air quality, soils, groundwater and waterways”. 

The response from scientists last month was swingeing. Professor Ian 

Lowe accused the report of “failing the pub test” because just six gas wells 

out of the 19,000 across the state were tested. 

Professor Penny Sackett, Australia’s former chief scientist, was scathing 

about the choice of sites: 

“The report was essentially conducted on behalf of the gas industry, 

funded primarily by the gas industry, with sites chosen by the gas industry.” 

In a 2015 interview with SBS about the effects of coal seam gas, GISERA’s 

former founder and director, Dr Stone (now BoM’s CCO), spoke about 

“low” risk of water contamination. More on his links to CSG can be found 

on the Australian Government Transparency Portal.


Climate change censorship versus public interest 

While BoM correctly focuses on factors that contributed to our catastrophic 

bushfires, such as record-breaking temperatures, floods and droughts, is it 

failing to serve the public interest by not clearly identifying climate change 

as a contributing factor? 

In Australia, the July 30 Black Summer report from Australia’s Climate 

Council also attributed our catastrophic bushfires to climate change: 

“Australia’s Black Summer fires over 2019 and 2020 were unprecedented in 

scale and levels of destruction — and they were fuelled by climate change.” 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/bureau-of-meteorology-under-pressure-to-toethe-coalition-line-on-climate-change/ 

Sandi Keane 

Managing Editor 

Michael West Media 


She was formerly editor at 

Independent Australia and before 

that ran a highly successful business 

which landed her on the front cover 

of Personal Investment magazine. 

Sandi has conducted corporate 

investigations, principally into the 

CSG and media sectors. Her 

investigation into the anti-wind 

lobby and Waubra Foundation was 

used to support Labor’s Clean 

Energy Bill, thus, making it into 

Hansard. One of Sandi's 

investigations into the CSG industry 

saw Santos forced to pull its TV 

advertising. Sandi holds a Masters 

degree in Journalism from the 

University of Melbourne. For story 

ideas, please email Sandi 

at sandi@michaelwest.com.au. You 

can follow Sandi on Twitter 

@jarrapin.



'You bastards sacked me.' When the climate sceptics arrived 

how did environmental issues become so politicised? 

The people purge early in the Abbott government – beginning 

in September 2013 with the "night of the short knives" 

– gives some clues. 

By Marian Wilkinson – The Sydney Morning Herald 

Reported on August 28, 2020 

When Tony Abbott became prime minister, a raft of legislation was introduced to 

shut down everything from the emissions trading scheme, the CEFC 

and the Climate Change Authority. 

CREDIT : GETTY IMAGES 

In the first day of the new Abbott government, Australia’s climate 

scientists got a pretty clear message. 

It was September 18, 2013, and within 24 hours of the swearing-in 

ceremony at Government House in Yarralumla, the new environment 

minister, Greg Hunt, had called the head of the Climate Commission 

and sacked him.


“It was a short and courteous conversation,” Dr Tim Flannery recalls. “I’m 

pretty sure that cabinet hadn’t been convened when they did it. My very 

strong recollection is that it was their very first act in government.” 

Flannery’s colleague on the commission, Professor Will Steffen from the 

Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute, was also sacked, 

along with all the other commission members. “I think we were the first 

definitive action of the Abbott government,” Steffen recalls. “They got rid 

of us and you could probably measure it in hours rather than days.” 

What surprised the scientists most was not their hasty sacking but how 

quickly the government obliterated their work. “The website that we’d 

spent a lot of time building was taken down with absolutely no justification 

as far as I could see,” says Flannery, the one-time principal research 

scientist at the Australian Museum and internationally renowned scientific 

author. “It was giving basic information that was being used by many, 

many people – teachers and others – just to gain a better understanding of 

what climate science was actually about.” 

The Climate Commission had been set up in 2011 by Julia Gillard’s Labor 

government as an independent source of information for the public to 

understand climate change and its impacts on Australia. But the 

commission and its members had been pilloried as “alarmist” by sceptical 

columnists in the Murdoch media and by radio shock jocks from the 

beginning. Flannery was expecting the commission to be disbanded, but 

the decision to kill its website hurt. 

“I was almost proud to be sacked – for the first time in my life – from that 

post by Greg Hunt.” 

Other commissioners – Professor Lesley Hughes, a Macquarie University 

biologist who worked with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC); Gerry Hueston, a former Australasian president of 

BP; and Roger Beale, the former head of the Department of the 

Environment during the Howard years – were all sacked by letter. Beale 

would wear the sacking as a badge of honour. “I was almost proud to be 

sacked – for the first time in my life – from that post by Greg Hunt,” he told 

me later.


Despite the attempt to erase their work from history, a group of the 

commissioners were determined to push on with their work. Within days of 

their sacking, they launched a publicly funded website under a new name, 

the Climate Council, and kept pumping out reports on climate science for 

the public to read. (It’s still active.) 

Hunt argued that shutting down the Climate Commission was just part of 

the government’s plans to “avoid duplication of services” with the federal 

environment department. But Hunt, like everyone in the Abbott 

government from senior cabinet members down, knew the prime minister 

was a climate sceptic who questioned a lot of what the commission had 

reported. Abbott had made it clear over his years in opposition that he was 

dubious about mainstream climate science, opposed putting a price on 

Australia’s carbon emissions, and was hostile to renewable energy targets. 

As environment minister, Greg Hunt (right) persuaded Tony Abbott 

not to oppose climate science publicly. CREDIT:EDWINA PICKLES 

“I think that the proposition that climate is changing drastically, that manmade 

carbon dioxide emissions are the cause, and that therefore we must 

drastically reduce, almost at any cost, our carbon dioxide emissions – I 

think that proposition is not well-founded,” Abbott told me, echoing 

similar remarks he’d made to the ABC’s Four Corners program while in 

opposition.


Hunt liked to distance himself from Abbott on climate change by 

professing his own belief in the science. As environment minister, he struck 

an agreement with Abbott that the new government would not challenge 

climate science publicly. Abbott largely abided by this. Nevertheless Hunt 

worked hard on Abbott’s strategy to dismantle or review almost every 

major climate change policy put in place by Labor. That meant a purge. 

Unknown to Flannery and his colleagues, other sackings were already 

taking place. Hunt was not the only executioner; other senior 

ministers had to take up the axe as well. 

The Saturday after Abbott’s election, Treasury secretary Martin 

Parkinson was pushing his shopping trolley through Coles in the upmarket 

Canberra suburb of Manuka when his mobile rang. On the line was 

Australia’s most senior bureaucrat, Ian Watt, head of the Department of 

Prime Minister and Cabinet. He told Parkinson to come to his office that 

afternoon before abruptly hanging up. 

“No pleasantries, no nothing,” Parkinson recalls. His wife Heather Smith, 

also a senior public servant, was in the shopping aisle with him. “I think this 

is going to end badly,” he told her. 

More than any other public servant in Canberra, Parkinson had a long 

history with climate change policy. A big-thinking economist with a policy 

brain to match, Parkinson had worked for the three previous 

administrations – John Howard’s Coalition government, and Kevin Rudd’s 

and Gillard’s Labor governments – on schemes to put a price on carbon 

emissions. 

Until now, no one in the Abbott government had suggested Parkinson’s 

past would be a problem. After all, no incoming government had ever 

removed a Treasury secretary as far as anyone could remember. Since the 

election a week earlier, Parkinson had been talking with the new treasurer, 

Joe Hockey. He even got a call from the ebullient Hockey on the Friday 

night. “Great first week – really think we’re going to work well together,” 

Hockey told him. 

He asked the Treasury secretary how his weekend went. “Shithouse,” 

Parkinson replied. “You bastards sacked me.”


But when Parkinson arrived at Ian Watt’s office that Saturday afternoon, he 

found Watt waiting anxiously with the Public Service commissioner, Steve 

Sedgwick. Watt couldn’t look his old colleague in the face. Instead he read 

out some legal words saying, effectively, the Abbott government didn’t 

have confidence in Parkinson’s ability to run the Treasury. 

Oddly, they then asked Parkinson to stay on to help sort out Abbott’s 

promised Commission of Audit on government spending and deliver the 

first budget. If Parkinson was willing to do that, they might find him an 

overseas posting at the International Monetary Fund. 

The Treasury secretary was not impressed. “I looked at Ian and I said, ‘I’m 

not going anywhere. If they want to sack me, they can sack me.’ ” After 

some difficult words back and forth, it was understood Parkinson would 

stay on for the budget. The two bureaucrats then gave him a hug before he 

left. Parkinson was totally stunned. 

Parkinson heard nothing from his minister, Joe Hockey. So on Monday, he 

rang Hockey’s chief of staff, Grant Lovett. It was soon clear that Lovett was 

not in the loop: he asked the Treasury secretary how his weekend went. 

“Shithouse,” Parkinson replied. “You bastards sacked me.” A few minutes 

later Hockey was on the line. “He had no idea this was going to happen,” 

Parkinson recalls. “He was clearly upset. In fact it was a combination of 

upset and furious. And he went in to bat for me.” 

Abbott hadn’t told Hockey he was purging his most senior, experienced 

public servant but Hockey bowed to Abbott and sucked it up. The purge 

that targeted Parkinson became known in Canberra as “the night of the 

short knives”. 

“People were sent hell, west and crooked,” says Allan Behm, the former 

chief of staff for Labor’s climate change minister Greg Combet. Behm had 

served for years as a senior defence bureaucrat. “I couldn’t find any work. 

Nobody would touch us,” he tells me.


Abbott was just getting started. He was determined to completely overhaul 

Australia’s climate change policy. He had already put the wheels in motion 

more than a month before the election. While still opposition leader, a 

confident Abbott had written to Watt to tell him the bureaucrats should 

begin drafting laws to repeal Julia Gillard’s Clean Energy Act as soon as the 

election was over. The ground-breaking act passed in 2011 had put a price 

on carbon emissions. 

The same day he wrote to Watt, Abbott had sent a warning letter to the 

chair of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), businesswoman 

Jillian Broadbent. 

“Knock your socks off and tell me I shouldn’t be pursuing my job whilst 

you’re not my minister.” 

The CEFC, set up by the Gillard government, was designed to drive 

investment in clean energy. During the caretaker government period 

before the election, Abbott wanted Broadbent to make sure it 

“immediately ceases to assess or make any further approvals or payments”. 

Hunt and then shadow finance minister Andrew Robb also wrote to the 

CEFC’s board members before the election with the same message: we’re 

going to disband you, so don’t enter into any new contracts. 

But when one opposition frontbencher contacted Oliver Yates, the 

corporation’s feisty chief executive, appointed by the Gillard government, 

Yates told him to back off. “I said, ‘I don’t know exactly what the law is here 

but knock your socks off and tell me I shouldn’t be pursuing my job whilst 

you’re not my minister,’ ” Yates recalled telling him. “As soon as you are my 

minister, as I understand it, you can’t ask me not to pursue my obligations. 

Under my role as a statutory officer, my power comes from Parliament.” 

Yates was absolutely right. The former Macquarie executive was lacking in 

some of the social niceties, but he knew how to read legal advice. Neither 

Hunt nor Hockey nor Abbott had the power to shut down the CEFC until 

they got a new law through Parliament, and that included the Senate. 

Broadbent quickly realised at their first meeting that neither 

Joe Hockey nor Mathias Cormann had a clue what the corporation did.


Despite this, straight after the election, Yates and Broadbent were 

summoned to a meeting with Hockey and the new finance minister, 

Mathias Cormann. Broadbent was deeply worried that the government, in 

its haste to kill off the corporation, would have a fire sale of all its 

investments in renewable energy projects. That would trash the value of 

the assets, something she really wanted to avoid. 

Broadbent told both ministers the corporation’s investments were good 

and they would be able to sell them at 100 per cent of their value if that 

became necessary. Hockey was genial, but Broadbent quickly realised at 

their first meeting that neither he nor Cormann had a clue what the 

corporation did – that it was working in syndicates with big private 

investors to get large renewable projects built. 

“It was part of their platform to unwind it, but they had little understanding 

of what we were doing. So in the end, the treasurer said, ‘What exactly do 

you do there, Jillian?’ ” she recalls. 

To the Liberal ministers, the CEFC was just seen dismissively as “Bob 

Brown’s Bank”, a Labor-Greens scheme that had to go. “They didn’t want to 

really know about the CEFC,” recalls Broadbent, who previously worked for 

Bankers Trust and has sat on numerous boards including the Reserve Bank 

of Australia and Woolworths. “It wasn’t their idea and their policy platform 

was to close it, and they almost convinced themselves it was a great big 

‘Green Bank’, or whatever jargon they used to describe it.” 

Under fire (from left): Martin Parkinson, Tim Flannery, Jillian Broadbent 

and Oliver Yates. 

CREDIT:DOMINIC LORRIMER; WAYNE TAYLOR; JAMES BRICKWOOD; EDDIE JIM


Despite Broadbent’s warning to the ministers, Treasury officials soon 

followed up and advised her they would be appointing one of the top 

accounting firms to liquidate the corporation’s assets. But Yates had 

already been talking to the new Senate crossbenchers and was convinced 

Abbott and Hockey were going to be blocked in the Senate. “The numbers 

were always in our favour,” says Yates, “so it didn’t worry me particularly 

from day one that they would ever get it through the Senate.” 

Abbott was determined to press ahead, seeing it all as part of his mandate. 

When the new Parliament sat, Hockey and Hunt introduced a raft of 

legislation to shut down everything from the emissions trading scheme, the 

CEFC and another key body, the Climate Change Authority, that advised 

the government on Australia’s emissions targets. Abbott was doubling 

down on his divisive strategy that had been so successful in opposition. 

And a cheer squad of powerful supporters were on hand to encourage him 

on his course. 

That November, the old sceptic warhorse and influential Liberal Party 

businessman, Hugh Morgan, launched a timely attack on the world’s 

climate scientists working with the IPCC. The attack came shortly before the 

Abbott government introduced the legislation to kill off Labor’s climate 

policies. Morgan, the former chief executive of Western Mining 

Corporation, compared the climate scientists to Chicken Little, alarmists 

who kept warning the sky would fall in. 

Not long before this, the Liberal Party’s donor cash cow, the Cormack 

Foundation, which Morgan chaired, had stumped up another $300,000 

for the Institute of Public Affairs. The conservative think tank’s latest 

publication, Climate Change: The Facts 2014, was soon in the works with 

essays from Australia’s best known climate sceptics, News Corp’s Andrew 

Bolt and former James Cook University professor Bob Carter, along with 

their international cohorts by now so familiar here: MIT’s Professor Richard 

Lindzen, Dr Pat Michaels from the US Cato Institute – a think tank cofounded 

by American billionaire Charles Koch – and the former UK 

chancellor Nigel Lawson.


At the same time as Morgan’s attack, Lawson’s UK think tank, The Global 

Warming Policy Foundation, welcomed Abbott’s old mentor, John Howard, 

to deliver its annual lecture in London. The former Liberal prime minister 

used the opportunity to enthusiastically back Abbott’s plan to dismantle 

Labor’s climate policies in a speech he called “One Religion is Enough”. 

Howard confidently predicted to the London crowd that serious concerns 

about climate change were on the decline: “The high level of public 

support for overzealous action on global warming has now passed. My 

suspicion is that most people in Australia, on this issue, have settled into a 

state of sustained agnosticism.” 

John Howard and Tony Abbott: the two shared similar views on the 

Renewable Energy Target. 

CREDIT:ANDREW MEARES 

Howard’s old antagonism to the Renewable Energy Target (RET) was still 

festering. Despite Howard introducing Australia’s first modest renewable 

energy target in 1997, he became hostile to it after Labor increased the 

target to around 20 per cent of electricity by 2020. Howard told the UK 

think tank that in Australia there was “a growing consciousness that large 

subsidies are being paid to the production of renewable energy, and that 

this is having an increasingly heavy effect on low-income earners”. 

Howard’s view was shared by Abbott. The RET was another climate policy 

the new prime minister wanted dumped. One very vocal opponent of 

renewable energy already had Abbott’s ear – Maurice Newman, the man he 

had hand-picked as his new chair of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory 

Council. A prominent climate change denier, Newman was well known for 

his ferocious opposition to wind farms.


Newman was a well-connected conservative networker, a former chairman 

of the ABC and of the Australian Stock Exchange. He applauded Abbott’s 

hostility to the RET, blaming it, with Labor’s emissions trading scheme, for 

destroying Australia’s industrial competitiveness. Newman was furious that 

Australia, in his view, had become “hostage to climate-change madness”. 

“The scientific delusion, the religion behind the climate crusade, is 

crumbling,” Newman told The Australian shortly after his appointment by 

Abbott. “Global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years. Now, 

credible German scientists claim that ‘the global temperature will drop until 

2100 to a value corresponding to the little ice age of 1870.’ ” 

When the Warburton review came down, it recommended winding back the 

RET. But renewable energy was popular with voters. 

The ice age prediction seemed unlikely to pan out. But one thing Newman 

could bet on was an inquiry into Australia’s RET, a move Abbott flagged 

before the election. The government picked another high-profile climatesceptic 

businessman for the job, Dick Warburton, a former chairman of the 

oil company Caltex Australia. Warburton defended his appointment, saying, 

“I am not a denier of climate change. I am a sceptic that man-made carbon 

dioxide is creating global warming.” 

The Warburton review was a challenge for Hunt, who’d been an RET 

supporter. When Hunt, along with Industry and Science Minister Ian 

Macfarlane, announced the review, they both knew it would be politically 

fraught. Abbott had gone to the election promising to keep the RET. Now 

he wanted to backtrack on that, and the review could be a way to do it. 

“I would’ve liked to have drastically reduced or abolished the Renewable 

Energy Target in early 2015,” Abbott recalls. “As we know, the RET has done 

untold damage to our power system.” 

News of Warburton’s appointment was a blow to the renewables industry, 

already reeling from the U-turns in Canberra’s climate policy. Investment 

was dropping like a stone. Over at the CEFC, Oliver Yates watched it 

collapse around this time. “It absolutely froze it, it chilled it,” says Yates.


Abbott would look back at this collapse with pride. “Good,” he said to me 

later. “I mean, subsidised renewable energy has done so much damage. It’s 

driven prices up, it’s driven reliability down. I mean all these rent-seekers 

love it because it’s a licence to print money. But it’s printing money at the 

expense of consumers and the jobs of people in heavy industry.” 

Not surprisingly, when the Warburton review came down in August 2014, it 

recommended winding back the RET. But renewable energy was incredibly 

popular with voters, and Warburton’s report was attacked by all sides of 

politics, including by some Coalition members and senators in regional 

Australia. 

Hunt and Macfarlane finally managed to persuade Abbott to compromise 

with Labor, modestly cutting the 2020 target. But the compromise 

infuriated the RET’s opponents, including Newman, the prime minister’s 

senior business adviser. The day the compromise deal was announced 

Newman managed to exact some revenge. He wrote one of his 

inflammatory columns in The Australian, in which he virtually accused the 

UN of a global conspiracy for wanting to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told 

prove the link between human C0₂ emissions and catastrophic global 

warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, 

to be in error,” Newman wrote. “Why then, with such little evidence, does 

the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on 

futile climate change policies?” The reason, Newman argued, was simple: 

“This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the 

control of the UN.” 

By the end of Abbott’s first year in office, the PM had made it clear he 

didn’t believe most climate scientists, even those who worked for his 

government. But while his climate scepticism could shape policy in 

Canberra, it would soon put him in conflict with the most powerful leader 

in the world, US president Barack Obama. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/you-bastards-sacked-me-when-the-climatesceptics-arrived-20200626-p556nn.html



Fossil fuel gaslighting: 

accept climate change but undermine action 

by Ian Dunlop | Energy & Environment | Michael West Media 


Lobbyland. Illustration by Alex Anstey 

Lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry have enjoyed a meteoric rise in 

influence both locally and globally over the past few decades, writes Ian 

Dunlop. 

Despite the supposed success of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement in 

uniting disparate parties behind the common objective of tackling climate 

change, the words “fossil fuels”, “coal”, “oil” or “gas” do not appear in the 

entire document, even though reduction in their carbon emissions is the 

agreement’s raison d’etre. 

It is just one example of the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists. From the 

outset of international climate negotiations under the 1992 UN Framework 

Convention on Climate Change, industry representatives played a major 

role in influencing outcomes in favour of continued fossil fuel use, led in 

Australia’s case by the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network (AIGN).


The efforts of industry bodies such as the Business Council of Australia, the 

Minerals Council of Australia, the Australian Institute of Petroleum, the 

Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, the 

Australian Aluminum Council, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and 

Industry and the Australian Industry Group 

to undermine sensible climate and energy policy have 

been extensively documented. From the late 1990s, their efforts were 

coordinated under the umbrella of the AIGN, which continues today. 

The influence of fossil fuel leaders was further enhanced through industry 

advisory bodies in key international institutions such as the International 

Energy Agency (IEA). For many years the IEA demonstrated a strong bias 

toward fossil fuels and underestimated renewable energy, a position 

which continues to this day, undoubtedly influenced by fossil fuel 

industry pressure. 

Industry’s forked tongue 

Publicly the industry now accepts that climate change is real and caused by 

anthropogenic carbon emissions; every corporate and lobby group website 

has its commitment to sustainability, and in many cases a climate change 

plan. However, the urgency for action is yet to be accepted. 

And in Australia, denial mounts. The recent “Gas-Led Recovery” and 

“Technological Roadmap” announcements of the Morrison government 

confirm the continued influence of the fossil fuel industry and its 

lobbyists, with the Prime Minister’s office, the Covid Commission and 

other advisory groups stacked with fossil fuel representatives. 

Since the Industrial Revolution, fossil fuels have played a central role in the 

development of human civilisation. Without them, the explosion in 

population, economic activity and wealth creation would never have 

occurred. It is unsurprising that those who control the industry gained 

enormous influence over global and national affairs. 

Australia is particularly well-endowed with, and thus heavily reliant on, 

fossil fuels. Coal and liquid natural gas comprise about 23% of 

Australia’s export income, with fossil fuels supplying about 94% of 

Australia’s primary energy needs.


Neoliberalism, which has dominated economic thinking for the past 40 

years, emphasises deregulation, small government and globalisation, in the 

process handing ever more power to corporate and media players, 

particularly the fossil fuel industry. 

In Australia, close alliances developed between corporate leaders, industry 

bodies, right-wing think tanks such as the Institute of Public Affairs, the 

Centre for Independent Studies and the Sydney Institute in Australia, and 

like-minded media notably the Murdoch press, intent upon preserving the 

dominance of the fossil fuel industry. Political donations from the industry 

play a major role in inclining mainstream politics toward the industry’s 

preferences, particularly as neoliberalism becomes ever more extreme. 

Bonuses undermined ethics 

Lobbying was also turbo-charged by the introduction in the 1990s of 

performance-enhancing bonuses for senior corporate executives, paid for 

short-term performance. These bonuses fundamentally undermined the 

ethical basis for business. Because of the resulting short-termism, 

management sought to shore up their short-term benefits by preserving 

the status quo at the expense of longer-term considerations such as 

climate policy. Industry lobbying has been hugely successful, as witnessed 

by the 2011 campaign co-ordinated by the Minerals Council of Australia, 

which overturned the Rudd Government’s Mining Super Profits Tax. 

But the exponential rise in fossil fuel consumption has brought the 

industry’s own nemesis – a huge rise in carbon emissions and their 

accelerating effect on the global climate. This is the issue that the industry 

has for three decades been desperately holding at bay and has been the 

main focus of its lobbying. 

In June 1988, James Hansen, then Director of the NASA Goddard Institute 

for Space Studies, testified to the US Congress that: “The greenhouse effect 

has been detected, and it is changing our climate now”. 

But even before that leading oil companies had been aware of the 

impending crisis. 

In 1978 Exxon said this: “Present thinking holds that man has a time window 

of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in 

energy strategies might become critical.”


In 1988: Royal Dutch Shell said this: “By the time global warming becomes 

detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce 

the effects or even to stabilise the situation.” 

Predatory delay 

While groups such as Exxon, Shell and Australian fossil fuel groups such as 

BHP, Rio Tinto and Woodside, had the foresight to focus on the climate 

science and its implications, they decided to hide those implications 

to prolong the life of the fossil fuel industry. Further, the industry 

deliberately set in train a process of deceit and misinformation [to prevent] 

any move toward carbon emission reduction. In essence a process 

of predatory delay, largely delivered by lobby groups 

Predatory delay has placed the industry in a cleft stick. The fossil fuel 

industry must be rapidly dismantled if human civilisation in its current form 

is to survive. Industry leaders who are genuinely concerned for the future 

of the planet, their social licence to operate and their children must accept 

the emergency reality, forget business-as-usual, and reframe strategy 

around emergency action to wind down the industry. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/fossil-fuel-gaslighting-accept-climate-change-butundermine-action/ 


Ian Dunlop 

Ian Dunlop was formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive, 

chair of the Australian Coal Association and CEO of the Australian Institute of 

Company Directors. He is co-author of “What Lies Beneath: the 

understatement of existential climate risk”, and of the Club of Rome’s 

“Climate Emergency Plan”.



State of the climate: 

five big issues from the report that will affect every Australian 

by Graham Readfearn, Environment Reporter for The Guardian 


The year 2019 will live long in the memory of Australians – the hottest and driest 

year on record, where towns ran out of water and bushfires destroyed thousands of 

homes. But this is just the beginning, with this decade likely to be the coolest this 

century. Photograph: David Gray/Reuters 

Since 1910, Australia has warmed by 1.44C and the levels of carbon dioxide 

in the atmosphere have been accelerating. 

Neither of those facts would be tangible or noticeable for the everyday 

Australian. 

But as this week’s State of the Climate report has revealed, those 

intangibles are now delivering the kind of searing temperatures, heatwaves, 

unprecedented bushfires and shifts in rainfall that mean the climate crisis 

has undeniably arrived. 

What is even more sobering are the warnings in the report that there is, 

unfortunately, a lot more where that came from. 

Here are five big issues the State of the Climate report revealed.


Temperature extremes beyond anything on record 

In the 58 years from 1960 to 2018, there were only 24 days where the 

average maximum temperature across the whole continent hit 39C or 

higher. 

In 2019 alone, there were 33 days. 

For some, Australia warming by 1.44C since 1910 might seem benign. But 

that area average manifests in temperatures that melt roads, thongs and 

dramatically raise the risk of deadly bushfires. 

Rising numbers of extremely hot days from the 2020 BoM/CSIRO 

State of the Climate report. Photograph: BoM/CSIRO State of the Climate 

Dr Karl Braganza, manager of climate environmental prediction service at 

the Bureau of Meteorology said modelling has been forecasting the 

changes in temperature and shifts in rainfall for decades. What has 

changed is that Australians are now starting to feel the effects of those 

rising temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns. 

Australians are used to living in a climate that is highly variable, with big 

shifts in temperature and rainfall, he said. But now, they are noticing the 

extremes.


“When that natural variability and the underlying warming trends push in 

the same direction, that’s when you break record,” he said. 

“In Australia, once you start to push into the 40Cs, that’s extreme by 

anyone’s measure and in an Australian context, we notice that.” 

This is just the beginning 

There’s a sense that the year 2019 will live long in the memory of 

Australians – the hottest and driest year on record where towns ran out of 

water and bushfires destroyed thousands of homes and killed or displaced 

billions of native animals. 

That year bookended the hottest decade on record. 

But the State of the Climate report’s projections suggest that even with 

ambitious cuts to greenhouse gases, 2019 will be seen in the decades to 

come as just an average year. 

“This is us on a journey,” says Dr Jaci Brown, director of CSIRO’s Climate 

Science Centre. “This decade will likely be the coolest decade of the next 

century.” 

The Paris climate agreement’s more ambitious goal of keeping global 

heating below 1.5C is, based on the pledges made by countries, so far well 

out of reach. 

If the world did manage to keep temperatures down to 1.5C, that extra 

warming would render the heat of 2019 as just your average Australian 

summer. 

The State of the Climate report says that whatever happens to emissions in 

the next decade “the amount of climate change expected … is similar under 

all plausible global emissions scenarios”. 

“The average temperature of the next 20 years is virtually certain to be 

warmer than the average of the last 20 years,” the report says.


So what’s in store? 

According to the report, Australia will get hotter with more heatwaves and 

more extreme hot days, the sea level will keep rising as the oceans gather 

more heat and ice sheets and glaciers melt, and rainfall in southern and 

eastern Australia keeps dropping. 

Less water flowing through rivers 

Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology has a network of 467 water gauges in 

rivers and streams across the continent, and most of them show there’s 

less water flowing through Australia’s rivers in the south. 

Some 222 of those gauges have been recording the flowing water for more 

than 30 years in places unaffected by irrigations and dams. 

According to the State of the Climate report, three quarters of those longterm 

undisturbed gauges show a drop in riverflows which, the report says, 

is “an indicator of long-term impacts from climate change”. 

Mark Lindermans, an associate professor at the University of Canberra and 

a freshwater scientist, says this is all “bad news for fish”. 

Australia’s native fish are already in trouble, with river systems dramatically 

altered by irrigation and dams. 

Less water flowing through rivers, Linterman says, means they heat up 

more and sediment tends to build up instead of being washed through. 

“Permanent streams can become ephemeral, oxygen levels drop, sediment 

levels rise, water temperature goes up and the fish get smothered and 

cooked,” Lintermans says. 

CO2 levels are accelerating in the atmosphere 

On the northwest tip of Tasmania at Cape Grim, a cliff-top monitoring 

station has been measuring the composition of the clean air blowing from 

the Southern Ocean since 1976. 

Dr Zoe Loh, a senior research scientist at CSIRO, leads a team working on 

the Cape Grim data.


The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere measured at Cape Grim 

has risen from 330 parts per million when the station opened, to 410 ppm 

now. 

“That’s a really considerable rise and it’s happening at an accelerating rate,” 

Loh says. 

“Through the 1980s the record showed an increase of 14 parts per million. 

Between 2010 and 2019 [it] rose by 23 parts per million.” 

CO2 molecules have different chemical signatures depending on their 

origins, and Loh says that analysis shows the rise in atmospheric CO2 is 

being “overwhelmingly driven by fossil fuel emissions with some 

contribution from land clearing”. 

Chart showing Co2 levels at cape Grim monitoring station in Australia. 

Photograph: CSIRO 

She said ice cores drilled in Antarctica contain bubbles that record the 

composition of the atmosphere over thousands of years, showing CO2 had 

been relatively stable at about 278ppm.


“It is very clear that the rate of rise of carbon dioxide we have experienced 

over the last 100 years is more than an order of magnitude greater than 

the rate of change in the global atmosphere on a geological time scale. 

“We’re now in an era where we are seeing a 10 parts per million rise in 

three or four years,” Loh says. 

“That’s what’s driving the warming climate and driving all the impacts and 

the compounding effects. This will be very hard for us to live with and 

adapt to.” 

According to the State of the Climate report, eight of the 10 warmest years on record 

for the country’s oceans have occurred since 2010, with devastating consequences 

for the Great Barrier Reef. Photograph: Lucas Jackson/Reuters 

Australia’s oceans are getting hotter, and they’re rising 

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef – the world’s biggest coral reef system – has 

been through three mass bleaching events in the past five years. 

The cause of the bleaching is the heating of the oceans and the marine 

heatwaves that go with it. 

As the State of the Climate report notes, eight of the 10 warmest years on 

record for the country’s oceans have occurred since 2010. 

This, the report says, “has caused permanent impacts on marine ecosystem 

health, marine habitats and species”. The Great Barrier reef and Ningaloo 

Reef have both suffered.


But the area heating up the fastest is around the southeast and in the Bass 

Strait off Tasmania, where kelp forests have been disappearing. 

“Climate models project more frequent, extensive, intense and longerlasting 

marine heatwaves in the future,” the report says. 

About 90% of the extra energy caused by the extra greenhouse gases in 

the atmosphere is taken up by the world’s oceans. 

That warmer water is expanding and, with the ice sheets and glaciers 

melting, the sea level is also rising. 

Jaci Brown said globally, sea levels had risen by 25cm since 1880. She 

encouraged Australians to head to the beach and take a “handy school 

ruler”, stand at the high tide mark and see how much further the water 

would travel. 

“But even more confronting,” she said. “What would a metre of sea level 

look like?” 

According to the report: “Rising sea levels pose a significant threat to 

coastal communities by amplifying the risks of coastal inundation, storm 

surge and erosion. Coastal communities in Australia are already 

experiencing some of these changes.” 

As the climate crisis escalates ... 

… the Guardian will not stay quiet. Millions are flocking to the Guardian 

every day, and thousands read our environmental reporting every week. 

Readers in 180 countries now support us financially. 

Amid the various crises of 2020, we continue to recognise the climate 

emergency as the defining issue of our lifetimes. We’re determined to 

uphold our reputation for producing powerful, high-impact environmental 

journalism that reflects the urgency of the situation and is always grounded 

in science and truth. 

Last year we published a climate pledge, outlining the steps we promised 

to take in service of the planet. And we’ve made good institutional 

progress since: we no longer accept advertising from fossil fuel companies 

and we’re on course to achieve net zero emissions by 2030.


We believe everyone deserves access to quality, trustworthy news and 

analysis, so we choose to keep our journalism open for all readers, 

regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. 

When it’s never been more pertinent, the Guardian’s independence means 

we can scrutinise, challenge and expose those in power on their climate 

policies and decisions. We have no shareholders or billionaire owner, 

meaning all of our journalism is free from commercial and political 

influence – this makes us different. We can investigate and report without 

fear or favour. 

If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. You have the power to 

support us through these volatile economic times and enable our 

journalism to reach more people, in all countries. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/14/state-of-the-climate-fivebig-issues-from-the-report-that-will-affect-every-australian 

--------------------------- END ---------------------------


Failure: Morrison government has 

failed to protect Australia’s 

environment


Morrison government has failed in its duty to protect 

the environment 

Coalition’s $444 million for Barrier Reef foundation 

did not follow rules 

by Michael West | Energy & Environment, Government | 

Michael West Media on April 2018 

The Coalition awarded the Great Barrier Reef Foundation (GBRF) a 

$444 million grant without a tender process, the “due diligence” was 

based on information provided for another purpose, and the 

foundation had to submit a retrospective application after it had been 

awarded the money. 

The auditor-general and his office found the department failed to properly 

follow government rules around making grants designed to ensure 

transparency and value for money, according to the ABC. 

When awarding the grant in 2018, Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg 

said partnering with the GBRF provided an opportunity to “leverage 

funding from philanthropic and corporate sources” to complement the 

investment. 

According to Guardian Australia, recent figures show the foundation has 

raised just $21.7 million out of a target of $357 million in donations in 

more than two years.


The GBRF has raised none of the $100 million from the capital campaign 

and refused to provide figures to Guardian Australia to show how it was 

tracking towards targets for corporate giving and individual donations. 

A spokeswoman said the Covid-19 pandemic had now “made the 

fundraising environment more challenging and uncertain for many not-forprofits 

across Australia and around the world”. 

Frydenberg also assured the public that “extensive due diligence” took 

place before the grant was awarded. 

But the GBRF says the information referred to was supplied as part of an 

application for funding for a separate project and it had no conversations 

with the government regarding the $444 million grant before it received 

the money. 

Anna Marsden, the managing director of the GBRF, said the money had 

come as a “complete surprise” and that the foundation had to submit a 

retrospective application after learning in April 2018 it would receive the 

money. 

Labor questioned why there wasn’t a public grant process that was 

competitive, open and transparent so others could apply. 

Senator Kristina Keneally said the GBRF had six full-time members, and five 

part-time members. In comparison, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 

Authority had 206 full-time equivalent employees. 

The idea for the GBRF was floated by a small group of businessmen at an 

airport waiting for a flight and it was set up in 2000. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/barrier-reef-grant/



Michael West 

Michael West established 

michaelwest.com.au to focus on 

journalism of high public interest, 

particularly the rising power of 

corporations over democracy. 

Formerly a journalist and editor at 

Fairfax newspapers and a columnist 

at News Corp, West was appointed 

Adjunct Associate Professor at the 

University of Sydney’s School of 

Social and Political Sciences. You can 

follow Michael on Twitter 

@MichaelWestBiz.




Great Barrier Reef: 

funding links to climate sceptics and political donors 


Michael West Media on May 10, 2018 

Of the half a billion dollars earmarked for the Great Barrier Reef in 

Tuesday’s Budget, the lion’s share goes to a foundation with climate-denial 

links and whose patrons make the largest donations to the ruling 

Liberal National Party coalition. 

The PR: “The investment comprises a new $444 million partnership with 

the Great Barrier Reef Foundation and $56 million for the Great Barrier Reef 

Marine Park Authority and the Department of Environment and Energy.” 

The reality: The foundation has coal group Peabody Energy on 

its Chairman’s Panel. Peabody has funded anti-climate change activism. 

There are myriad other links to fossil fuel operators, including Mitsubishi, 

Rio Tinto, BHP, Origin Energy, AGL and ConocoPhillips Australia. Chairman 

John Schubert was formerly chairman and chief executive of Esso in 

Australia (parent Exxon has also been involved in advocating against 

climate science). 

The PR: “It (The Foundation) started with an idea … the idea that 

everyone’s actions, big and small, are vital to future of Great Barrier Reef. 

“It started with a small group of businessmen chatting at the airport while 

waiting for their flight, wanting to do something to help the Great Barrier 

Reef.” 

The Reality: When contacted by michaelwest.com.au, the Foundation said 

the four businessmen who had conceived the idea did not want to be 

identified. 

There is no reason to doubt the bona fides and good intentions of the 

board and financiers of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation but it will be 

difficult for the enterprise to escape from “slush fund” claims that it is 

designed to run political cover for the government and its major donors.


The funding will also drive criticism, as with many other allocations and 

budget cuts, that the 2018 Budget showers money on its fans and 

defunds its detractors. 

There is no doubt that money allotted to the Foundation will find its way to 

scientists and worthy projects. But the question stands: why did the $500 

million not go to the Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and other scientific 

organisations rather than a corporate foundation? 

On a bright note, at least in the public disclosures, it would appear coal 

miner Adani and its Carmichael Project are not involved. Still the patrons 

include an array of miners, heavy polluters such as Qantas and Boeing, and 

Big Four rent seekers Deloitte and PwC. 

A spokesperson confirmed that via the “partnership” of the Foundation 

with the federal government, the Department of Environment and Energy – 

under Minister Josh Frydenberg – would be key to partnership decisions. 

It’s all about the environment … and energy. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/great-barrier-reef-funding-links-to-climatesceptics-and-political-donors/ 


Michael West 













@MichaelWestBiz.




Sneaky Reef hand-out a half-a-billion-dollar 

symptom of broken government 


Michael West Media on August 3, 2018 

What was ticking through the mind of Malcolm Turnbull when he pledged 

the best part of half a billion dollars to the small fossil-fuel-funded charity 

which is the Great Barrier Reef Foundation? 

Reliably, the media has been diverted on matters of greater import – such 

as the antics of Emma Husar, Bill Shorten’s fictional leadership crisis and 

the way Malcolm Turnbull eats a meat pie. 

The question of the Great Barrier Reef Captain’s Call however goes to a 

deep problem of government, that politicians forget they are the stewards 

of taxpayer money; that this is not their money to fork out willy-nilly to 

party donors and mates. 

Yet, finally, a head of steam is gathering in the media since the story first 

broke here in the aftermath of the Federal Budget in May. 

We now know, thanks to a Senate Inquiry, that the GBRF did not ask for 

this $444 million. The PM offered it to the Foundation in return for its 

chairman agreeing to a “series of collaboration principles” which would 

lead, at some point, to a “partnership”. 

There are many among us who would relish the opportunity to be gifted 

$444 million – six years of funding upfront, with no due diligence, no 

performance benchmarks or commitments as to how it might be spent – in 

return for a verbal commitment to a set of unspecified “collaboration 

principles”. 

We also now know the deal was struck on April 9 at a private meeting in 

Sydney between the PM, his Environment and Energy Minister 

Josh Frydenberg and the chairman of Great Barrier Reef Foundation 

John Schubert.


What else do we know? 

• There was no tender process, no grant application. 

• The $444 million grant was not solicited. 

• The money has been safely plonked in the bank accounts of the 

Foundation. 

• Counter to earlier reports, the Secretary of the Department of 

Environment, Finn Pratt, was not present at the meeting of April 9. 

• Scientific bodies such as CSIRO, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 

Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) were 

overlooked. They appear to have been taken by surprise by the sheer 

magnitude of a grant to an organisation with six staff. 

• Three directors of the Foundation refused to give evidence to the 

Senate inquiry scrutinising deal. Despite being offered five dates to 

appear, they cited travel commitments, medical appointments, board 

meetings and other unspecified engagements; although they – the 

organisation’s chair John Schubert and board members Grant King 

and Paul Greenfield – subsequently agreed to appear. 

• The Department gave evidence to the Senate that the grant was 

made on the grounds of “previous knowledge of the GBRF”, which 

runs counter to earlier claims by Minister Simon Birmingham that the 

government had conducted due diligence. 

The GBRF deal therefore is a stinker. There is no indication the Foundation 

will use the money unwisely but it further undermines the credibility of 

government that Foundation backers are heavily-weighted in the resources 

sector and the likes of Peabody Energy and Exxon have been linked to 

funding climate sceptic bodies. 

Further, the corporations behind the charity are prominent political donors 

who skew their donations in favour of the Liberal National Party coalition.


Newstart payments have not risen in real terms in 24 years and, as the cost 

of living rises, some 800,000 Australians are struggling to cover their basic 

needs. Couple this with the government’s push to drive through its 

unfunded $65 billion package of corporate tax cuts and this deal is an 

extremely “bad look”. 

The Australia Institute said yesterday the foregone revenue from business 

tax cuts would be the equivalent of employing 8450 nurses, 7610 

secondary school teachers or 6310 police. The progressive think tank 

estimates Rio Tinto alone would benefit to the tune of $7.7 billion. Rio is 

one of the GBRF backers. 

The deal is an even worse look when you consider that the corporate 

partners Google, Qantas and Lendlease have all been outed by 

michaelwest.com.au for aggressive tax practises. It Big Four partners, 

Deloitte, KPMG and PwC are the architects globally of multinational tax 

avoidance and Exxon and Origin Energy have also been pinged for 

unacceptable tax avoidance. 

Foundation chairman John Schubert was formerly boss of Esso Australia. 

According to Tax Office transparency data, Exxon paid zero income tax on 

almost $25 billion of income over three years (and it plans on paying none 

in the foreseeable future). There is no scintilla of a suggestion here that 

Schubert has acted inappropriately. Since Esso, he has had a distinguished 

career as chief executive of Pioneer and has had various board positions, 

among them BHP and the Business Council. 

He must be ruing the association with such an unseemly gift from 

government now but who amongst us would turn down $444 million for 

their charity with few if any strings attached, upfront? 

So what we have is yet another transfer of wealth from taxpayers to some 

of the world’s most profitable corporations and partnerships. It is a crosssubsidy 

moreover which was concocted “on-the-fly”, $444 million in 

exchange for unspecified “collaboration principles”. 

In tinkering about the internet preparing for this story we discovered the 

Commonwealth of Australia is a donor to the RAND Corporation in the US.


Recent reports detail the government’s pledge of a lazy $12 million in 

taxpayer funds to free-market US think tank, the United States Study 

Centre. The Centre has links to the Murdoch and Turnbull families. 

It would be useful to compile a list of these sorts of deals to favoured 

parties. Suffice to say that it happens on both sides of politics although the 

Coalition is more of a culprit than Labor. Further, hand-outs tend to 

happen at the end of political terms. That is, with the election looming next 

year, we can expect a slather of grants as assorted government 

departments look to expend their budgets (so as to keep their funding up 

in the next round of government). 

Where is the taxpayer in all this? Completely helpless, that’s where. With 

the media pre-occupied over prurient speculation as to whether 

backbencher Emma Husar executed a “Sharon Stone” manoeuvre or not, 

ordinary citizens have few mainstream voices to go into bat for their real 

interests, that is good government. 

It is little wonder there is a growing disenchantment with the political and 

media classes. Hostage to their various agendas and distracted by 

salacious gossip and tribal politics, they have dropped the ball. Though the 

story has finally been picked up by various outlets. 

Meanwhile, all sorts of rent-seekers are winning the upper hand and 

winning million in taxpayer hand-outs. 

So what was going through Malcolm Turnbull’s mind when he made his 

Captain’s Call? 

It makes Tony Abbott’s “Knights and Dames” call look rather quaint. 

Turnbull has to navigate the tricky waters of the more ideological sectors of 

his party, the demands of the business lobby and more moderate party 

members. It would appear that, in a failure of judgement he has given 

$444 million of our money to the GBRF in order to control the narrative 

over the Reef.


That is, he wants to look ecologically responsible by slotting a large chunk 

of money to the Reef but he wants also to control how the money is spent 

and keep criticism of Reef management contained by giving that money, 

and the power it delivers, in the hands of his party’s political allies. And it is 

blowing up spectacularly in his face, as it ought. 

Another blow to democracy, another triumph for corporatocracy. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/sneaky-reef-hand-out-a-half-a-billion-dollarsymptom-of-broken-government/ 


Michael West 













@MichaelWestBiz.




Climate change has caused an 89% decrease in new coral 

in the Great Barrier Reef, study finds 

BY SOPHIE LEWIS / CBS NEWS on APRIL 3, 2019 

Global warming has caused such extensive damage to the Great Barrier 

Reef that scientists say its coral may never recover. According to 

a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature, baby coral in 

Australia's Great Barrier Reef have declined by 89% due to mass 

bleaching in 2016 and 2017. 

The study measured the number of surviving adult corals in the Great 

Barrier Reef — the world's largest reef system — following extreme heat 

stress, as well as how many new corals it was able to replenish in 2018. 

Deadly back-to-back bleaching events devastated the reef, and now its 

ecosystem is struggling to recover. Not only have ocean heat waves led to 

a dramatic decrease in new coral, but also a change in the types of coral 

species being produced. 

Researchers studied adult and baby coral from 47 locations in various years 

from 1996 to 2016, then returned to the reef in 2018 to collect the same 

data. They found that a majority of the northern region's coral has not 

been able to recover following mass bleaching events, leading to a decline 

in new coral as well. 

"Dead corals don't make babies," the study's lead author, Professor Terry 

Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at 

James Cook University, said in a press release.


Dead staghorn coral killed by bleaching on the northern Great Barrier Reef off 

the coast of Australia, November 2016. 

GREG TORDA, ARC CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE FOR CORAL REEF STUDIES 

According to the study, the biggest decline in replenishment came from 

the reef's dominant species of adult coral, called Acropora, which supports 

thousands of other species. It experienced a 93% drop compared to 

previous years. The change is likely to reduce the reef's overall diversity, 

which will make it even less resilient to future bleaching events. "Our study 

shows that reef resilience is now severely compromised by global 

warming," said co-author Professor Andrew Baird. 

Scientists expect the coral may recover over the next five to ten years — 

but only if another mass bleaching event doesn't occur during that time.


That's unlikely given the current trajectory of climate change. The 

researchers said southern reefs that did not suffer bleaching are still in 

good condition, they are not close enough to replenish the damaged reefs 

that are further north. 

Bleaching occurs when corals are stressed by unusual environmental 

changes, such as increased sea temperature. They respond by expelling the 

symbiotic algae living in their tissues, causing the coral to turn white. 

Without the algae, the coral loses its major source of food and often can't 

survive. Widespread coral bleaching during back-to-back summers was 

particularly toxic, as it did not leave enough time for the corals to fully 

recover. 

The Great Barrier Reef — which stretches for more than 1,400 miles off the 

coast of Australia — has gone through four mass bleaching events due to 

above-average sea temperatures in 1998, 2002, 2016 and 2017. Time 

periods between future bleaching events are expected to continue to 

shrink as global warming intensifies. 

"It's highly unlikely that we could escape a fifth or sixth event in the coming 

decade," said co-author Professor Morgan Pratchett. "We used to think 

that the Great Barrier Reef was too big to fail – until now." 

15 creatures that could disappear with the Great Barrier Reef 

Source: 

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/exotic-creatures-great-barrier-reef/




UNESCO — the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization — placed the Great Barrier Reef on its list of World Heritage 

sites in 1981. In recent years it has registered official "concern" about the 

reef's condition but stopped short of declaring it "in danger." 

"There's only one way to fix this problem," said Hughes, "and that's to 

tackle the root cause of global heating by reducing net greenhouse gas 

emissions to zero as quickly as possible." 

Source: 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/great-barrier-reef-dying-climatechange-caused-decrease-in-new-coral-study-says/





environment, auditor general finds 

By Lisa Cox for The Guardian on 25 June 2020 

Conservation groups call for independent environment regulator 

after scathing review of national laws 

Among its findings, the auditor found the environment department could not 

demonstrate that the environmental conditions it set for developments were enough 

to prevent unacceptable risk to Australia’s natural environment. Photograph: WWF 

The government has failed in its duty to protect the environment in its 

delivery of Australia’s national conservation laws, a scathing review by the 

national auditor general has found. 

The Australian National Audit Office found the federal environment 

department has been ineffective in managing risks to the environment, 

that its management of assessments and approvals is not effective, and 

that it is not managing conflicts of interest in the work it undertakes. 

The report also finds a correlation between funding and staffing cuts to the 

department and a blow-out in the time it is taking to make decisions, as 

highlighted by Guardian Australia.


The review, which comes in advance of the interim report on Australia’s 

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, has prompted 

renewed calls for the establishment of an independent national 

environmental regulator. 

It is the sixth audit of the department’s administration of the EPBC Act. 

The report examined how effective the department had been in 

administering referrals, assessments and approvals under the Act, which is 

the main decision-making work for developments likely to have a 

significant impact on nationally significant species and ecosystems. 

“Despite being subject to multiple reviews, audits and parliamentary 

inquiries since the commencement of the Act, the Department of 

Agriculture, Water and the Environment’s administration of referrals, 

assessments and approvals of controlled actions under the EPBC Act is not 

effective,” the report concludes. 

Among its findings, the auditor found the department could not 

demonstrate that the environmental conditions it set for developments 

were enough to prevent unacceptable risk to Australia’s natural 

environment. 

Of the approvals examined, 79% contained conditions that were 

noncompliant with procedures or contained clerical or administrative 

errors, reducing the department’s ability to monitor the condition or 

achieve the intended environmental outcome. 

The report also found that a document the department is required to 

produce to show how the proposed environmental conditions would 

produce the desired environmental protections was in most cases not 

being written. 

From a random sample of 29 approvals from 2015 to 2018, the auditor 

found this document had not been produced in 26 cases.


In further findings, the audit concluded: 

• environmental assessments were not being undertaken in full 

compliance with procedures and decisions were being overturned in 

court; 

• the department is failing to keep key documents related to its 

decisions; 

• the department has been failing to meet statutory timeframes for 

decisions. This has been markedly the case since 2014-15 when the 

number of decisions made within legal timeframes dropped from 

60% to 5% in 2018-19. This correlated with cuts to staff in the 

department who could assess development proposals 

• the department is not properly monitoring if developers are meeting 

their environmental conditions; 

• briefing packages written by the department when assessing 

environmental management plans for developments did not contain 

any consideration of other statutory documents under the Act that 

are supposed to protect threatened species, including recovery plans; 

• the department has not established any guidance or quality control 

measures for assessing the effectiveness of environmental offsets. It 

also has not mapped where all of its approved environmental offsets 

are, meaning they cannot be properly tracked; 

• agricultural clearing is rarely being referred to the department 

for assessment under national law; 

• potential conflicts of interest are not being managed, despite the 

existence of sound oversight structures; 

• the average overrun of statutory timeframes for approval decisions in 

2018-19 was 116 days. 

“This report is a scathing indictment of the federal government’s 

administration of our national environment law and highlights why we 

need a stronger law and a new independent regulator,” said James Trezise, 

a policy analyst at the Australian Conservation Foundation.


Trezise said the audit showed the government and department had failed 

in their duty to protect Australia’s unique wildlife and environment. 

“Worryingly for an area of public policy in which commercial interests are 

constantly trying to influence, the auditor general found ‘conflicts of 

interest are not managed’,” he said. 

He said the organisation had raised concerns with the auditor about the 

capacity for political interference in what should be independent decisions. 

“That the department does not monitor or report, internally or externally, 

on the efficiency or effectiveness of its regulation of referrals, assessments 

and approvals is damning,” he said. 

“The report highlights that the department has effectively stopped 

documenting how the decisions it recommends would deliver 

environmental outcomes.” 

Australia’s conservation laws are currently subject to a statutory review by 

the former competition watchdog chair Graeme Samuel. 

In advance of the interim report, due next week, the government has 

expressed a desire to streamline approvals and cut so-called “green tape”. 

But environment groups said the audit confirmed Australia’s laws 

were “fundamentally broken”. 

The Wilderness Society’s Suzanne Milthorpe said the findings showed a 

“catastrophic failure” to administer the law and protect the environment. 

“This report shows that the natural and cultural heritage that is core to 

Australia’s identity is being put at severe risk by the government’s 

unwillingness to fix problems they’ve been warned about for years,” she 

said. 

“It shows that even when the department is aware of high risks of 

environmental wrongdoing, like with deforestation from agricultural 

expansion, they are unwilling to act. 

“The Morrison government announced last week that they want to load 

this failed system up even further by slashing approval times in the name 

of slashing ‘green tape’. But this audit shows that the current system is not 

capable of making good decisions, let alone quick ones.”


She said the only credible response was the establishment of an 

independent environmental protection agency. 

“We call upon the Morrison government to commit to doing so 

immediately,” she said. 

Nicola Beynon of Humane Society International said the audit showed the 

department was “grossly under-resourced to perform its role”. 

“The audit report also confirms HSI’s criticisms that decision-making under 

the EPBC Act has been too permissive with decisions all too often weighted 

against the environment,” she said. 

“Projects are rarely refused even when their impacts are significant. 

Conditions placed on approvals to mitigate impacts are unenforced or 

unenforceable.” 

In a statement, the department said it had agreed to all of the report’s 

eight recommendations, including that it complete an up-to-date risk 

assessment of noncompliance with regulations, that it identify and address 

risks of conflicts of interest, and that it improve systems to ensure 

environmental conditions are monitored and enforced. 

“We welcome the findings and agree to implement all recommendations to 

improve our efficiency and effectiveness in administering the EPBC Act,” 

the statement says. 

“The department is a robust regulator with policies in place to ensure 

consistency in decision-making, compliance and administration of 

decisions under the EPBC Act. 

“As an organisation, we are committed to the continuous improvement of 

our processes and procedures. The department has already made 

significant progress to improve our performance which addresses the core 

findings of the audit.” 

Labor said the report “smashed” the government’s credibility on its 

management of both major project approvals and environmental 

protection.


“This disastrous report proves that the Morrison government is the 

problem on environmental protection and job delays for major projects,” 

Labor’s environmental spokeswoman Terri Butler said. 

The Greens environment spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young said the 

audit showed the department had failed and were “incompetent”. 

“Heads should roll over this ineptitude and failure of duty,” she said. 

“If this was the health minister who had overseen the botched 

implementation and enforcement of health and safety regulations, they 

and the head of their department would get the sack. The environment 

should be no different.” 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/25/morrison-governmenthas-failed-in-its-duty-to-protect-environment-auditor-general-finds




Morrison Government ignores environmental review 

recommendations 

by Sue Arnold | Independent Australia on 29 July 2020 

Scott Morrison and his government, including Environment Minister Sussan Ley, 

continue to wreak environmental chaos (Image by Dan Jensen) 

An environmental review proposing legislation reforms is being 

ignored by the Prime Minister and his government, writes Sue Arnold. 

THE MORRISON GOVERNMENT is hell-bent on ensuring the environment 

foots the bill for the catastrophic economic collapse resulting from the 

COVID-19 pandemic. 

Never has Australia’s wildlife and environment faced a more serious risk. 

Following the release of the Interim Review Report of the Environment 

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) chaired by 

Professor Graeme Samuel, a shocking indictment of failures inherent in 

the EPBC Act, Prime Minister Scott Morrison made clear his priorities. 

Australia’s wildlife and environment are no longer to be regarded as our 

life support systems by governments. Instead, Morrison is focused on 

removing the role of the Commonwealth in environmental regulation, 

passing the responsibilities to state governments.


Enough to give thinking people the horrors. 

The Interim Review Report is a mixed bag of conflicting conclusions. 

On the one hand, the Executive Summary is headed up with a statement 

which should be an injunction for any responsible government to take 

urgent and immediate action: 

‘Australia’s natural environment and iconic places are in an overall 

state of decline and are under increasing threat. The current 

environmental trajectory is unsustainable.’ 

Add the 1.25 billion animals lost to the bushfires, an issue not taken into 

account by the review; Australia’s grim record with the highest mammal 

extinction in the world; a complete failure to deal with climate change 

impacts; a complete lack of compliance, monitoring and independent 

environmental impact studies and a real crisis emerges. 

The review failed to consider that the ongoing loss of ecosystems which 

sustain life has grave implications not only for future generations but the 

present generation of human and non-human life. 

Key threats identified by the review neglect to put the blame where it 

belongs — with the state and federal governments who have conspired for 

years to eradicate any legal protection for listed wildlife together with 

public interest affordable legal access to courts. 

Morrison and his Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley, aren’t waiting 

for the final report of the independent review. Nor are they concerned by 

the extraordinary extent of failures or remedies contained in the report. 

They’re already in dialogue with state governments, preparing relevant 

legislation which will, if passed, create chaos, destruction and irreversible 

damage to this ancient continent. 

Just prior to the release of the EPBC Interim Review Report, the Department 

of Agriculture, Water and Environment (DAWE) published a list 

of successful applicants for the first tranche of the Federal Government’s 

$200 million Wildlife and Habitat Bushfire Recovery Program.


The grants provide more evidence of the absolute refusal of the Morrison 

Government to address the environmental crises Australia is facing as a 

result of not only the bushfires but climate change impacts in spite of the 

script on the department’s website: 

The purpose of the grant program is to support immediate survival and longterm 

recovery and resilience for fire-affected Australian animals, plants, 

ecological communities and other natural assets and their cultural values for 

Indigenous Australians. The program will fund on-ground bushfire recovery 

actions for species, ecological communities or other natural assets. 

Noting that it is now nearing the end of July, any support for immediate 

survival is long gone. The total amount allocated in the first tranche of 

grants is $6.9 million according to a spokesperson from the DAWE. A 

second tranche will allocate $5.1 million, date of distribution unknown. 

Any sense of government urgency in providing the remaining funding can 

be gauged by the following comment to IA from the spokesperson: 

“Nothing has been finalised as yet for the additional $150 million.” 

The department’s Wildlife and Habitat Bushfire Recovery 

Program website provides an insight into the projected $150 million 

allocation: 

‘The $150 million will target on-ground action across bushfire-affected 

regions and heritage places to prevent extinction and limit the decline of 

native species, help communities and land managers roll-out crucial recovery 

projects, update conservation plans for threatened species, and track the 

recovery effort.’ 

According to the website, the $150 million: 

‘...will be made available over two years from 1 July 2020, to support the 

sustained efforts required to support the long-term recovery of our native 

animals and plants.’ 

In January 2020, the Government claimed: 

The Australian Government is investing $200 million to help native wildlife 

and their habitats recover from the devastating impacts of the 2019-20 

bushfires across eastern and southern Australia.


This investment will help secure the future of treasured native animals from 

the koala to the Kangaroo Island dunnart and the northern corroboree frog, 

as well as unique plants such as the Wollemi pine, Monga waratah and 

Gippsland bottlebrush. 

The first tranche of grants has failed to provide one cent for any koala 

security or recovery. 

This omission is in spite of Minister Ley’s comments in January on releasing 

an initial $50 million in January: 

Environment Minister Sussan Ley says koalas suffered an “extraordinary hit” 

in the fires and the Threatened Species Scientific Committee will need to 

assess whether koalas have moved from a vulnerable listing to being 

endangered in some parts of the country. 

Half of the emergency wildlife and habitat recovery fund will go to 

frontline responder groups including wildlife carers, hospitals and 

zoos including Zoos Victoria, Adelaide Zoo and Taronga Zoo. 

The other $25 million will help fund a government advisory panel led 

by Dr Sally Box, the newly appointed Threatened Species 

Commissioner. 

In the first tranche of grants made in July, which apparently are part of the 

initial $50 million, more than $3 million has gone to various 

universities. 

The priorities for tranche two are plants and invertebrates, according to the 

spokesperson. However, five of the 19 first tranche-funded projects are 

focused on invertebrates. 

Neither the Wollemi pine, Monga waratah and Gippsland bottlebrush get a 

mention along with koalas. Nor do a raft of species which recorded the 

highest impact scores caused by the catastrophic fires as detailed by 

Ley’s expert panel. 

Given the latest Budget figures announced by Treasurer Josh 

Frydenberg, there’s growing concern that the remaining $150 million 

may have been sunk into other priorities.


In any event, the current round of grants and its priorities give a damning 

picture of a federal government which has cherry-picked applicants 

unlikely to address the urgent need to protect ecosystems and dependent 

wildlife. 

Make no mistake, by ignoring the substantive recommendations 

focused on the environment in the Interim Review Report and the 

lengthy delay in providing any relevant grants, the Morrison 

Government has demonstrated a shocking disregard and contempt for 

the environment. 

If the Federal Government devolves responsibility to the states, the 

only beneficiaries will be zoos and sanctuaries. 

For any country to be led by a man with no understanding or concern for 

the environment is a step into the Dark Ages. 

To undertake such a profoundly irreversible step without taking a policy to 

the electorate, thus denying the public any input in the face of Samuel’s 

report conclusions, is the act of a dictatorship. 

As Professor Samuel concluded in his summary: 

‘The overwhelming message received by the Review is that Australians 

care deeply about our iconic places and unique environment. 

Protecting and conserving them for the benefit of current and future 

generations is important for the nation.’ 

Except for the Prime Minister. 

Source: 

https://independentaustralia.net/profile-on/sue-arnold,659



Sue Arnold is a former Fairfax investigative journalist. 

She has written extensively over the years for Woman’s Day, New Idea, and 

international media. 

Sue heads up Australians for Animals NSW Inc, a 26 year old wildlife 

organisation; is CEO of the California Gray Whale Coalition in the USA; is an 

International Whaling Commission NGO member and lobbies regularly 

in Washington DC, California Assembly and Senate, Canberra and NSW 

Parliaments. 

Both organisations she heads have mounted lawsuits against the U.S. and 

Australian governments. 

Sue headed up a team of scientists and lawyers who prepared an historic 

submission to the U.S. government which resulted in the koala being listed 

under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.




Coalition began writing landmark environment bill 

BEFORE receiving review it had ordered 

By Lisa Cox – The Guardian on 16 September 2020 

Review of EPBC Act was delivered to government 11 days after 

process of drawing up legislation had begun 

The environment minister, Sussan Ley, during the release of the interim report 

on the independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity 

Conservation Act. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP 

The Morrison government started preparing controversial legislation to 

amend Australia’s environmental laws before it had received a report from 

a formal review into whether the act was working. 

The environment department instructed the Office of Parliamentary 

Counsel to begin drafting the changes to the legislation on 19 June, 

11 days before the government received the interim report of the 

review of Australia’s national environment laws. 

Labor, the Greens and environment groups say the evidence, provided in 

answers to a Senate committee, suggests the government never intended 

to adopt the expert advice of the review, chaired by the former 

competition watchdog head Graeme Samuel.


Samuel delivered his interim report, a once-in-a-decade statutory 

review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation 

(EPBC) Act, to the government on 30 June. 

Interim Report found Australian governments had failed to protect 

Australia’s unique wildlife and habitats and recommended an overhaul 

of the laws to make the country’s systems of environmental 

protection more effective. 

Samuel recommended the devolution of approval powers to the states 

along with the introduction of national environmental standards and an 

independent regulator to enforce the law. 

In July, the environment minister, Sussan Ley, rejected the recommendation 

of an independent regulator, but said she would put a bill to parliament 

that streamlined the approval process and promised to introduce 

prototype standards to ensure environmental protection at the same time. 

But the bill introduced in August was a near replica of failed “onestop-shop” 

legislation introduced under former prime minister Tony 

Abbott. It contained no reference to any of Samuel’s other 

recommendations, including national standards. It passed the lower 

house last month after the government gagged debate. 

In answers to the Senate committee, the environment department said it 

instructed the office of parliamentary counsel to start work on the bill after 

the prime minister, Scott Morrison, gave a speech on 15 June in which he 

said the government’s ultimate goal was to introduce “single touch” 

environmental approvals for developments. 

“The prime minister noted that this would be further informed by the EPBC 

Act review,” the department said. 

The department told the committee Samuel held meetings in May and 

June “in relation to the directions of the interim review, sharing his 

suggestion that devolution should be progressed”. This included a 4 June 

meeting with senior bureaucrats from the states and territories. 

Labor and the Greens said the responses to the committee showed the 

government had ignored the independent review process.


Labor’s environment spokeswoman, Terri Butler, said the government had 

been “caught out” rehashing Abbott’s failed 2014 environment laws before 

even receiving Samuel’s interim advice. 

“They have ignored their own independent review, broken their 

promise on national environment standards, cherry-picked the report, 

gagged debate in the parliament, and then rammed through a 

rehashed Tony Abbott bill, which is bad for the environment and bad 

for business,” she said. 

The Greens’ environment spokeswoman, Sarah Hanson-Young, said the 

government had been disrespectful to Samuel and engaged in bad process 

and policy. “The government has shown their absolute arrogance by 

dismissing the expert advice before it had even been made available 

to them,” she said. 

She said the Senate should not consider any changes to the laws until 

Samuel’s final report was tabled in October. 

A spokesman for Ley said drafting instructions on the bill were initiated by 

the department. 

“The government will consider a broader response and additional 

opportunities for reform once the reviewer provides his final report to 

government,” he said. 

Suzanne Milthorpe, the national campaign manager at the Wilderness 

Society, said it had “become increasingly obvious” that the Morrison 

government was running a “two-track process” – asking the public and 

experts for their views through the review while simultaneously acting on 

predetermined decisions made “in favour of vested interests”. 

“If they want to begin to re-establish trust here, they should pull the 

Abbott-era bill before parliament, wait until the full review is completed 

and then bring the complete reforms forward together in one package,” 

she said.


Basha Stasak, from the Australian Conservation Foundation, said Samuel’s 

report had warned against the approach adopted by the Abbott 

government in 2014, in part because it lacked legislated national 

environmental standards. 

“Yet before the federal government had even received Prof Samuel’s 

interim report, it was already drafting legislation to hand over 

environmental responsibility to weaker state regimes without national 

standards,” she said. 

Crossbench senators have indicated they will not support the proposed 

changes, in part because they include nothing to improve the protection of 

Australia’s ailing wildlife and natural heritage. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/16/coalition-began-writinglandmark-environment-bill-before-receiving-review-it-hadordered?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other 

------------------------------- END ----------------------------


Failure: Morrison government is 

sabotaging its renewable energy 

agency


The Morrison government is sabotaging its 

renewable energy agency 

Coalition to divert renewable energy funding 

away from wind and solar 

Katharine Murphy, Political Editor and Adam Morton, Environment 

Editor for The Guardian on 17 September 2020 

Scott Morrison says solar and wind are commercially viable and do not 

need subsidies from the $1.43 billion funding 

The Morrison government will continue to fund its renewable energy agency with 

$1.43 billion over a decade with less investment in solar and wind and more focus on 

hydrogen, microgrids and energy efficiency. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP 

The Morrison government will continue to fund Australia’s renewable 

energy agency to the tune of $1.43 billion over a decade but overhaul its 

mandate so there will be less investment in solar and wind, and more focus 

on investment in hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, microgrids and 

energy efficiency. 

The baseline funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena) 

will be supplemented by a transfer of funds from the government’s 

emissions reduction fund and a new grants program worth $193.4m – but 

that represents a funding cut to the agency which was established by the 

Gillard government in 2011. 

The significant overhaul will be unveiled by Scott Morrison on Thursday 

ahead of the government outlining its next steps in the technology 

roadmap, which is the government’s emissions reduction strategy.


The energy minister, Angus Taylor, is expected to unveil the government’s 

inaugural low emissions technology statement during a speech at the 

National Press Club early next week. 

As part of executing a fundamental shift in Arena’s mandate – a pivot that 

will not be welcomed by environmentalists – the government plans to 

allocate $95.4 million for a technology co-investment fund that was 

recommended during the King review of the Coalition’s heavily criticised 

climate policy mechanisms. 

The government will also continue to plough more taxpayer funds into 

carbon capture and storage through a $50 million fund, while $70.2 million 

will be allocated for an export hydrogen hub. 

Despite a fierce political assault on a Labor policy at the 2019 federal 

election designed to drive the take-up of electric vehicles – a package of 

measures that were characterised by the Coalition as a “war on the 

weekend” – Arena will be given $74.5 million fund to support, as the 

government puts it, “businesses and regional communities [to] take 

advantage of opportunities offered by hydrogen, electric, and bio-fueled 

vehicles”. 

There will also be $67 million for microgrid initiatives in regional and 

remote communities, and $52.2 million for an energy efficiency program 

for homes and hotels. 

The Coalition’s planned overhaul will require parliamentary support. Labor 

has recently rebuffed a complementary effort by the government to 

explicitly open up the taxpayer-owned green bank, the Clean Energy 

Finance Corporation, to fossil fuel investments. 

In a statement issued ahead of Thursday’s announcement, the prime 

minister said many renewable energy technologies were now mature. 

“Solar panels and wind farms are now clearly commercially viable and have 

graduated from the need for government subsidies and the market has 

stepped up to invest,” Morrison said. 

“The government will now focus its efforts on the next challenge: unlocking 

new technologies across the economy to help drive down costs, create 

jobs, improve reliability and reduce emissions.”


Morrison said the objective was to provide support for “traditional” 

industries, which he identified as manufacturing, agriculture, transport, 

“while positioning our economy for the future”. 

He said investments bringing new technology into play would create jobs 

as well as cut emissions. 

Taylor said the government needed to pursue emerging technologies “to 

get the balance right”. He said Arena had played an important role in 

growing low emissions technologies “and as the cost of renewable 

technologies has fallen dramatically, the government is investing in the 

future of Arena to support the next generation of energy technologies”. 

The overhaul of Arena follows the government outlining first steps in its 

much vaunted “gas-led recovery” from the economic shock caused by the 

coronavirus. Morrison on Tuesday pointed to new commitments in the 

October budget, including funding of $52.9 million to unlock more gas 

supply and boost transport infrastructure. 

As well as flagging that the government would back the construction of a 

new gas-fired power station in the Hunter Valley if the energy company 

AGL failed to replace Liddell, Morrison held open the option of taxpayer 

underwriting for priority gas projects, streamlining approvals or creating 

special purpose vehicles for new investment. 

While Morrison and Taylor have been muscling up about the importance of 

new generation to replace Liddell, the government’s proposition has not 

been backed by a taskforce report commissioned to assess the impact of 

its closure. 

Morrison said this week the government had estimated 1,000 megawatts 

of new dispatchable electricity generation capacity would be needed to 

replace Liddell, which owner AGL has announced will close in early 2023. 

But the taskforce does not find that 1,000MW of additional dispatchable 

electricity would be needed. It listed a range of energy committed and 

probable projects that it found would be “more than sufficient” to maintain 

a high level of power grid reliability as Liddell shut. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/17/the-morrisongovernment-is-sabotaging-its-renewable-energy-agency


In comparison 

Dan Andrews Government 

Victoria To Build Southern Hemisphere’s Biggest Battery 

05 November 2020 

One of the world’s largest lithium-ion batteries will be built in Victoria to 

boost reliability, drive down electricity prices and support the state’s 

transition to renewable energy – as well as creating jobs as we take steps 

towards a COVID normal. 

Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change Lily D’Ambrosio 

today announced that she has directed the Australian Energy Market 

Operator (AEMO) to sign a contract with renewable energy specialist 

Neoen to deliver a new Tesla battery to transform Victoria’s energy system 

and improve reliability. 

With climate change resulting in hotter summers, demand for electricity is 

rising at peak times. At the same time, Victoria’s ageing coal-fired 

generators are becoming increasingly unreliable, creating a need for 

additional capacity to safeguard the state’s power supply. 

To address these issues, the Andrews Labor Government has secured 

the Victorian Big Battery. The 300 megawatt battery will be installed near 

the Moorabool Terminal Station, just outside Geelong, and will be ready by 

the 2021-22 summer. Construction of the battery will create more than 85 

jobs. 

It will help reduce wholesale prices – and people’s power bills – by storing 

cheap renewable energy when the weather makes it plentiful and 

discharging it into the grid when it is needed most. 

Neoen will pay for construction of the battery, as well its ongoing 

operation and maintenance.


Consumers will pay for use of the battery through their power bills, but the 

reduction in wholesale energy prices delivered by the battery will mean 

that Victorians pay less for their power – with independent analysis 

showing that every $1 invested in the battery will deliver more than $2 in 

benefits to Victorian households and businesses. 

To reduce the chances of unscheduled power outages over the peak 

summer months, the Victorian Big Battery will reserve a portion of its 

capacity to increase the power flow through the Victoria-New South Wales 

Interconnector by up to 250 MW. 

The battery will also help lower electricity prices for all Victorians by storing 

cheap renewable energy, support solar and wind projects and help to 

deliver a more secure and modern energy system. 

Victoria is on track to meet its renewable energy target of 25 per cent by 

the end of 2020 and the battery will make an important contribution to its 

targets of 40 per cent by 2025 and 50 per cent by 2030. 

Quotes attributable to Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate 

Change. Lily D’Ambrosio 

“The big battery will help protect our network in summer, create jobs and 

drive down energy prices – as well as supporting our recovery from the 

coronavirus pandemic.” 

“Victoria is embracing new technologies that will unlock more renewable 

energy projects than ever before –delivering clean, cheap, reliable power to 

all Victorians.” 

Source 

https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/victoria-build-southern-hemispheres-biggestbattery


Broken Promise: The Guy 

Sebastian Art Sector Promise 

$250m promise - $0 spend


The Guy Sebastian Art Sector Promise 

$250 million promise - $0 spend 

NEW $250 MILLION ARTS FUNDING: ‘NOT GOOD ENOUGH’ 

BY AHMED YUSSUF for SBS The Feed on 25 June 2020 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced the arts funding package in June 

alongside singer Guy Sebastian Source: AAP 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison, alongside musician Guy Sebastian, 

announced a new funding plan to ‘kick start’ the arts sector post-COVID- 

19. But Sebastian has received mixed reviews for his inclusion in the 

announcement. 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison was joined by musician Guy Sebastian to 

announce the new 'JobMaker' funding plan that will see a $250 million 

dollar funding boost for the arts sector. 

"Our JobMaker plan is getting their show back on the road, to get their 

workers back in jobs," Morrison said. 

The funding will be broken down in four groups. 

There will be $75 million worth of grants to organise new festivals, concerts 

and tours, $90 million for concessional loans to aid new local productions, 

$50 million to give resources to local film and television producers to begin 

filming again and $35 million to government funded organisations like 

theatre, dance, circus and music bodies. 

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young took to Twitter welcoming any 

funding to the arts but said the $250 million isn’t enough.


She wrote on Twitter, “But to be honest, it falls well short of what is needed 

to save jobs. Morrison found $700 million for his Home Reno scheme, but 

Arts, the industry hardest hit gets less than half of that. What the?!” 

Guy Sebastian was seen standing alongside Mr Morrison while he made his 

announcement - a move that proved contentious. 

Liberal senator Sarah Henderson welcomed Sebastian’s inclusion in the 

announcement. 

She said on Twitter, “Thank you @GuySebastian for being such a positive 

advocate for the Australian arts and entertainment industry. You’ve made a 

real difference. Your collective voice matters.” 

Sebastian also received praise for helping to secure the funding by the 

Australian Recording Industry Association. 

In a tweet they wrote, “Thanks to @GuySebastian for stepping up and 

helping to secure millions of dollars of assistance for the arts and music 

industry in Australia.” 

But others weren’t so pleased by his addition in the press conference. 

Twitter user Belinda Jones wrote on Twitter, “It's not good enough, 

demand better.” 

There are 645,000 arts workers in Australia. If the Jobmaker funding of 

$250 million was divided equally among the arts sector it would amount to 

$387.59 per worker. 

Source: 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/new-250-million-arts-funding-not-goodenough




‘I am a musician, not a politician’: Guy Sebastian defends 

appearance at Scott Morrison funding announcement 

By Hannah Moore for The Weekend Australian on June 25, 2020 

Pop star Guy Sebastian has defended his appearance at the Prime 

Minister’s press conference in Rooty Hill this morning, arguing he was 

there to “provide perspective” and “support his colleagues”. 

The Voice coach, who rose to fame as the winner of the first season 

of Australian Idol and now serves as a coach on prominent talent show The 

Voice, stood behind the PM as he announced a $250 million package to 

boost the struggling arts sector on Thursday. 

The singer was slammed online as a “scab” after he was seen nodding 

throughout the press conference before praising Scott Morrison for the 

funding. 

“Firstly, I would like to thank you guys, especially you Prime Minister, for 

listening … you really were, and that was evident the other day when we 

jumped on that Zoom call,” Mr Sebastian said. 

“You really did hear us out, you heard all the challenges we were facing.” 

Mr Sebastian said the funding would help many get back to work, and 

showed the industry had not been forgotten. 

While his presence was clearly welcomed by the Prime Minister, others 

took to social media to register their disgust, labelling the reality star a 

“the Scott Cam of the music world” and claiming they would be 

removing his songs off their devices. 

Mr Sebastian defended his appearance in a statement to NCA Newswire, 

declaring: “I am a musician, not a politician.” 

“My attendance today at the press conference was to provide perspective 

of the deep-seated economic hardship that has crippled the entertainment 

industry due to the COVID pandemic,” he said.


“The whole industry from tech crew to musicians and all those that consult 

to the entertainment community are in serious need of stimulus. The 

objective of my involvement today is to support my colleagues and 

industry at large.” 

Guy Sebastian has been widely criticised for his appearance at the event, with the 

funding plan derided as too little too late by many in the arts sector. 

Under the new funding plan, artists and entertainers will be able to apply 

for $90 million worth of concessional loans to fund new productions, 

provided through commercial banks with a 100 per cent Commonwealth 

guarantee. 

Another $75 million will be made available in grants from the Restart 

Investment to Sustain and Expand (RISE) Fund to produce new concerts, 

tours, festivals and events. The grants range from $75,000 to $2 million. 

Commonwealth-funded arts organisations across music, circus, dance and 

arts will be eligible for a slice of $35 million in direct grants, and $50 million 

will go towards helping film and television projects secure funding and 

resume production. 

While the government believes the funding will help kickstart Australia’s 

struggling entertainment industry, the package has been slammed by the 

Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance as “a slap in the face” that would 

benefit organisations more than workers. 

Source: 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaking-news/guy-sebastian-makes-surprisingappearance-at-scott-morrison-funding-announcement/newsstory/67c83c44ad4e0a3b2d09bdcdaef1323a




Arts rescue package worth $250 million still waiting 

to be allocated, Senate estimates told 

By Kelly Burke, Sydney journalist covering arts, culture, politics, 

education and urban affairs for The Guardian on 21 October 2020 

The Palace Theatre in Melbourne’s lockdown. More than 80% of the $250 million in 

emergency funding for the arts and culture sector has not yet been handed 

out. Photograph: Asanka Ratnayake/Getty Images 

More than 80% of the $250 million promised by the Morrison government 

to the Covid-hit arts and culture sector has not yet been handed out, 

Senate estimates heard on Wednesday. 

In June, after months of urgent pleas for help for the struggling industry, 

Scott Morrison announced a federal package that was criticised by some as 

too little too late. 

On Wednesday senior bureaucrats initially struggled to provide any precise 

figure on how much of the pledged emergency funds has been spent. 

“Is it because it’s zero?” the Greens senator Sarah Hanson- 

Young challenged the department secretary Simon Atkinson.


“Not much has been spent yet, has it?” she suggested, prompting the 

department’s chief operating officer, Pip Spence, to assure the hearing that 

“some money has gone out” – but she was unable to provide a figure. 

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and 

Communications returned to the hearing later in the morning with a figure 

of $49.5 million, less than one-fifth of the total emergency funding 

announced almost four months ago. 

And all $49.5 million has gone to Screen Australia under the package’s 

temporary interruption fund, to help 20 film and television productions in 

securing finance after losing access to insurance due to the pandemic 

“So it’s not actually money out the door,” Hanson-Young said. 

Simon Atkinson fronts the environment and communications legislation committee 

on Wednesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian 

“Work is under way to consider projects that have been put forward, to get 

the money out as quickly as possible,” Spence told the hearing, adding that 

the money was expected to start flowing in November, some five months 

after the government unveiled the package. 

An earlier $27 million emergency relief package for Indigenous and 

regional visual arts and the music industry outreach program Support Act 

announced in April had been fully allocated, the department told the 

hearing.


Coinciding with the rescue package announcement on 24 June, the arts 

minister, Paul Fletcher, announced the establishment of a creative 

economy taskforce to provide advice on and support for the 

implementation of the $250 million package. 

The taskforce, chaired by the Museum of Contemporary Art director, 

Elizabeth Ann Macgregor and comprising a further 19 leaders across the 

performing, visual arts, recording and film industries, met for the first time 

on 15 September and will meet again on 29 October. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/oct/21/arts-rescue-packageworth-250m-still-waiting-to-be-allocated-senate-estimates-told




Guy Sebastian asks Scott Morrison for answers 

over delayed arts funding 

by The New Daily with AAP on October 22, 2020 

Australian singer Guy Sebastian has asked Prime Minister Scott Morrison to 

explain the delay in delivering $250 million worth of emergency funding to 

the arts and culture sectors facing financial crisis due to COVID-19. 

The government admitted that less than $50 million of the package 

has been allocated at a Senate estimates hearing on Wednesday. 

That money has been set aside to underwrite the film industry, which is 

facing an insurance crisis. 

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young is astonished none of the funding 

has been spent, four months after the arts package was announced. 

“Remember that fancy press conference Scott Morrison did with Guy 

Sebastian promising money to help artists during COVID?” she tweeted 

“Well guess what? Still nothing has been spent.” 

Sebastian was quick to respond to the criticism. 

“I have requested an update from the PM’s office about the current and 

future spend with regards to the arts package,” he replied. “Once I receive 

the most recent information, I will pass it on.” 

The singer and television host, who was widely criticised for taking part 

in the Prime Minister’s press conference, insisted he had no ties to 

anyone in politics on a personal or professional level. 

The $250 million package was announced in June after much campaigning 

from the sector, which continues to be hard-hit by coronavirus restrictions 

and closures. 

All the funds from a separate $27 million package for Indigenous and 

regional artists have been distributed. 

Source: 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/entertainment/2020/10/22/guy-sebastian-arts-fundingpm/ 

--------------------------------- END ------------------------------


My Health LNP Failure: Audit 

finds My Health Record flawed 

The 2015-16 Budget announcement My Health Record – A New 

Direction for Electronic Health Records in Australia authorised 

the establishment of the Australian Digital Health Agency (the 

Agency) to strengthen digital health governance arrangements. 

The Agency was established in law on 30 January 2016, and 

became fully operational on 1 July 2016. From that date, the 

Agency became responsible for overseeing the operation and 

evolution of the national digital health capability. 

© AAP IMAGE / Alan Porritt 

Scott Morrison 

Minister for Social Services 

23.12.2014 to 21.9.2015 

Treasurer 21.9.2015 to 28.8.2018 

Prime Minister 24.8.2018 

Minister for the Public Service 29.5.2019 

Greg Hunt 

Minister for Health from 24.1.2017 

Sussan Ley 

Minister for Health 23.12.2014 to 19.7.2016.


My Health Record FAILED to manage cybersecurity and 

privacy risks, audit finds 

My Health Record data breaches caused by "fraudulent 

behaviour or human error" 

Lynne Minion | Healthcare IT News on 25 October 2017 

Fraudulent behaviour or human error were responsible for My Health 

Record data breaches, the Australian Digital Health Agency has confirmed, 

following the release of the Australian privacy commissioner’s annual 

report containing details of the security failures. 

"This year we received six data breach notifications from the My Health 

Record System Operator,” the Office of the Australian Information 

Commissioner’s annual report says. 

“These notifications related to unauthorised My Health Record access by a 

third party.” 

The annual report also confirmed 29 breach notifications had been 

received from the Chief Executive of Medicare, including reports of 

“intertwined” records.


“Nine of these notifications involved separate breaches related to 

intertwined Medicare records of individuals with similar demographic 

information. This resulted in Medicare providing data to the incorrect 

individual’s My Health Record.” 

Further cases saw Medicare claims information loaded into the wrong My 

Health Records. 

“Twenty notifications, involving 123 separate breaches, resulted from 

findings under the Medicare compliance program. In these circumstances, 

certain Medicare claims made in the name of a healthcare recipient but not 

by that healthcare recipient were uploaded to their My Health Record.” 

According to the Australian Digital Health Agency, the breaches were 

caused by fraudulent behaviour or human error. 

“In each instance the access has been limited to Medicare information 

related to fraudulent behaviour, or isolated human processing errors,” an 

Australian Digital Health Agency spokesperson said in a statement to 

Healthcare IT News Australia. 

“No clinical incidents have resulted from these matters. All privacy breaches 

has been investigated and resolved, and the affected parties have been 

notified of the situation.” 

The security of the online repository of private health information has been 

a continuing subject of scrutiny within the industry, and on Friday the 

ADHA’s website went down due to a “glitch”, which may not have allayed 

concerns. 

It came as the OAIC’s 2017 Australian Community Attitudes to Privacy 

Survey showed Australians perceive greater risks in allowing organisations 

to be the custodians of private information online. 

“That survey shows 58 per cent of Australians have avoided a business 

because of privacy concerns and 44 per cent said they had chosen not to 

use a mobile app for the same reason. These findings reinforce the view 

that a successful data-driven economy needs a strong foundation in 

privacy,” the Australian Information and Privacy Commissioner Tim Pilgrim 

said.


Pilgrim’s office received 17 per cent more privacy complaints than last year 

across industries, indicating growing concern. 

“Developments in technological, social, commercial and government 

service delivery environments continue to drive increasing community and 

professional interest in privacy and privacy governance,” Pilgrim said. 

As Australia moves towards the introduction of the mandatory data breach 

notification scheme in February 2018, the ADHA this week released 

its Information Security Guide for Small Healthcare Businesses, described 

as a tool for businesses to better protect their information. 

The guide, developed in partnership with the Australian Government's Stay 

Smart Online program, provides advice for non-technical health 

professionals on privacy, passwords, software updates, back-ups and staff 

security awareness. 

The OAIC has also published new resources to help healthcare providers 

understand their My Health Record privacy obligations, including advice on 

the handling of sensitive information. 

Over 5 million people currently have a My Health Record. By the end of 

2018 every Australian will have one unless they have taken steps to opt 

out. 

Source: 

https://www.healthcareit.com.au/article/my-health-record-data-breaches-causedfraudulent-behaviour-or-human-error




Technical chaos and privacy backlash as My Health Record opt 

out period begins 

by Lynne Minion | Healthcare IT News on 16 July 2018 

It has been a dramatic start to the Federal Government’s My Health Record 

opt out period, with tech meltdowns, call centre chaos and some 

Australians discovering a My Health Record had already been created for 

them without their knowledge or consent. 

After 17 years, $2 billion and a communications campaign many months in 

the planning, the Australian Digital Health Agency has apparently been 

caught unprepared for the level of traffic. 

The myGov website suffered a glitch this morning, followed by the My 

Health Record online opt out platform going down soon afterwards. 

People calling the opt out phoneline were met with waits of over an hour 

and a half to get through before it too went down. Even still, by the end of 

the first day more than 20,000 people had managed to opt out. 

But within the technical crises, it was the discovery by people attempting to 

opt out that they already had My Health Records that caused concern. 

Prior to today, Australians were required to opt in to have an online 

repository of their private health information created for them by the 

government, with 5.9 million currently active. 

Reports also spread of My Health Records attached to the myGov accounts 

of the wrong people, failure of the online opt out system to verify correct 

identification, calls being cut off, people being unable to complete the 

feedback survey and parents struggling to opt out for their children. 

The technical problems created a communications catastrophe for the 

ADHA, which has worked hard to reassure Australians about the 

government’s ability to manage their most sensitive of electronic data 

despite previous IT blunders, such as the 2016 online Census.


As the technical dramas unfolded, Health Minister Greg Hunt struggled to 

defend the system on Melbourne Radio today in an interview with the 

ABC’s Mornings program. 

Speaking to reporters later in the day, Hunt expressed his confidence in the 

system and said world leading cybersecurity mechanisms meant there had 

been no breaches of the system since its launch. 

"It is not just bank-level security but the advice from the Digital Health 

Agency is that it has been defence-tested," Hunt said. 

"They have a permanent cyber security network. It's arguably the world's 

leading and most secure medical information system at any national level." 

But today IT experts were calling out the use of Google's reCAPTCHA 

function on the My Health Record opt out page, saying it leaks information 

to Google’s global servers and contravenes a privacy policy that claims 

data will be contained within Australia. 

With online critics describing My Health Record as the “NBN of electronic 

medical records” and “Flintstonian”, healthcare groups spoke out in 

support of the life-saving benefits of the portal. 

National Rural Health Alliance CEO Mark Diamond said in a statement that 

My Health Record can save lives. 

“Australians living in rural and remote areas are more likely to end up in an 

emergency department from a heart attack, car accident or diabetic coma,” 

he said in a statement. 

“If they’re unconscious, and the medical team doesn’t have access to their 

health history, the team may not be able to provide life-saving care. If you 

live outside a major city, you have less access to health services, and are 

more likely to delay getting medical treatment. That means you’re more 

likely to end up being hospitalised. A My Health Record means that all your 

important health information is at the fingertips of your doctor, nurse or 

surgeon.” 

Meanwhile, the Australian Medical Association’s president Dr Tony Bartone 

said healthcare providers often communicate via fax or post but My Health 

Record allows clinicians to access information urgently.


“Remember this is a concept that's actually going to save lives. For 

example, if someone was unconscious in an emergency department on the 

other side of the country … and you've got a My Health Record, it can be 

viewed in an emergency situation, give important clinical details about 

medications you're on or previous allergies or previous situations,” Bartone 

told ABC Radio Melbourne’s Breakfast program. 

“So we need to sort of balance the risk of our own privacy versus the risk of 

not knowing information and having duplication of medications [and] 

miscommunication.” 

Australians have until October 15 to opt out or a My Health Record will be 

created for them by the end of the year. 

Source: 

https://www.healthcareit.com.au/article/technical-chaos-and-privacy-backlash-myhealth-record-opt-out-period-begins




Canberra chaos: Health Minister offers to resign, is rebuffed 

and introduces My Health Record privacy amendments 

Lynne Minion | HealthCare IT News on 22 August 2018 

Hours before he was introducing amendments to My Health Record in the 

House of Representatives and with a new Senate inquiry into the national 

health database calling for submissions, the Federal Minister for Health 

offered his resignation as part of the ongoing Coalition leadership crisis, 

only for it to be knocked back. 

At a crucial juncture for the $2 billion health infrastructure project, Health 

Minister Greg Hunt has joined in efforts to oust the Prime Minister, offering 

to vacate his front bench post. Turnbull rejected the offer from Hunt and 

nine other Cabinet ministers in the interests of “unity”. 

Hunt has faced more than a month of controversy as data privacy and 

security concerns have continued to surround My Health Record since 

the opt out period began.


The new My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 

2018 prevents access to people’s confidential health information by law 

enforcement and government departments without a court order and is 

one of a number of concessions the minister has been forced to make in 

response to pressure from doctors’ groups, legal experts, domestic 

violence campaigners, mental health and other charities, technology 

experts and privacy advocates. 

The legislation also commits the government to the "destruction of records 

after cancellation on request". 

The opt out period has been extended to November 15, after which a My 

Health Record will be created for them by the end of the year. Currently 6 

million Australians are signed up to the system. 

“I think it’s important to be very clear about this: the My Health Record 

system has its own dedicated privacy controls which are stronger in some 

cases than the protections afforded by the Commonwealth Privacy Act on 

the advice I have,” the minister said. 

“Nonetheless this government has listened to the recent concerns and in 

order to provide additional reassurance is moving quickly to address them 

through this bill." 

Hunt’s offer to decamp from the health ministry follows the Senate’s 

referral last week of My Health Record to the Senate Community Affairs 

References Committee for an inquiry into the platform, including the 

government’s decision to switch to opt out. 

The committee has called for submissions, with the terms of reference also 

listing privacy and cybersecurity concerns, third party access and the 

government’s administration of the roll-out, including the disastrous public 

information campaign. The inquiry will also look into the prevalence of 

‘informed consent’ among users and compare My Health Record to 

international systems. 

The government last week supported the Greens' push for an inquiry, 

beating Labor to the punch.


“We are disappointed the Greens did a dodgy deal with the government to 

truncate the inquiry, but Labor’s terms of reference remain intact,” Shadow 

Health Minister Catherine King said. 

“We’re also surprised the government ended up supporting the inquiry 

referral despite Greg Hunt yesterday dismissing Labor’s proposal as ‘a 

stunt’. 

“This will be a wide-ranging inquiry that will review all the laws, regulations 

and rules that underpin the My Health Record.” 

Meanwhile, Hunt’s tenure in the health portfolio remains uncertain, as 

chaos threatens to engulf the government after yesterday’s leadership 

challenge by then Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, which was narrowly 

defeated by seven votes. 

Dutton resigned, returning to the backbench from where he continues to 

destabilise the leadership and plot a second tilt at the top job. 

International Development Minister Concetta Fierravanti-Wells also 

resigned, with another five junior ministers offering their resignations. 

Source: 

https://www.healthcareit.com.au/article/canberra-chaos-health-minister-offersresign-rebuffed-and-introduces-my-health-record




My Health Record: 

government warned of 'significant' patient data glitch 

by Christopher Knaus and Nick Evershed for The Guardian 


Exclusive: Leaked document says problem potentially left personal 

medical information out of date or missing, but agency says safety not 

compromised 

Government officials were warned a My Health Record glitch 

risked leaving patient data incomplete. Photograph: Stocksy 

Government officials were warned a “significant” technical glitch affecting 

the My Health Record system threatened to leave patient information 

incomplete or out of date, a leaked briefing shows. 

The My Health Record system relies on doctors and medical practices using 

their own IT systems to upload clinical information about patients, to help 

ensure continuity of care and improve interactions with healthcare 

providers.


An internal briefing to the Australian Digital Health Agency’s data integrity 

group last month, obtained by Guardian Australia, shows that a software 

bug began to affect the system in early 2016, which prevented some 

clinical information systems used by medical practices “from uploading 

clinical documents to the My Health Record system”. 

The briefing said the error had the potential to cause “missing clinical 

information in a consumer’s My Health Record” and “amendments not 

uploading resulting in out-of-date or incorrect information”. 

“When the digital signature issue emerged in 2016, its impact was so 

significant that it was escalated to the minister for health, and although the 

issue is being managed it is not completely resolved,” the leaked briefing, 

dated 18 December 2018, said. 

But the agency, in a statement to Guardian Australia, has strongly denied 

any suggestion the 2016 software bug compromised patient records, 

saying it affected only a tiny proportion of documents and did not leave 

My Health Records with missing or out-of-date information. 

“The matter you refer to accounts for less than 1% of attempted document 

uploads from clinicians,” a spokeswoman said. “The agency rejects any 

statement that the security or safety of the My Health Record system has 

been compromised.” 

Neither the minister, then Sussan Ley, nor the agency publicly announced 

the error. 

The agency has also strongly denied any suggestion that the issue is still 

unresolved, despite what is written in the briefing. It said the bug was 

quickly dealt with in 2016. 

“To be absolutely clear, the agency rejects any assertion that there is any 

clinical risk to patient safety or long-standing problem unresolved since 

2016,” a spokeswoman said.


An excerpt from an official document, dated December 2018, 

describing the My Health Record problem. 

The briefing document suggests that, in some cases, medical practices 

using older software were oblivious to the errors. 

“The detectability of this error depended on the clinical information system 

and the implementation of error reporting,” the agency’s briefing said. 

“Some clinical information systems did not display an obvious error 

message. Therefore some healthcare provider end-users may still be using 

clinical information software with this issue and not be aware.” 

This claim has also been denied by the agency, which says medical 

practitioners were alerted every time an upload to the My Health Record 

system failed, regardless of the software they were using. 

“All clinical software alerts the organisation if a document fails to upload 

into the My Health Record,” the spokeswoman said. “Any claim to the 

contrary is false.”


The agency identified a fix but it relies on third-party software makers and 

IT workers in hospitals, doctors’ offices and other healthcare locations to 

implement it. 

Last month’s briefing said some doctors were still using the old software. 

“Vendors were then advised of the issue and how to resolve it, however 

many healthcare providers are still using clinical information systems with 

the issue rather than the corrected versions created by vendors,” the 

briefing said. 

Guardian Australia has confirmed at least one software vendor issued a 

note to users on how to fix the issue, but not until several months after the 

bug was first discovered. 

An excerpt from an official document, dated December 2018, 

describing the My Health Record problem. 

The agency said it introduced a tool in November allowing it to find the 

“small number of clinicians” who were still using the buggy software and 

advise them of the problem. It said even those providers would receive an 

alert when their uploads failed.


The revelations have prompted a backlash from critics who say the 

government should have told the public and took too long to take steps to 

understand the scale of the problem. 

David Glance, director of the University of Western Australia’s centre for 

software practice and a frequent critic of the system, said the public should 

have been told. 

“The fact that this wasn’t made public, that GPs weren’t informed that 

potentially documents weren’t going up there, that hospitals weren’t told 

that summaries were incomplete ... there’s all sorts of ramifications,” he 

said. 

“This again highlights that the [agency], their standards of transparency, 

leave a lot to be desired.” 

The agency would not say why the issue was not publicly announced to 

give patients and doctors an opportunity to correct the errors. Ley, the 

former health minister, was approached for comment. 

Robert Merkel, a lecturer in software engineering at Monash University, 

was most concerned by the agency’s response. He said it appeared to have 

taken more than two years for the government to take proactive steps to 

understand the full scale of the problem. 

“I think that’s what bothers me most,” he said. “That you had an unknown 

number of healthcare providers running old software with known serious 

faults. This was not fixed for over two years. That is troubling. 

“Many providers may well have fixed it properly. Many vendors may have 

fixed it properly. The problem was that there were other healthcare 

providers out there who were running systems with this fault and they were 

able to do so for a very long time without any successful action taken to 

correct it.” 

The leaked briefing shows the bug was caused by part of the digital 

signatures used to help secure and authenticate digital clinical records.


Those signatures contain an identifier starting with a randomly generated 

hexadecimal character – either one of nine numerical characters or a letter 

from A to F. An average of 62.5% of all records uploaded to the My Health 

Record system used a number at the start of their digital signature 

identifier. 

The use of numbers at the start of the identifiers became a problem in 

March 2016 after an update to a Microsoft framework used by the My 

Health Record system. The update meant that any digital signature 

identifiers starting with a number caused a “Windows operating system 

error”. 

“This update exposed an issue in the way many clinical information systems 

created digital signatures preventing the clinical information system from 

uploading clinical documents to the My Health Record system,” the 

agency’s briefing said. 

The agency said it quickly released its own patch to resolve the bug. But 

the fix also required updates from software vendors and healthcare 

providers to their own systems. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/25/my-health-recordgovernment-warned-of-significant-patient-data-glitch




My Health Record failed to manage cybersecurity and 


by Helen Davidson for The Guardian on 25 November 2019 

Government agency in charge of $1.5 billion system did not provide 

appropriate protections, national audit office says 

An Australian National Audit Office review has found cybersecurity and 

privacy risks for My Health Record were not properly managed. 

Photograph: Australian Digital Health Agency 

Implementation of the $1.5 billion My Health Record system failed to 

appropriately manage cybersecurity risks, a review by the national audit 

office has found. 

The review found implementation was “largely effective”, but revealed the 

government agency could not guarantee that all “emergency access” 

requests to view an individual’s record were legitimate, and that four 

privacy reviews funded since it became an “opt-out” system were never 

finished.


The Australian National Audit Office review said the cybersecurity and 

privacy risks were not properly managed or considered by the Australian 

Digital Health Agency, which oversees the national electronic heath 

records. 

The database, which relies on doctors and medical practices to upload 

clinical information about patients, seeks to ensure continuity of care for 

patients with all medical information centralised. It was opt-in from 2012, 

but converted to opt-out this year. 

Despite widespread privacy concerns and some revelations of software 

bugs, 90% of Australians now have a My Health record. 

Less than a quarter of Australia’s healthcare provider organisations are 

using the system. 

The audit office review, commissioned to review implementation under the 

“opt-out” model, found that the system had “largely appropriate” systems 

to manage cybersecurity risks within itself, but had failed to provide 

appropriate protections against shared risk with third-party sites and apps, 

and health provider organisations. 

“Management of shared cybersecurity risks was not appropriate and 

should be improved with respect to those risks that are shared with thirdparty 

software vendors and healthcare provider organisations,” the report 

said. 

The audit office said that at the time of writing the report the ADHA had 

not conducted an end-to-end privacy risk assessment of the system’s 

operation under the opt-out model. The most recent privacy impact 

assessment was in 2017, and the four privacy reviews between October 

2017 and June 2019, which cost $3.6 million, were not completed. 

Registered healthcare providers and other participants can use an 

“emergency access” function to override user-set accesses and view 

someone’s records, but only if the circumstances involve “a serious threat 

to an individual’s life, health or safety, or a serious threat to public health 

or public safety”, the report said.


However, the audit office found the ADHA could not provide assurances 

that all instances of “emergency access” to an individual’s health record 

were not an interference with that person’s privacy. Monthly use of 

emergency accesses increased from 80 in July 2018 to 205 in March 2019. 

The review found that only 8.2% of requests met guidelines. 

The review said while the ADHA monitored emergency access and 

requesting responses from the accessing organisation, it had no procedure 

for what to do next. In a number of instances the ADHA received no 

response, and had not notified the information commissioner about any of 

the accesses. 

In early 2016 the ADHA identified “nation states and criminal actors as the 

greatest threat to the My Health Record system, with hacktivists and 

trusted insiders posing a medium threat and cyberterrorists posing a low 

threat”. 

The audit office also reported that not all Australian healthcare providers 

achieved minimum cybersecurity levels, and that the sector reported the 

most notifiable data breaches of any industry sector in 2018. 

More than 40% of data breaches reported to the information 

commissioner from the private health service provider sector were due to 

“malicious or criminal attacks”, of which almost half were cyber-incidents, it 

said. 

The review also found cybersecurity risk oversight could be stronger, as the 

ADHA board received dedicated briefings just four times between July 

2016 and February 2019, and had not considered the updated 

cybersecurity five-year strategic plan, which was finalised last year. The role 

of the ADHA’s privacy and security advisory committee was also not clear. 

The auditor recommended it needed to set up means to monitor 

compliance by third parties using My Health 

Source: With Australian Associated Press 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/25/my-health-recordfailed-to-manage-cybersecurity-and-privacy-risks-audit-finds




My Health Record: almost $2 billion spent but half the 

23 million records created are empty 

By Josh Taylor and Amy Corderoy for The Guardian 


The Australian government has spent $1.97 billion since the system was 

introduced as the e-health record in 2009 

More than 90% of Australians have a My Health Record created for them, 

but just over half of those records have anything in them. 

Photograph: Lea Paterson/Getty Images/Science Photo Library 

A decade since it was first announced, the federal government has spent 

close to $2 billion on its troubled My Health Record system, and half of the 

23 million records created lie empty almost a year after the government 

made the system opt-out. 

The former Labor government first proposed the e-health record system in 

2009 as a means for patients, doctors and specialists to share patient 

history, X-rays, prescriptions and other medical information with ease. 

The system was first launched in 2012 with little fanfare and very little 

uptake.


In 2016, it was reported that after four years, only around 4 million people 

had created a record, and even fewer had actually had any information put 

in it. 

The Coalition government then attempted to salvage the system by 

rebranding it to My Health Record and moving to make it opt-out in 2018, 

but the opt-out time period was extended to the start of 2019 amid 

concerns over security and law enforcement access to the records. 

The Department of Health confirmed to the Guardian that since its 

inception as the personally-controlled e-health record back in 2009 the 

federal government had spent $1.97 billion on the project. 

“This includes the infrastructure development, implementation and 

ongoing operation of the My Health Record (formerly known as the 

personally controlled electronic health record system), and the operations 

of the digital health foundations (including Healthcare Identifiers and the 

National Authentication Service for Health) upon which the My Health 

Record system has been built,” a spokeswoman for the department said. 

Despite the investment in the project, and the switch to opt-out – meaning 

people have to tell the Australian Digital Health Agency not to hold a 

record for them – take up of the My Health Record still remains low. 

More than 90% of Australians have a My Health Record created for them, 

but just over half of those records have anything in them – of the 

22.65 million records, 12.9 million have data in them. 

The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners president, Dr Harry 

Nespolon, said that was an “enormous number” of empty records. 

“This is always my argument about opting in, that if this was a service they 

actually wanted they would opt in.” 

Nespolon said electronic medical records internationally had been plagued 

by difficulty, and “a lot of them had become white elephants”. 

“We have always argued all the way that GPs are going to have to be the 

‘curators’ of these records, and that takes time and effort,” he said. 

“The question is, of these 10 million people [without information in 

records], do all 10 million really need a My Health Record?”


A spokesman for ADHA said the number of documents going in to records 

is increasing every month, and currently GPs are uploading between 

2 million and 3 million documents every month. 

Including pharmacies, close to 100 million documents were uploaded 

between November and December, the spokesman said. 

“It is not expected that all records would have information in them within 

the first year as not everyone would see a doctor in that timeframe,” he 

said. 

For the most part, people aren’t checking what is in their own records. In 

response to Senate estimates questions on notice, the ADHA, which has 

responsibility for managing My Health Record, reported that the total 

number of records accessed by patients was 2.07 million, and nearly half of 

those records (980,000) had been accessed more than once. 

More people have opted out of the My Health Record system than have 

accessed a record – with 2.5 million opting out before the deadline at the 

start of last year. 

Just 279,000 documents have been uploaded by patients themselves. 

Medicare documents make up the vast bulk of the 1.6 billion documents 

uploaded, at 1.2 billion, including pharmaceutical benefits reports of 

470 million as of the end of June last year. 

Close to 90% of GPs and pharmacies have registered to use the system as 

of October last year, and 93% of public hospitals. ADHA reports that 69% 

of pharmacies and 71% of GPs are actually using the record system. 

But the percentage drops significantly when it comes to the private and 

aged health care systems, at 33% and 3% respectively. And less than half 

(41%) of pathology and diagnostic imaging services are registered to use 

the health record. 

Nespolon said there needed to be better support from the government for 

GPs in curating the records for their patients. 

“There are a large group of people in healthcare who aren’t able to engage 

or aren’t engaging,” he said, suggesting the government focus uptake on 

those at-risk patients who need the records the most.


“The concept of a My Health Record is great, but there’s a lot of work to be 

done.” 

The ADHA spokesman said GPs could get the practice incentives payment 

ehealth incentive to cover the cost of getting on board with My Health 

Record. 

“To receive ePIP payments a practice is required to, among other things, 

upload an average of five shared health summaries to the My Health 

Record per full-time GP per quarter,” he said. 

In October, the then ADHA chief operating officer Bettina McMahon told a 

Senate estimates hearing the agency’s initial focus had been on general 

practice and public and private hospitals, but the agency would now focus 

on specialists and working with software providers to ensure compatibility 

with the record system. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/23/my-health-recordalmost-2bn-spent-but-half-the-23m-records-created-are-empty 

--------------------------------- END ------------------------------


Failure-Fair Work on Farms: 

$1.5m Faire Farms scheme has 

failed


The $1.5 million FAIR FARMS scheme has failed 

to get the 'critical mass' of farms onboard 

Government program intended to stop farm work exploitation 

has only 30 certified farms 

By Cait Kelly, Reporter for The New Daily on November 21, 2020 

The $1.5 million Fair Farms scheme has failed to get the 

'critical mass' of farms onboard. 

Just 30 Australian farms have completed a government program designed 

to ensure workers are not exploited, The New Daily can reveal – despite job 

seekers continuing to be shepherded into the industry. 

The scheme, called Fair Farms, is frequently championed by industry 

groups and the federal government to defend the ‘clean up’ of Australia’s 

horticulture industry, where exploitation of workers is a chronic issue. 

But since the voluntary scheme was launched in June 2019 only 30 farms 

have been certified via the program, which has cost taxpayers more than 

$1.5 million. 

The industry has been in the spotlight recently for its rampant exploitation, 

low wages, and the forced accommodation that can cost upwards of $300 

a week.


Despite this, the government has pushed ahead with its campaign to get 

unemployed workers – including gap year students – out onto Australia’s 

hardest workspace, holding a harvest trail job fair and encouraging them to 

get their hands dirty, without being able to ensure they’ll be paid properly. 

The fair, held on Thursday, is designed to connect job seekers to farmers 

who are short of employees. 

Farms conduct their own assessments. Source: Fair Farms Fair Farms 

Speaking to attendees, the Fair Farms national program manager Marsha


Aralar revealed only 30 farms had completed the program. 

Fair Farms is meant to foster responsible employment practices in the 

Australian horticulture industry and is backed by the powerful industry 

group, the National Farmers Federation, and major retailers such as Coles, 

Woolworths and Aldi. 

The New Daily has revealed that unemployed Australians are struggling to 

find farm work, as they are ‘not as exploitable’ as foreigners. 

“We’ve been going for about a year and a half and have about 30 certified 

sites around Australia,” Ms Aralar said. 

“When we have more, we will come with a list of Fair Farms so that job 

seekers such as yourselves and consumers will be able to identify that 

they’re buying from and working for a Fair Farm.” 

Job seekers can’t even access the list of approved farms. 

Ms Aralar said they were holding off publishing anything until they get 

“critical mass”. 

Fair Farms would not provide a further breakdown of which farms had 

signed up, but Ms Aralar said: “Industry-wide behaviour change doesn’t 

happen easily”. 

“Sign-up to Fair Farms is completely voluntary and completed at will. We 

don’t put a stopwatch on growers as to when they complete the program,” 

she told The New Daily. 

Currently, 200 farms are undergoing training with the program. 

Accreditation is provided through self-assessment. 

“2020 has been a hectic year for all, travel restrictions to auditors and 

stresses on all have caused unprecedented interruption,” Ms Aralar said. 

Agriculture Minister David Littleproud said the government was working on 

ensuring the industry was cleaned up. 

“Fair Farms is an industry-led initiative. The Australian government has 

provided funding to support this initiative and welcomes industry 

leadership on this program,” Mr Littleproud said.


“Through the Fair Work Ombudsman the government will continue to work 

to ensure that the few that do the wrong thing in the industry do not hurt 

the reputation of the vast majority.’” 

Unemployed Australians say they are struggling to get farm work. 

The Department of Education, Skills and Employment ran the jobs fair. 

It would not respond to questions about what systems were in place that 

ensured the jobs with which the fair was connecting participants were 

exploitation-free and paid legal wages. 

Daniel Walton, AWU national secretary, said the industry didn’t need job 

fairs or relocation funds to get Australians out into farms – they just need 

farmers to pay them properly. 

“The reason Australians are not being employed on farms is because too 

many employers in the sector prefer to hire people they can easily 

underpay, exploit and, in many cases, harass,” Mr Walton said. 

“We know this is not a case of a few bad apples. 

“Bad employers are rampant in the fruit and veg industry because they 

know they have a virtual green light from government to ignore Australian 

employment laws.”


Without stronger penalties, labour-hire regulation, union inspections and 

wages checks, Australians would continue to avoid the industry, he said. 

Australia’s farming industry is still rife with exploitation. Photo: Getty 

“It’s time the farmers who do the right thing started calling out the bad 

behaviour. Regional communities know who the law breakers are. Being 

silent isn’t good enough,” he said. 

In each of the workshops at the fair, there was no mention of exploitative 

conditions, and industry leaders glossed over issues such as forced 

accommodation. 

One spokesman for MADEC, a national charity that connects pickers with 

farms, assured participants they would be able to find cheap 

accommodation – despite widespread evidence that pickers are often 

forced to stay in expensive hostels that can cost upwards of $300 a week. 

“There’s obviously backpacker hostels, there are some cheap hotels, and 

then other accommodation and … certainly in many places farmers will let 

you bring your own tent,” he said. 

When asked about piece rates – where the employee gets paid by the 

amount picked – the spokesman said some workers prefer it because they 

know they can “beat the hourly rate”.


“If you’re fast and you know how to pick grapes, you can make some 

reasonable money,” he said, adding the caveat that “no one’s gonna retire 

rich”. 

But workers who have picked on piece rates say it can be impossible to 

make a living wage. 

The government is encouraging unemployed Australians to take up picking work. 

Noah Wun, 33, a picker with more than 10 years’ experience, previously 

revealed he was given a contract by MADEC that stipulated he would 

not kick up a fuss if he earned below minimum wage on piece rates. 

The minimum casual wage in Australia is $753.80 per 38-hour week and he 

was paid nearly 25 per cent less than that – just $577. 

Legally, there was nothing he could do 

Source: 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/11/21/fair-farmsworkers/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Saturday%20 

News%20-%2020201121


HomeBuilders Grant ‘is a bank 

stimulus package by another 

name’. 

… says Director of Policy Gideon Rozner 

No couple on under $200,000 or single on under $125,000 

a year has a spare $150,000 lying around to spend on a home 

renovation to be even eligible.


HomeBuilders Grant: 

a BANK STIMULUS PACKAGE by another name 

HomeBuilders grant: 

How much money you will get from new scheme? 

by Samantha Maiden for news.com.au on June 2, 2020 

Homeowners will be offered grants of around $25,000 to build new 

homes or renovate what they’ve already got – but there’s a catch. 

Prime Minister Morrison has flagged funding for home renovations 

and massive cuts for jobless programs (Screenshot via YouTube) 

Homeowners will be offered grants of around $25,000 to build new homes 

under a new stimulus plan, but renovators will have to match the “free” 

cash by more than a dollar for dollar. 

Designed to protect tradies’ jobs in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic 

the final details of the scheme will be announced his week. 

But news.com.au has confirmed the requirement that renovators 

demonstrate substantial spending means smaller, DIY projects will be 

locked out of the Prime Minister’s renovations bonanza to ensure the 

money supports tradies’ jobs. 

Renovators will not just be required to match the cash grants but spend 

more, ensuring the projects are “substantial”.


“We are more interested in the larger projects and new home builds and 

things like that,” Prime Minister Scott Morrison told 2GB on Monday 

morning. 

“We are looking at a bit of drop off in that current home building that’s 

going on. That’s not good for tradies and not good for jobs.” 

As a result of the reno rules, while a substantial kitchen or bathroom 

renovation that provides work for plumbers and carpenters may fit the bill, 

a more modest paint job or flatpack kitchen may not qualify for the 

scheme. 

“The tradies and all the others – the apprentices and others who work in 

that home building sector are going to feel a lot of pain unless we can 

keep a continuity in the business with house construction,” Mr Morrison 

said. 

The Prime Minister is considering a grants scheme that more than doubles 

existing state rebates on offer to families in NSW for new home builds. 

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg was coy on the details but senior government 

sources have confirmed to news.com.au that a figure of around $25,000 is 

“in the ballpark”. 

That amount is lower than the proposals of $40,000 to $50,000 in grants 

proposed by the Master Builders Association and the Housing Industry 

Association. 

The Morrison Government also wants to extend the grants to people who 

may have owned property before considering a new build. 

Labor has called for the Morrison Government to announce support for the 

housing sector urging the PM to “hurry up” before more jobs were lost. 

Source: 

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/homebuyers-grant-how-much-moneyyou-will-get-from-new-scheme/news-story/a911b019f9c829fb59060b7e56fd1e2f




Morrison funds new kitchens — slashes unemployment benefits 

by Tarric Brooker | Independent Australia on 2 June 2020 

Prime Minister Morrison has flagged funding for home renovations 

and massive cuts for jobless programs (Screenshot via YouTube) 

A huge number of Australians will be plunged into poverty overnight 

as others get to renovate their homes — courtesy of the Morrison 

Government. Tarric Brooker reports. 

AS THE coronavirus economic crisis continues to unfold, millions of 

Australians face the prospect of joining the 1.6 million people already on 

Centrelink benefits when JobKeeper concludes in September. 

To add insult to injury, the Morrison Government’s JobSeeker $550 per 

fortnight supplemental payment also concludes at the end of 

September. This will potentially leave millions of people far under the 

poverty line in an instant, during the worst economic crisis to hit our nation 

since the Great Depression. 

Whether the Government is choosing this course of action due to a 

genuine belief that the economy will “snap back” to normal – despite 

warnings from the Reserve Bank and economists that it won’t – or simply 

due to the ideological priorities of the Coalition’s leadership, it doesn’t 

really matter, the end result is the same.


A huge number of Australians will be plunged into poverty overnight. 

Want a home reno done? 

Meanwhile, the Morrison Government has confirmed it will be offering cash 

grants to homeowners to renovate their homes, in order to boost the 

construction sector. 

However, builders seem to feel quite differently. In an interview on Monday 

with 3AW, president of the Builders Collective of Australia Phil Dwyer said 

he “can’t imagine why” the Government would introduce such a scheme. 

Mr Dwyer told 3AW, the building sector is as busy as ever: 

"At the moment I think it’s a little bit busier than usual! There’s a heap of 

renovations in every suburb in this town. I can’t imagine why we would need 

cash injections to help us. We’re just going to overheat the industry. I don’t 

think it’s needed.” 

Mr Dwyer’s view is supported by the data from the Australian Bureau of 

Statistics, which shows that spending on residential renovation work was 

within nine per cent of all-time record highs during the December quarter 

of 2019 (the latest available data). 

Unfunded empathy and a relentless ideological agenda 

It’s like our nation has transited to some sort of weird parallel universe, 

where helping over a million unemployed Australians get back on their feet 

is unfunded empathy, but handing out large amounts of money for 

homeowners to renovate their properties is “superior economic 

management”. 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison likes to say that “the best form of welfare is a 

job" but the number of jobs on offer has collapsed and economists are 

warning of the economy and labour market heading “off a cliff” when 

JobKeeper and mortgage holidays conclude. Yet the Government 

continues to be hell-bent on pursuing its ideological agenda.


The world has changed; the Coalition hasn’t 

The reality is, the world has changed and even nations such as South Korea 

– which were hit with the pandemic early and dealt with it extremely well – 

are now struggling. Economic forecasts around the globe continue to be 

downgraded and unemployment predictions revised upwards. 

Even with the global economy in recession and despite the United States 

literally burning under the strain of current events, the Coalition continues 

to insist that somehow the economy will quickly "snap back" once COVID- 

19 restrictions are lifted. 

As our nation heads into this dark and uncertain future, it's concerning to 

think that the Morrison Government may continue to pursue its ideological 

agenda, regardless of the reality being experienced by everyday 

Australians. 

So far, the proposals put forward by the Coalition Government to kickstart 

the economy have been variations on the its ideological greatest hits. 

Including some of their top favourites, such as industrial relations reform, 

cutting corporate taxes and subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. 

Ultimately, it’s a worrying time to be an Australian, as a Government 

devoid of a grand vision of the future attempts to navigate the largest 

economic storm in almost a century, while simultaneously continuing to 

attempt to pursue its narrow ideological agenda. 

How this all ends is anyone’s guess, but it seems likely that there will be 

homeowners who are going to get a subsidised kitchen renovation, 

courtesy of the Morrison Government, while needy Australians go without 

even the basics. 

Source: 

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/morrison-funds-newkitchens--slashes-unemployment-benefits,13952




'What about ordinary people?' 

Scott Morrison's $25,000 renovation handouts are slammed as 

a 'gift to wealthy' homeowners because Australians need to 

spend $150,000 to get the cash grants 

By CHARLIE MOORE, POLITICAL REPORTER FOR DAILY MAIL 

AUSTRALIA on 4 June 2020 

• Scott Morrison has announced his new 'Homebuilder' scheme on 

Thursday 

• Eligible applicants can get $25,000 sent directly into their bank 

account 

• Grants are for renovations worth between $150,000 and $750,000 

• New homes must not cost more than $750,000 and policy 

provides 1m jobs 

But Labor say the scheme is 'not well targeted' because low earners miss 

out 

Scott Morrison's new home renovation policy is copping heavy criticism 

from both sides of politics for leaving millions of Australians in the cold. 

Under the HomeBuilder scheme announced today, applicants must 

spend at least $150,000 to qualify for a cash grant of $25,000. 

Aussies around the nation became excited by the prospect of government 

support when the policy was touted this week - but, for many, the 

threshold is simply too high. 

Labor leader Anthony Albanese today slammed the scheme, saying it was 

'not well targeted'. 

'There's not many Australian battlers who have a lazy $150,000 to 

renovate their bathroom or the kitchen,' he said. 

The announcement sparked fury on social media as critics said the policy 

will use taxpayer money to make 'rich people richer'.


'What about the ordinary people?' one critic wrote. 

Emma Dawson, director of the left-wing Per Capita think tank, said: 'This 

HomeBuilder thing is beyond parody. It's economically stupid and morally 

repulsive.' 

Others said it was unfair for the government to support tradesmen while 

considering slimming down the JobKeeper policy in September. 

'So now taxpayers are footing part of the bill for rich people to boost the 

value of their property to support tradies who make more than the average 

taxpayer,' one critic wrote. 

The policy has also been criticised by free-market think tank the IPA, which 

believes it is a 'gross waste' of taxpayer money. 

Director of Policy Gideon Rozner told Daily Mail Australia: 'This is a 

bank stimulus package by another name. No couple on under 

$200,000 or single on under $125,000 a year has a spare $150,000 

lying around to spend on a home renovation to be even eligible. 

'So in order to access this Australians are going to be putting more money 

their mortgage, and will end up paying the free $25,000 in interest 

payments.' 

Even some tradesman have said the scheme is a waste of money. 

Builders Collective president Phil Dwyer told Melbourne radio 3AW: 'At the 

moment I think it's a little bit busier than usual. There's a heap of 

renovations in every suburb in this town. 

'I can't imagine why we would need cash injections to help us. We're just 

going to overheat the industry.' 

On the other hand, industry leaders and economists have hailed the plan 

to help the $100 billion construction industry and support one million jobs. 

An estimated 27,000 people are expected to apply for the grants to 

renovate their home or build a new house - but Labor believes the project 

does not go far enough.


Labor's housing spokesman Jason Clare said: 'There's about a million 

Australians who work in the home building industry. All were relying on the 

Prime Minister to deliver today and he's failed.' 

Labor is dismayed that the government has not embarked on projects to 

build more Housing Commission homes. 

'During the coronavirus crisis, homeless people had to be put up in hotels 

because we don't have enough social housing in this country. At a time 

when we need urgent stimulus, why would the Government ignore this 

national priority,' Mr Albanese said. 

Mr Clare added: 'For six weeks we've been telling the Government they 

need a comprehensive plan to keep Australian tradies working. 

'That includes building social housing, repairing social housing, building for 

affordable accommodation for front-line workers, expanding the first home 

loan deposit scheme to encourage more first home buyers to build their 

first home, and grants for first home buyers as well. What the Government 

has announced today is barely one of those measures.' 

Housing minister Michael Sukkar said the scheme was preferable to 

investing in social housing because a government investment of 

$688million will help stimulate $10billion of economic activity. 

The government source said the policy is designed to give people who may 

have shelved plans to renovate or build their home the confidence to go 

ahead during uncertain economic times. 

Mr Albanese also slammed the government for not rolling out the project 

sooner. 

'There is no doubt announcements are being delayed to come up with slick 

slogans,' he said. 

The extraordinary scheme is designed to rescue the country from its first 

recession in 29 years, caused by coronavirus lockdowns. 

The grants are available for renovation works that cost between $150,000 

and $750,000 and for new homes valued at less than $750,000.


Renovations must improve the 'liveability' of the home, meaning swimming 

pools, tennis courts, outdoor spas and saunas, and detached sheds or 

garages do not count. 

The house being renovated must not be valued at more than $1.5million 

and must be the applicant's primary residence, meaning investment 

properties do not qualify. 

To get the cash, applicants must earn less than $125,000 or be in a couple 

earning less than $200,000. 

The applicant must pay a licensed builder the first instalment for starting 

work and then can apply to their state or territory revenue office for the 

$25,000. 

After checking all the criteria is met, officials will transfer the cash directly 

into the applicant's chosen bank account. 

In total, the policy is expected to cost $688 million and provide work for 

140,000 tradies and another 1million workers in the supply chain. 

Announcing the policy today at a construction site in the federal seat of 

Eden-Monaro, which faces a by-election next month, the Prime Minister 

said: 'Australia is in a battle for jobs, and our Government is in that battle 

for jobs.' 

'If you've been putting off that renovation or new build, the extra $25,000 

we're putting on the table along with record low interest rates means 

now's the time to get started.' 

By stimulating private investment, it will generate ten to 15 billion dollars 

of economic activity. 

'This investment isn't just about helping Australians bring their dream 

home to life, it's about creating jobs and helping support the more than 

one million workers in the sector including builders, painters, plumbers and 

electricians across the country,' Mr Morrison said. 

The scheme lasts from 4 June 2020 until 31 December 2020. 

Mr Morrison said the government was continuing to work with states and 

territories on social housing, via the national housing and finance and 

investment corporation.


Asked about the strict eligibility criteria, he said: 'The income tests we've 

applied are the same as for the home loan deposit scheme. The parameters 

have proved to be right on the money.' 

To minimise fraud, builders must not be related to the home-owner and 

must offer the work at market value. This will be enforced by state and 

territory officials. 

You've got to try and avoid the rorting and people taking advantage of it,' 

Mr Morrison told Sydney radio 2GB on Monday. 

'Even though Australians have been amazing during this crisis, there's still 

those that will do the wrong things.' 

The government has decided to target the construction industry because it 

has been hammered by the coronavirus downturn. 

Half of new home builds and renovations have been cancelled or 

postponed as Aussies decide to preserve their cash. 

This far exceeds the 17 per cent reduction seen during the global financial 

crisis. 

And dwelling investment is expected to decline by around 20 per cent 

through the June quarter. 

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said: 'The housing and construction industry is 

vitally important to the Australian economy with dwelling investment worth 

more than $100 billion or around five per cent of GDP. 

Mr Frydenberg added: 'The HomeBuilder program will support residential 

construction activity and jobs across the industry at a time when the 

economy and the sector needs it most.' 

It comes after Mr Frydenberg on Wednesday became the first federal 

treasurer in three decades to confirm Australia is in recession - 

warning COVID-19 remained a threat to prosperity. 

Source: 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8386041/Scott-Morrisons-new-25-000- 

renovation-handout-slammed-gift-wealthy-homeowners.html




The $688 million HomeBuilder scheme seems like a boost for 

homeowners — but it comes with serious caveats 

by business reporter Gareth Hutchens and The Business host 

Elysse Morgan for ABC News on 5 June 2020 

The Morrison Government is handing $25,000 cash grants to people to 

renovate their properties or build new homes under a new HomeBuilder 

scheme. 

The scheme is designed to stimulate activity in the construction sector — 

one of the biggest employers in the country — but it comes with serious 

caveats. 

The scheme cannot be used by anyone who'd just like to build a new patio, 

pool, tennis court or cheaply renovate their bathroom or kitchen. 

Instead, to receive a $25,000 taxpayer-funded grant, you'll need to use the 

money to build a new home (which can't be worth more than $750,000, 

including land, on completion) or make expensive renovations to your 

existing home worth between a minimum $150,000 and a maximum 

$750,000. 

And to qualify, you can't be earning more than $125,000 a year as an 

individual or $200,000 as a couple. 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison says the scheme is designed to support 

more than a million workers, including builders, plumbers and painters, for 

the next nine months. 

But Labor and the Greens say the scheme is far too tightly targeted to 

provide the stimulus required to support the construction sector properly. 

The social-housing sector has also slammed the policy for failing to 

provide for people who really need a roof over their head.


"This package is one tenth of the size of what the Rudd government rolled 

out in the GFC and it's arguable that the economy and the construction 

sector is in a far worse situation now than then," Labor's housing 

spokesman Jason Clare said. 

The Prime Minister's main goal with the scheme is to keep builders in work. 

(AAP: Mick Tsikas) 

What's the point of HomeBuilder? 

Australia's economy is in recession — possibly the worst recession in 90 

years. 

The Morrison Government wants to stimulate economic activity to prevent 

the recession getting worse. 

One way to do that is to support parts of the economy that employ lots of 

people, and the construction industry employs nearly one in 10 workers. 

Treasury officials are forecasting a shortfall of 30,000 new dwelling 

commencements for the second half of 2020, so the Government has come 

up with the HomeBuilder scheme to address that shortfall and keep more 

people in jobs. 

The scheme is time sensitive — it's designed to support building activity 

over the next nine months.


So if you meet the eligibility criteria, you'll have to apply for the $25,000 

grant between now and December 31, with the work contracted to start 

within three months of the contract date. 

Will it work? 

The scheme is forecast to cost taxpayers $688 million. But it is uncapped, 

so its final cost will be determined by how popular it is — it may cost more, 

it may cost less. 

The Government estimates the scheme will fund about 27,520 projects (at 

$25,000 each). 

"This investment isn't just about helping Australians bring their dream 

home to life, it's about creating jobs and helping support the more than 1 

million workers in the sector including builders, painters, plumbers and 

electricians across the country," Mr Morrison says. 

However, questions have been raised about how effective the scheme will 

be. 

According to industry feedback, the tight eligibility criteria mean most 

projects funded by the scheme will be new home builds, rather than 

renovations. 

"While off-the-plan apartment sales are eligible, the short timeframe of the 

program suggests that detached house building, rather than multi-unit 

dwellings, will be the main beneficiary," ANZ economist Felicity Emmett 

said in a note to clients. 

But what about social housing? 

The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) has also criticised the 

scheme, saying the plan to provide large grants to home builders and 

renovators is a wasted opportunity. 

"There is no argument that the construction sector needs a shot in the arm, 

but this money will not go where it is most needed," ACOSS chief executive 

Dr Cassandra Goldie said. 

"It will largely benefit those on middle and higher incomes undertaking 

costly renovations, without any related social or environmental benefits.


"We have a massive shortfall of social housing and there is clear agreement 

from Master Builders Australia, the CFMEU and community groups for a 

national social housing construction program of about 30,000 homes. 

"We must work together to get out of this recession, not leave people 

behind and out in the cold without a home." 

Nicki Hutley from Deloitte Access Economics agrees the Federal 

Government has missed the mark with its HomeBuilder scheme, which is 

likely to benefit wealthier people rather than those struggling. 

She told ABC's The Business program that the money should be spent on 

public housing instead. 

"They have totally missed the mark," she said. 

"If you think about the chronic issue of housing affordability and affordable 

housing, social housing, the need for refuges for domestic and family 

violence, there was a massive once-in-a-century opportunity to use 

stimulus to do really excellent social good. 

"They could have still stimulated the sector, I get that it needs some help, 

but they could have done it so that more people benefited not just a few 

who are least likely to need to support." 

Building sector hopeful of further stimulus 

Modelling conducted by EY on behalf of the Master Builders Association, 

and which was provided to Government, showed a $40,000 new home 

building grant would specifically see 14,000 new homes projects put back 

into the construction pipeline over the next year. 

Graham Wolfe, the managing director of the Housing Industry Association, 

said he hoped the HomeBuilder scheme would be the first of a number of 

housing policies. 

"I do have hopes, and almost hopes and prayers, that the Government 

does see the value in generating measures that will include additional 

social housing and housing projects on the ground," he told the ABC. 

"I'd be confident those conversations are going on."


Mr Wolfe said the states and territories could also do more to boost 

housing activity. 

"The states can be looking at how they can relieve some of the costs 

involved in stamp duty if it is a new house, payroll tax, supporting 

apprentices with relieving some of the cost in hiring apprentices," he said. 

And Greens leader Adam Bandt has labelled the $25,000 a "granite bench 

top grant," saying the HomeBuilder scheme would use public money for 

private benefit and potentially make the homelessness crisis worse. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-05/funding-coronavirus-homebuilderrenovation-grants/12321724




In comparison … 

Dan Andrews Victorian Government aims to create 43,000 jobs 

with $5.3 billion public housing spend 

by ABC News on 15 November 2020 

Key points: 

• Of the new units, 1,000 will be for Indigenous Australians, 1,000 for 

victims of domestic violence and 2,000 for people with a mental 

illness 

• One quarter of the dwellings will be built in regional Victoria 

• The Victorian Council of Social Services says the scale of the 

investment in public housing had never been seen before in 

Australia 

Project set to be finished by 2024 

Mr Wynne said the Government had already identified nine sites where 

construction could begin in Melbourne. 

"Many of those are adjacent to existing public housing sites," he said. 

"It's all State Government land and we'll be getting on with the big build." 

Mr Wynne said 25 per cent of the homes would be built in regional 

Victoria. 

Victoria's second-biggest city will get the biggest spend, with Greater 

Geelong to get $180 million towards the new housing. Bendigo and 

Ballarat will get $85 million and $80 million respectively. 

More than 1,000 ageing public housing units managed by the state will be 

replaced. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-15/victorian-government-announces-$5.3bto-build-new-public-housing/12884962 

------------------------------ END -----------------------------


Failure-JobActive: JobActive: a 

potential goldmine for the 

private agencies


JobActive: a potential goldmine for the private agencies 

Exclusive: JobActive virus kickbacks top $500 million 

By Rick Morton, Senior Reporter for The Saturday Paper 


Government policies have seen the ‘unemployment industry’ paid millions 

during the pandemic, while jobless rates soar. By Rick Morton. 

Employment Minister Michaelia Cash. 

CREDIT: AAP IMAGE / MICK TSIKAS 

When Employment Minister Michaelia Cash approved an advance 

payment worth more than $100 million for private job agencies to 

cover administration fees early in the coronavirus outbreak, it would 

mark only the beginning of a lucrative payday for the sector during 

the pandemic. 

As the rest of the country descended into the worst economic crisis since 

the Great Depression, the government made it easier for these agencies, 

known as JobActive providers, to claim bonus “outcome” payments, fees 

and other rewards for the work of “servicing” the unemployed. 

Requirements for pay slips to verify job payments were removed, and 

providers were paid bonuses even if work was interrupted by periods 

of self-isolation or complications from the health crisis.


The influx of funds, however, did not stop there. Conservative estimates 

drawn from the government’s own data and payment schedules suggest 

private job agencies have been handed at least $500 million to date during 


An internal document, sent to JobActive providers by the federal 

Department of Education, Skills and Employment and obtained by The 

Saturday Paper, reveals that job agencies have even been paid bonuses 

for people who theoretically remained employed after the $87 billion 

JobKeeper payment was announced. 

“An Outcome may be payable where an Outcome was already tracking for 

a participant who moves onto the JobKeeper Payment through their 

previous employer or applies for/receives JobSeeker Payment initially then 

moves onto the JobKeeper Payment through their previous employer,” the 

guidance document says. 

The consequences of this decision to allow job providers to double dip 

are substantial for taxpayers, and a potential goldmine for the private 

agencies. 

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the JobActive caseload has more than 

doubled to 1.4 million people – up from 630,000 in February – while 

mutual obligations for job seekers were temporarily suspended because of 

the virus. 

For the most job-ready unemployed, who the department says represent 

three-quarters of the 800,000 new employment services clients, providers 

can earn bonus payments of up to $1671 if they help these people get and 

keep a job. 

If the unemployed person requires a bit more work – categorised as 

Stream B or Stream C – these bonuses rise to $4474 and $5929, 

respectively, if they secure employment. 

In regional areas, providers can receive a six-month bonus worth almost 

$2100 for the easiest-to-place job seekers, known as Stream A.


However, by the end of September, every person re-engaged by their 

employer under JobKeeper after registering for JobActive would 

automatically accrue a bonus for the job agencies. 

In short, the federal government is spending taxpayer money on both 

the JobKeeper benefit – to keep people employed – and on the 

bonuses paid to job agencies for “earning” JobKeeper recipients their 

job. 

“The government is bending over backwards to give predatory job 

agencies more certainty during the economic crisis than they’re giving to 

people whose lives are in turmoil.” 

The government’s own JobActive figures and payment schedules outlined 

in the JobActive master deed put the extra money being handed to private 

job agencies during Covid-19 at $500 million, at least. 

This includes the upfront administration fees, bonus payments, fees for job 

seekers who begin internships under the controversial PaTH program and 

an extra $47 million paid for career transition funding paid to the agencies 

to help mature-age workers. Once the Work for the Dole scheme resumes, 

the agencies will also be eligible for up to $3500 for each person who 

enters a six-month Work for the Dole placement. 

“The government is bending over backwards to give predatory job 

agencies more certainty during the economic crisis than they’re giving to 

people whose lives are in turmoil, who are facing the prospect that they 

might never find secure work again,” says Kristin O’Connell, a spokesperson 

for the Australian Unemployed Workers’ Union (AUWU). 

“It is very fair to say the unemployment industry is booming.” 

Ideologically, at least, the federal government cannot afford for the 

privatised network of employment service providers operating under 

JobActive to fall over – especially with the return of mutual obligations, a 

process that has already begun in stages. 

In addition to the JobKeeper double dip though, the Employment 

Department has also made it clear it is “relaxing” requirements for claiming 

other bonuses.


A document made available on August 10 reassures providers that these 

payments are easier to access. 

“The department has increased flexibility for claiming outcomes due to the 

impact of Covid-19, including allowing additional permissible breaks and 

relaxing documentary evidence requirements for affected outcomes,” it 

says. 

In 2018, providers were paid more than $400 million in bonus payments 

alone for placing Stream B and C participants in various forms of work or 

“activities” such as Work for the Dole, according to documents released 

under freedom of information. 

When asked to comment about the estimate of extra payments made to 

job agencies so far this year, the department said this data is not available. 

But it did note the JobActive system cost the federal government about 

$1.4 billion last year and that the caseload has more than doubled during 


“A range of adjustments have been made to enable providers to operate 

flexibly and efficiently to meet employer and job seeker needs, while 

managing the risks to their workforce and viability,” a spokesman said. 

The department confirmed the JobKeeper loophole and also clarified 

another curious detail: if someone loses their job, goes onto an 

unemployment benefit and is later rehired by the same employer, 

providers will still be paid an “outcome” bonus. 

“Where a person moves onto JobKeeper payment, the job they were 

tracked against but can no longer undertake would already be recorded in 

the system and tracking for an outcome,” the spokesman said. 

“Starting a new contract of employment means that the participant had 

lost their employment due to Covid-19 and then resumed working for the 

employer under new employment conditions.” 

Since employment services were privatised under the Howard government, 

many private agency owners have become extremely wealthy.


One of these people is Gold Coast “jobs queen” Sarina Russo, whose 

companies have received almost $2 billion worth of government 

contracts since 2006. Her most recent JobActive contract, struck when 

Tony Abbott was prime minister, is worth $606 million and ends in 

2022. 

Alan Jones was the guest speaker at Sarina Russo Jobs Active program at Mount Druitt. 

Source: Daily Telegraph 

With a personal wealth estimated at more than $100 million, Russo is 

a generous political donor, influential and well connected. It was her 

lavish New Year’s Eve celebration on the Gold Coast that Sussan Ley, 

then Health minister, flew to on official business, while also buying an 

apartment during the trip. 

While the scandal eventually felled the minister – before she was returned 

to the frontbench by Prime Minister Scott Morrison – it has done nothing 

to dent Russo’s proximity to power. 

During the pandemic though, some JobActive participants say they have 

been compelled to comply with impossible requirements by Russo’s 

JobActive providers. 

On August 18, automated alerts from Sarina Russo Job Access providers 

were being sent to unemployed people telling them they had to go into a 

Russo office the next day for an appointment. 

“I am in Melbourne in stage four lockdown,” one participant said.


The AUWU says it has been flooded with complaints just like these, where 

providers continue to pressure clients even when it is impossible for them 

to comply with conditions. The Saturday Paper is not suggesting any of 

Russo’s companies are acting outside the law. 

Failing to respond to myriad requirements from providers – some of them 

without basis in law, others that are imposed without checking if job 

seekers have valid reasons – will result in temporary suspension of income 

support or even financial penalties. 

From July to December 2019, income support payments were suspended 

almost 1.3 million times because of alleged breaches. For people already 

living below the poverty line, these suspensions can have enormous 

consequences for missed bills, rent and other responsibilities such as 

getting to work when they have found employment. 

But this is the byzantine way Australia’s unemployment system operates, 

with automated penalties and providers hounding participants to sign up 

to various programs that will inflate their fees. 

In June, the non-profit Help Employment turned up at the house of newly 

unemployed man Thomas Roker twice within the space of two hours. 

The agency was attempting to sign Roker up to a job plan, for which it 

would receive a fee from the taxpayer. 

The New Daily reported in July that Roker said the situation “felt like 

harassment.” 

“I had my eight-year-old daughter with me. She was quite petrified of the 

whole situation,” he said. “I had to explain to her that it’s okay, ‘they’re not 

here to take you away’.” 

At an August 6 senate select committee hearing on government responses 

to Covid-19, Greens senator Rachel Siewert asked about this case and was 

told the department is investigating. 

“That is not part of the servicing arrangements at all,” Employment 

Department deputy secretary Nathan Smyth told the inquiry.


“We have said that face-to-face servicing is not to occur. I understand and 

I’m aware of the issue that you’re raising. Without going into the specifics 

and taking into account privacy considerations, that matter is being 

investigated by us at the moment.” 

The Saturday Paper can confirm Roker has not been contacted by the 

department as part of its investigation. 

As the Commonwealth pours hundreds of millions of dollars into the 

booming job-agency sector, government ministers are quibbling about 

whether to raise the rate of income support payments. 

From September 25, the rate of the coronavirus supplement will be cut by 

$300 and it remains unclear whether the boost will be maintained at all 

past December. Its elimination would mark a return to the base rate of the 

JobSeeker payment – formerly known as the Newstart Allowance – which 

saw hundreds of thousands trying to live on roughly $40 a day. 

Earlier this month, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 

quietly released its latest housing assistance report. There was no fanfare, 

no media release. 

Buried in the supplementary data tables is government data that has never 

been released, showing the level of housing stress experienced by people 

on different welfare payments. 

As at July last year, even with Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA), more 

than 60 per cent of people on Newstart were in rental stress – paying more 

than 30 per cent of their total income on rent. 

For those without CRA, almost 88 per cent were in rental stress. 

Under the Covid-19 arrangements, neither the disability support pension 

nor the age pension has been increased – except for a relatively small lump 

sum payment. The AIHW data shows that last year, 31 and 33 per cent of 

people receiving those payments were in rental stress. 

For both disabled and aged pensioners, the rates jumped sharply if they 

were not eligible for rent assistance – to 72 and 65 per cent, respectively.


Kristin O’Connell from the AUWU said she thinks the government figures 

mask an even harsher truth. 

“I suspect it is because there are people who do not have stable housing 

and they do not qualify at all,” she says. “They might be spending less than 

30 per cent of their income on rent but that’s because they are sleeping on 

a couch or in a car, or on the street.” 

Undoubtedly, Covid-19 has increased the stress of Australians without 

work – rental or otherwise. 

Job agencies, meanwhile, have received hundreds of millions of dollars and 

will continue to earn fees and bonuses with some 800,000 new 

unemployed people on their books. 

“It’s grist for the mill,” says O’Connell. “You just get churned through.” 

Source: 

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2020/08/29/exclusive- 

jobactive-virus-kickbacks-top-500- 

million/159862320010323?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Briefing%2 

0-%20Monday%2031%20August%202020&utm_content=The%20Briefing%20- 

%20Monday%2031%20August%202020+CID_5a8626afa7083893fc30dd6297d0e5ee 

&utm_source=EDM&utm_term=NEWS%20Exclusive%20Jobactive%20virus%20kickb 

acks%20top%20500%20million 

------------------------------- END -----------------------------


Failure-JobKeeper: Flawed 

Department estimates 45,000 jobs out of the 

government’s previously boasted 450,000 will 

actually be created by the youth hiring credit


JobKeeper: FLAWED 

Cufflinked Comrades: 

neo-conservative socialists and the victims of the big bail-out 

by Michael West | Business | Michael West Media on April 1, 2020 

Viva la Revolucion! Image by Alex Anstey 

We’re all socialists now. Or are we? Michael West investigates 

the biggest bail-out in Australia’s history. 

There was the grande dame of the big business lobby Jennifer Westacott 

alongside trade union supremo Sally McManus on ABC morning radio. 

Sisters-in-arms united in a rally-cry for Stimulus Mark IV. 

Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian and the big business junta at the 

Australian Financial Review too; eschewing their normal welfare vitriol for 

adulation. 

Just a few days ago, this from Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann: 

“No, we will not look at a UK-style system (income support) because in an 

Australian context that just wouldn’t work,” 

One week later: “But we are going to do it in an Australian way”. Kaboom, 

income support for six million Australians.


How rapidly, and radically, things have changed. Same deal from Prime 

Minister Scott Morrison, an heroic backflip as he unfurled the biggest 

hand-out in Australia’s history, a $130 billion income package. 

It is detente in the culture wars as ideological foes of left and right confront 

the common threat of coronavirus. Yet the esprit de corps will not last long. 

It may not even last for today. 

A good package but flawed 

The good news is, in the face of the most momentous economic disaster in 

living memory, the Prime Minister and the Government have realised they 

are here to govern, not to outsource. 

The latest stimulus is tacit admission that the previous stimulus, Stimulus 

III, was a dismal attempt to privatise the bailouts to the banks. They 

have since, quickly, realised that there was no point shelling out $90 billion 

to the banks (via QE) and pleading with them to lend it to small business. 

What business needs is customers, not debts. 

And so it was they are giving money straight to the people, rather than 

simply showering the world’s most mollycoddled banks in more liquidity, 

banks incidentally whose apparently benevolent mortgage holidays are 

quietly an excuse to profit from compound interest. 

This is a supply AND demand side shock after all, not merely a financial 

crisis like the GFC and the solutions to the Corona Crisis are quite different. 

With the benefit of “going second”, having watched the massive stimulus 

measures unfold in the US, Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands, New 

Zealand and the UK, the package has its merits; it will stimulate, it will save 

jobs. 

Ugly corporate welfare demands 

The bad news is that, inevitably, Stimulus Mark IV has its flaws; millions will 

fall through the cracks of the JobKeeper package. Their cries will rise. The 

landlords are already up in arms. Everybody wants in. The challenges for 

governments are immense.


Even Virgin Australia, a company owned by state corporations in China, 

Singapore and Abu Dhabi – a company founded by Richard Branson, a 

bloke who lives in a tax haven, and which never pays income tax – is now 

demanding Australian taxpayers bail out its shareholders. 

And in the most juvenile response yet, Alan Joyce, the chief executive of 

rival airline Qantas, has demanded $4.2 billion in taxpayers’ finest if Virgin 

gets its bail-out. 

Aside from the ugly jousting for taxpayer support from corporations which 

pay little or no tax, aside from the hypocrisy of the newly minted caste of 

post-neo-conservative socialists who once derided regulation but now 

crave hand-outs, the Government has structured a scheme to entrench the 

status quo once the coronavirus blows over. 

In this, Australia may miss the chance for vital reform, this historic 

opportunity to address rising inequality and the dominance of large 


Reward for dependency 

What the Government has done here via Stimulus IV is to set up a scheme 

to reward both employers and employees. If you are a boss, have a boss, or 

had a boss and are keen to get your boss back, you get money. 

For sole traders and casuals we will have to find out via the legislation and 

how the Tax Office deals with various applications. Assistant Treasurer 

Michael Sukkar said on Q&A on Monday, regarding casuals, “It depends on 

your employer relationship”. “If you are a casual who has multiple 

employers you can nominate one employer and if that employer 

nominates you, you are eligible. 

However it plays out, the stimulus is designed to entrench the 

employer/employee relationship. It does encourage employment and it 

does rescue millions of Australians with income support. Yet it also 

encourages dependency, and a system which has failed to cope with 

external shocks. This is the second set of corporate bail-outs in 12 years. 

After the GFC and the bail out of the banks, inequality rose and large 

corporations and billionaires emerged wealthier and stronger than ever.


Meanwhile the gig economy has left millions vulnerable. The casualisation 

of the workforce, which has arisen from deliberate government policies of 

deregulation over the past two decades – and is turbocharged by 

technologies of automation – has left millions stranded, disenfranchised. 

Some will scramble into Jobkeeper, if found eligible, but the structural 

problems with the system will persist. 

If you are member of a rock band, unincorporated, without a boss or an 

ABN, you may pick up a benefit as a sole trader, if you are structured 

appropriately that is, or you may be reminded of the words of substitute 

teacher Dewy Finn in School of Rock who told the kids: 

“Give up, just quit, because in this life, you can’t win. Yeah, you can try, but 

in the end you’re just gonna lose, big time, because the world is run by the 

Man. The Man, oh, you don’t know the Man. He’s everywhere. In the White 

House, down the hall. Ms. Mullins, she’s the Man. And the Man ruined the 

ozone, he’s burning down the Amazon … So don’t waste your time trying to 

make anything cool or pure or awesome ’cause the Man is just gonna call 

you a fat washed up loser and crush your soul. So do yourselves a favour and 

just give up!”. 

The mechanics of it 

Many are asking how this cool $130 billion will be funded. Where will they 

find the money? Who will pay for it? The quick answer is Quantitative 

Easing (QE), that is, they will create money out of thin air. 

To elaborate, and there is not a lot of detail about to shed light on who will 

pay for Stimulus IV, Federal Treasury is likely to issue billions of dollars 

worth of Commonwealth bonds on debt markets overseas. The banks will 

buy them, other investors too, then the Reserve Bank will stand in the 

market and buy from them. In this way, new money is created. 

The danger here is that more money can mean inflation but under the 

circumstances – record low interest rates and a comatose economy – that 

is a bet central banks are more than willing to take globally. 

The political mechanics are interesting as well. Australia may have the best 

unemployment figures in the world when the March numbers are 

announced in a couple of weeks.


The Jobkeeper allowance has been backdated to March 1 and has been set 

at $1,500. That compares with $1115.70 a fortnight from the recently 

doubled Newstart allowance, renamed JobSeeker. 

So, shifting from Jobseeker to JobKeeper will net an applicant an extra 

$384.30 a fortnight, definitely worth the effort of a recently unemployed 

worker asking for their boss to fill out a form to get their job back. 

Politically, it is clever because it will pull a lot of people off “unemployment 

benefits” whether they are working or not. 

Stimulae 

Apart from the assorted state government stimulus initiatives, the Federal 

Government has been notching up stimulus at the rate of more than one 

per week. 

• On March 12, a $17.6 billion stimulus – a $4.76 billion doubling in 

Newstart allowances, now dubbed Jobseeker, and $6.7 billion for 

business wage subsidies. The former an extremely welcome relief for 

the poorest Australians and economically sensible as they are sure to 

spend it. The latter, a “trickle down” initiative as businesses but only 

partially effective as businesses were dropping customers and closing 

doors by the day. 

• On March 19, a $90 billion three-year funding facility was declared by 

the Reserve Bank to help banks continue to lend to business, and 

another $15 billion aimed at second-tier banks and other lenders. 

Another trickle-down initiative, essentially a liquidity fillip for the 

banks who are more likely to lend it to large corporations more likely 

to pay it back. 

• On March 22, a $66 billion package, including a $550 coronavirus 

supplement to JobSeeker and a second $750 payment to welfare 

recipients. This was designed to keep small business keep their 

workers but it was flawed in that it incentivised employers to keep 

higher paid workers and discard those on lower incomes.


• On March 30, the big $130 billion income support package followed 

income support measures in other countries. This is very welcome 

and benefits some six million Australians but is designed to entrench 

the employer/employee relationship and fails to support the millions 

of Australians who fall through the eligibility cracks. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/cufflinked-comrades-neo-conservative-socialistsand-the-victims-of-the-big-bail-out/ 


Michael West 







Fairfax newspapers and a 

columnist at News Corp, West was 

appointed Adjunct Associate 

Professor at the University of 

Sydney’s School of Social and 

Political Sciences. You can follow 

Michael on Twitter 

@MichaelWestBiz.



JobReaper: flaws in JobKeeper Scheme 

leave businesses and workers high and dry 

by Daniel Anstey | Government | Michael West Media 

on April 26, 2020 

Illustration by Alex Anstey 

The Morrison Government’s JobKeeper scheme is in trouble. 

By privatising the administration of JobKeeper to businesses 

and privatising its funding to the banks, millions of workers are 

in limbo. Millennial industrials relations lawyer Daniel 

Anstey reports. 

The primary objective of governments around the world has been keeping 

as much of their workforces intact throughout the coronavirus pandemic as 

possible. In Australia, the JobKeeper scheme was designed to achieve this. 

Unfortunately, the scheme has flaws which will damage the economy for 

years to come. 

Eligibility for the giant JobKeeper subsidy for employers is based on a 

weird logic. In order to qualify for the scheme, an employer must have lost 

at least 30% of their revenue, but still somehow pay $3,000 a month to 

each eligible employee out of their own pocket before the backdated 

JobKeeper payments are made sometime in May.


For a small business with no revenue and 20 employees, finding $60,000 a 

month on top of rent and all other costs is a big ask, an ask which could 

leave many thousands of Australians ineligible for JobKeeper through no 

fault of their own. 

This is where the banks come in. The Government has “privatised” the 

administration of its JobKeeper scheme to business. Businesses fill out the 

forms, ask for the money, are supposedly given the money, and they give it 

to their employees. On top, they are required to go to the banks to get 

their bridging finance. The Government has effectively privatised the 

funding of the scheme to the banks via its small business lending package. 

The Coalition’s advice to struggling businesses is to borrow the funds to 

make the required payments before the entitlement to be reimbursed 

arises. Bear in mind that jobs were shed when the pandemic hit in March 

but payments are not due until sometime next month, a six-week hiatus. 

Why was the scheme designed in this way, essentially forcing businesses 

further into debt to access JobKeeper for their employees? 

As the payments from the Government are being made in arrears, ongoing 

loans may be needed to cover the next month’s payments to employees, 

meaning that the JobKeeper funding may fall straight into the hands of the 

banks with interest accruing for crippled businesses. Many business owners 

may be forced to give extra security over their homes and other assets to 

satisfy the banks’ risk requirements. 

Even so, JobKeeper seems to be less of a boon for the banks than a white 

elephant. So far, 400,000 businesses have submitted formal applications for 

Jobseeker and close to 1 million have expressed interest. To expect the 

banking system to process potentially tens or hundreds of thousands of 

loans within two weeks defies logic. Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s public 

rebuke of the banks for failing to lend to businesses would appear to be 

blame-shifting. They did not invent JobKeeper; and even Commonwealth 

Bank chief Matt Comyn has expressed public reservations about it.


Why was JobKeeper designed this way? 

The large amounts of instant liquidity businesses need to find in order to 

subscribe their workers for JobKeeper may force many into bankruptcy. 

The question therefore needs to be asked why the scheme was designed in 

this way. There are two alternatives and each are equally worrying. 

Incompetence: the Government did not foresee the consequences. 

This is the more plausible answer. Indeed Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, 

without admitting the flaws, foreshadowed changes to the scheme late this 

week. Despite branding themselves the champions of small business, the 

higher-ups of the Coalition and Treasury boffins have little on-the-ground 

experience running businesses. The Prime Minister is a marketing guru, and 

this aspect of JobKeeper has been well considered. It is a catchy name, a 

name which even rhymes with JobSeeker, the old Newstart. 

In their defence, the politicians have plied their trade in an era of 

unprecedented prosperity for Australia and have never had to make 

decisions with as much gravity as they are now. 

The Government knew this would occur and intentionally designed 

JobKeeper this way 

Did they foresee the issues that paying JobKeeper in arrears would cause 

and proceed anyway? Unlikely, although it could have saved them money 

by keeping employees off JobSeeker while – and this seems to be the point 

of it – keeping employers engaged with employees. It does keep the 

Treasurer’s unemployment numbers looking good, while saving business 

owners from having to pay redundancy entitlements, long service leave, 

sick leave and so on. 

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s explanation for making the JobKeeper 

payments in arrears is that it is “an integrity measure.” What exactly the 

Treasurer meant by the statement is unclear, but one may interpret it as 

meaning that if you do not have the liquidity to pay your staff or the ability 

to access bridging finance, you do not have the “integrity” required to 

survive as a business in Australia which constitutes a very purist view of 

free market capitalism.


Finance Minister Mathias Cormann also made public statements in early 

March that “we will not be pursuing a cash splash in the reckless Rudd- 

Gillard fashion”. These comments go to the Government’s ideological 

opposition to directly helping workers, preferring them to be helped by 

their employers. It also averts them admitting they were wrong in its 

decade-long bashing of the Rudd Government’s GFC stimulus package, a 

stimulus widely accepted as being effective. 

By getting businesses to do most of the heavy lifting in terms of the 

administration of the scheme (some are charging employees an 

administration fee to fill out the forms and make the claim), the 

Government is essentially making business owners do their job for them. 

Privatisation is deeply engrained in the Liberal Party’s DNA. 

In Scott Morrison’s 2019 “miracle” election victory, the central policy the 

Coalition ran was “we’ve brought our Budget back to surplus next year”. 

They never quite made it and that projected surplus is well and truly blown 

away now by the coronavirus. 

The flawed design of the JobKeeper scheme may prevent some of the 

projected spending but at what cost? If businesses are sent to the wall and 

millions of Australians end up on JobSeeker anyway, the economic benefits 

will have been short-lived. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/jobreaper-flaws-in-jobkeeper-scheme-leavebusinesses-and-workers-high-and-dry/ 


Daniel Anstey 

Daniel is an IR lawyer with a Juris 

Doctor from the University of 

Sydney. Daniel has also studied law 

at the Sorbonne in Paris, and at 

Otago University, New Zealand. He is 

passionate about music, skiing and 

well-functioning democracies.



Government's $60 billion error 

By Anastasia Santoreneos for Yahoo Finance on 23 May 2020 

There's 'no excuse' for the JobKeeper subsidy to not be extended to casuals 

and visa workers, officials say. Source: Getty 

The Australian Tax Office and Federal Treasury revealed on Friday it made a 

$60 billion error in its JobKeeper cost estimate, with the scheme predicted 

to not set the government back $70 billion, rather than the $130 billion 

initially touted. 

The two institutions said around 1,000 businesses had made errors 

reporting the number of employees due to receive the $1,500 per fortnight 

payment, as those businesses reported the amount of assistance they 

thought they would receive, rather than the number of eligible employees. 

“This reporting error has come to light as the ATO and Treasury have been 

analysing the amounts being paid out under the scheme, reconciling these 

with the estimates provided by enrolled businesses of the likely number of 

eligible employees,” the ATO and Treasury said in a statement. 

“It was not picked up by the ATO earlier as their primary focus in the first 

fortnight of JobKeeper payments was on ensuring that JobKeeper 

payments were paid promptly to those eligible for them, and not paid to 

those who were ineligible. 

Source: 

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/jobkeeper-60-billion-error-casuals- 

034723318.html



Cormann blames JobKeeper bungle on economic uncertainty 

By Euan Black, Finance Editor for The New Daily on June 9, 2020 

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann has defended the $60 billion JobKeeper 

shortfall as an inevitable product of the economic uncertainty Treasury 

faced when designing the program. 

Senator Cormann told the Senate select committee on COVID-19 that the 

government was “expecting the worst and prudently planning for the 

worst” when it announced JobKeeper at the end of March. 

“That is why the costing of the JobKeeper program at that point in time, 

prudently, was based on a worst-case scenario,” he said on Tuesday. 

When the government announced its wage subsidy, Australia had daily 

growth in coronavirus infections of more than 20 per cent on some days, 

he said. 

“Just two months later, when the program was re-costed after the analysis 

of relevant ATO data, the health and economic context and the outlook 

was significantly better than feared back in March,” Senator Cormann said. 

That is why the costings changed, he said. 

“It is a usual estimates variation in relation to a demand-driven program,” 

he added. 

“The size of the variation is a function of the high degree of uncertainty at 

the time of the initial costing and the potential size of the program in a 

worst-case scenario.” 

Treasury boss Steven Kennedy took “full responsibility” for the JobKeeper errors 

Photo: AAPAAP


Treasury secretary Steven Kennedy made a similar point. 

In his opening statement to the inquiry, Dr Kennedy said Treasury’s initial 

estimate that more than six million workers would receive JobKeeper was 

based on a worst-case scenario in which Australia introduced a societywide 

lockdown similar to Italy or China. 

“In this uncertain context, it was prudent to design the policy to be robust 

to whatever circumstances unfolded – to be demand-driven – but to cost 

the JobKeeper policy under the assumption that very significant constraint 

measures (government restrictions) would be required, more akin to a 

lockdown,” Dr Kennedy said. 

He said the initial economic scenario on which JobKeeper was based 

pointed to a 25 per cent fall in GDP in the June quarter. 

Treasury now expects a fall closer to 8.5 per cent, thanks to success on the 

health front. 

“It is a good outcome that [un]employment is lower and fewer businesses 

than originally expected are relying on government support to pay their 

employees,” Dr Kennedy said. 

The Treasury secretary nevertheless took “full responsibility for the revised 

costing of the JobKeeper program, and all matters associated with the 

advice that Treasury has provided”. 

Meanwhile, Australian Taxation Office commissioner Chris Jordan said the 

tax office initially misreported how many people would receive JobKeeper 

because 545 out of 900,000 businesses had filled out forms incorrectly. 

As of June 5, that number had risen to 1500 out of one million businesses. 

For example, instead of entering the number of employees they thought 

were eligible, employers entered the amount of assistance they expected 

to receive, or submitted telephone numbers, bank details, or Australian 

Business Numbers. 

Mr Jordan said a large number of these mistakes were rejected by the 

ATO’s analytics team. But smaller errors, such as inputting 1500 (amount of 

assistance) instead of one (number of employees), initially slipped through.


Mr Jordan said this was because the ATO did not build rigorous analytics 

programs to pick up these mistakes, but focused instead on ensuring no 

payments went to ineligible employers. 

More changes to JobKeeper on the cards 

Mr Jordan later revealed that, as of midnight June 4, the tax office had paid 

out nearly $13 billion in JobKeeper payments to more than 872,000 

businesses – subsidising the wages of about 3.3 million workers. 

He said the ATO had also applied $13.38 billion in “cash flow boost credits” 

to 708,000 businesses, and received $1.9 billion worth of early super 

withdrawal claims from 2 million members. 

Later in the session, Labor senators questioned Senator Cormann over 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s guarantee that JobKeeper would remain 

until September, days before the government said childcare workers 

would become ineligible from July. 

Federal government ministers, including Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, 

have refused to rule out further changes to eligibility for particular 

industries or workers. 

Mr Frydenberg, who said on Tuesday the government was looking at how 

to “strengthen and improve” the scheme, will announce the results of the 

review on July 23. 

Source: 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2020/06/09/cormann-defendsjobkeeper-bungle/



Is this another JobKeeper bungle? 

By Tarric Brooker, freelance journalist and political commentator for 

Independent Australia on 1 July 2020 


After an initial $60 billion bungle, the JobKeeper figures still 

don't seem to be adding up. Tarric Brooker reports. 

AS THE CLOCK ticks down toward the conclusion of the Morrison 

Government’s JobKeeper program – now less than three months away – 

figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) have raised further 

questions about how many workers are actually being covered by the 

policy.


Many will no doubt remember that the JobKeeper scheme is no stranger to 

mistakes and large discrepancies in the number of workers reportedly 

being covered by the policy. 

Back in May, it was revealed that up to three million fewer Australian’s were 

claiming JobKeeper than Treasury had pencilled in, leading to the discovery 

that the total cost of the JobKeeper program would be over $60 billion 

less over the life of the six-month program. 

During an interview on the Today program last week, Treasurer Josh 

Frydenberg confirmed that there were approximately three and a half 

million Australians currently on JobKeeper. 

However, figures from the ABS coronavirus impact survey released on 

Monday suggest the number may, in fact, be significantly lower. 

According to the survey, approximately 11.3% of Australians aged 18 or 

over were currently receiving the JobKeeper payment, with 13.2% of men 

and 9.4% of women in that age range participating in the program. 

Using figures from the ABS demographic report and working population 

figures the OECD, approximately 2.35 million Australians are currently on 

the JobKeeper program. This is roughly two-thirds of the 3.5 million 

people the Morrison Government has stated are receiving payments. Even 

if every single Australian were eligible for JobKeeper from the cradle to the 

grave, based on these survey numbers there would still be fewer than 2.9 

million participants. 

If the ABS survey figures are correct, there may be as many as 1.15 million 

fewer JobKeeper recipients than those budgeted for by the Treasury. If this 

discrepancy has existed since JobKeeper’s inception, it could represent a 

potential saving of up to $22.4 billion. 

To put that into perspective, $22.4 billion is: 

• more than double the amount the Federal Government normally 

spends on the unemployed in an entire year — $10.8 billion; 

• almost enough to keep the doubled JobSeeker payments going for 

an additional year, for its 1.6 million recipients — $22.8 billion; and 

over 31 times the total "robodebts" of $721 million.


There are a number of potential reasons for this discrepancy including, but 

not limited to, the survey's margin of error, statistical anomalies and survey 

participants not wanting to disclose they are on JobKeeper. 

However, even if the margin of error is taken into account to include the 

highest possible number of JobKeeper recipients there would still be only a 

little over three million people receiving benefits. Despite the reduced size 

in the potential discrepancy, 473,000 fewer recipients would still represent 

a potential saving of up to $9.2 billion over the life of the six-month 

program. 

Whether the discrepancy exists within the ABS’ data or, once again, within 

Treasury remains to be seen. But it is nonetheless concerning that such a 

large gap in estimates from two of our nation's most trusted organisations 

exists. 

Ultimately, Australians must remain vigilant to ensure that every dollar of 

the largest and most expensive policy in our history goes exactly where it 

needs to go. 

Source: 

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/is-this-another-jobkeeperbungle,14057



JobKeeper: 

Why casual workers are biggest losers in government scheme 

by Samantha Maiden, National Political Editor for news.com.au 

on July 23, 2020 

Photo: AAP 

A new discussion paper has revealed the extraordinary number of workers 

who were not eligible for JobKeeper sacked by their employers. 

Employers sacked 700,000 casual workers this year because they were 

not eligible for JobKeeper according to a new analysis. 

The brutal metric of who stays and who goes in the post-pandemic 

economy is outlined today in a new discussion paper from The Australia 

Institute. 

The findings provide a grim outlook for more than two million Australian 

workers who will be kicked off JobKeeper in September when the turnover 

test is reapplied to tighten eligibility. 

According to the Australia Institute, the JobKeeper scheme is encouraging 

businesses to dismiss ineligible employees, meaning casuals employed for 

less than a year and non-resident workers have been disproportionately 

affected by job losses in recent months.


Many of these companies were eligible for JobKeeper for some staff, with 

Treasury data suggesting the number of eligible workers remained the 

same but the number of ineligible workers in jobs halved after JobKeeper 

was announced, going from 14 per cent of the labour force to 7 per cent 

by the end of May. 

At the same time, the number of Australians on JobSeeker unemployment 

payments doubled. 

The Australia Institute claims that 723,700 people lost their jobs 

because they were ineligible workers in businesses that were 

attracting JobKeeper. 

Source: 

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/jobkeeper-why-casual-workers-arebiggest-losers-in-government-scheme/newsstory/60a7d62a12ddf64fbade4547be4bb75d



BossKeeper: how JobKeeper lined the pockets of 

top ASX directors, executives and shareholders 

by Tasha May | Economy & Markets, Featured | Michael West Media 



New Zealand and the US compile public registers to ensure 

their Jobkeeper-type subsidies are not rorted by businesses. 

But no such transparency for Australians. As the Government 

singles out bureaucrats such as Australia Post chief Christine 

Holgate for corporate excesses, Tasha May shines the torch on 

pandemic rorting at the top end of town. 

JobKeeper is the single largest piece of government spending in the 

country’s history. Yet despite taxpayer funding this hundred billion 

dollar wage subsidy, there is no public database to see whether JobKeeper 

is being used appropriately. From the limited information that has come to 

light, it seems clear that it is not. 

A report from governance advisory service Ownership Matters reveals four 

kinds of appalling activity by business. 

Companies accepting the JobKeeper subsidy while paying their executives 

handsome bonuses.


Companies accepting the JobKeeper subsidy while paying their 

shareholders handsome dividends. 

JobKeeper being used to directly subsidise wages of employees who 

haven’t been stood down. 

Companies who received JobKeeper payments on the basis of predicted 

revenue declines of 30% actually experienced growth. 

Of the 63 ASX300 entities receiving JobKeeper payments, 25 (40%) have to 

date disclosed paying $24.33 million in executive bonus awards for the 

2020 financial year. 

The following graph from Ownership Matters plots total government 

subsidies received against the bonuses awarded to key managerial 

personnel. 

Qube Holdings (QUB) gave its management the largest bonuses – giving 

key managerial personnel $2.78 million in the 2020 financial year. Star 

Entertainment Group Ltd (SGR) received the most government subsidies 

($65 million) but gave its management a bonus half that received by QUB 

($1.39 million). 

All 25 entities plotted on the graph have boards that decided to pay, 

and management teams that accepted, bonuses in a year that 

company received significant government subsidies.


‘Cultural signal’ – an ‘up yours’? 

The Ownership Matters report queries the “cultural signal” that all these 

organisations sent to the wider community in doing this. 

Those entities plotted on the upper left portion of the graph (Qube 

Holdings [QUB], Lendlease [LLC], NIB Holdings [NHF], Sealink Travel Group 

[SLK], Accent Group [AX1], Super Retail Group [SUL]) represent the worst 

offenders, giving out the highest bonuses. Entities like AMA Group (AMA) 

received more government subsidies than those in the upper left portion 

of the graph, but the bonuses it gave its management are significantly 

lower. 

The second graph shows the ASX300 entities that accessed government 

Covid-related subsidies and continued to pay shareholder dividends 

comprising more than 20% of the government money they received. 

The higher the grey bar, the greater the dividends the entity paid. Qube 

Holdings (QUB) once again emerges as a significant offender, as does Nine 

Entertainment (NEC), ARB Corporation (ARB), and BlueScope Steel (BSL). 

The black line represents the government subsidies as a percentage of the 

dividends paid, which for all the entities on the graph is above 20%. Yet 

Accent Group (AX1) and Redcape Hotel Group (RDC) the percentage is 

above 100%, meaning that these two companies gave out dividends that 

exceeded the millions they received in government subsidies.


Both companies had to have other sources of income to enable them to 

pay these high dividends, meaning they were hardly in need of the subsidy. 

More misuse 

JobKeeper has also been used to directly subsidise the wages of employees 

who haven’t been stood down. Casino operator Crown Resorts Ltd, the 

second largest ASX recipient of JobKeeper at $111 million, and Star 

Entertainment Group, the third largest at $65 million, are just two examples 

of companies using JobKeeper to pay employees who continued to work. 

Moreover, some companies who received JobKeeper on the basis of 

predicted revenue declines of 30% actually experienced growth. Software 

business Elmo Software Ltd claimed up to $2 million in JobKeeper 

payments only to see revenue grow 25% after accessing the scheme. 

Revised JobKeeper conditions from 28 September 2020 require businesses 

to demonstrate an actual fall in GST turnover, rather than merely 

forecasted losses, thereby rectifying at least the problem of businesses with 

GST growth claiming JobKeeper. Yet issues regarding how government 

subsidies are spent and who exactly is receiving them remain unsolved. 

US, New Zealand transparent registers 

The figures collected by Ownership Matters are only available because 

those companies are publicly listed. ASIC provided strong guidance before 

the 2020 financial year reporting and auditing stipulating that “entities 

should appropriately account for each type of support and assistance from 

government”. Companies that aren’t publicly listed are under no such 

obligation. 

Martin Lawrence, governance analyst at Ownership Matters, says his “big 

critique” of JobKeeper was that unlike New Zealand, the Australian 

government has not provided any registry of the businesses receiving 

subsidies. In New Zealand, an online registry allows anyone who wishes to 

search for companies to find out what subsidy they are receiving, the 

number of employees being paid as well as the total amount paid. Though 

less technologically savvy than New Zealand’s system, the United States 

also provides a public database in the form of a spreadsheet.


Why doesn’t this kind of transparency exist in Australia? 

On 9 June, 2020, Minister for Finance Mathias Cormann told the Senate 

Select Committee on Covid-19 that public disclosure of JobKeeper 

recipients was incompatible with tax laws that “prohibit the publication of 

protected information of a particular business or individual. The public 

disclosure of businesses that are in receipt of JobKeeper could act as a 

disincentive also to participate in the program, which could reduce support 

to workers.” 

Lawrence does not believe the issue of breaching employer privacy is at 

stake with publishing JobKeeper figures because “the subsidy goes to 

employees, not the employer”. 

He acknowledges the subsidy is linked to a company’s projected figures 

but says that given the enormous amount of public money provided, “you 

want to make it as easy as possible to verify where it is going”. 

“No matter how well you design the scheme, and they didn’t have time to 

make it well-designed … one of the easiest ways to make sure you can 

work out where money is going and whether it’s being used appropriately 

is to make that data publicly available.” 

‘Natural instinct is secrecy’ 

Labor frontbencher Andrew Leigh has personally written to more than 200 

private and overseas-listed companies asking them to reveal whether they 

have received JobKeeper subsidies and used the subsidy to pay executive 

bonuses or shareholder dividends. 

Leigh says he wanted to ensure that Jobkeeper worked as well as it can. “Its 

integrity rests on Australians being confident it supports those who need 

work, not those who don’t need government support.” 

Yet Leigh is concerned that privately held and overseas-owned companies 

are behaving in the same way as Australian listed firms in claiming 

government subsidies. 

Leigh believes the government has not created a public database because 

the Liberal’s “natural instinct is secrecy over transparency”.


Editor’s Note: questions were put to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation 

for this story. There was no response. Due to government secrecy it is not 

possible to know whether subsidiaries of foreign multinationals such as 

News are claiming JobKeeper. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/bosskeeper-how-jobkeeper-lined-the-pockets-oftop-asx-directors-executives-and-shareholders/ 


Tasha May 

Natasha graduated with an 

undergraduate degree in English 

literature from the University of 

Cambridge in June 2019 and is 

currently studying a Master of 

Journalism at the University of 

Technology Sydney. Natasha’s 

Twitter handle is @tasha_tilly 

----------------------------------- END -------------------------------


JobMaker: “just a short-term fix 

to make the recovery look better 

than it really is” 

• Sloganeering won’t fix the Vocational Education Training 

(VET) system gouged by profiteers 

• The Coalition’s youth wage subsidy will create 45,000 

“genuinely additional” jobs, just 10% of the 450,000 

number boasted by Josh Frydenberg on budget night, 

… according to treasury. 

• Labor’s shadow employment minister, Brendan O’Connor, 

said the evidence meant the $4 billion program is set to 

create just 45,000 jobs “costing nearly $90,000 per job”. 

• But the last thing Australia needs is a focus on subsidising 

low-skilled work, which is effectively what the Jobmaker 

scheme will do. 

• The subsidised jobs are likely to be found in low-skilled 

areas, such as jobs in fast food outlets, supermarkets and 

retail. The lack of incentive, or need, for these employers 

to encourage or facilitate upskilling means that these 

insecure, low-paying jobs are no stepping stone to a better 

career or further qualifications. They may be jobs for life.


JobMaker: “just a short-term fix to make the recovery 

look better than it really is” 

JobMaker: 

sloganeering won’t fix a VET system gouged by profiteers 

by Bruce Mackenzie| Business | Michael West Media on May 30, 2020 

Scott Morrison. Image courtesy AAP, SBS 

Scott Morrison’s JobMaker plan unveiled to the National Press Club, 

was high on catchy slogans but won’t fix Australia’s “ideologically 

damaged” Vocational Education Training (VET) system, writes 

Mackenzie Research Institute’s Bruce MacKenzie. 

The Prime Minister has announced another shakeup of the nation’s 

vocational education and training (VET) sector — the fourth iteration since 

1990 of an “industry led system”. 

In his address to the Press Club this week, the Prime Minister discussed his 

desire to make vocational education the “first-best option”, arguing that 

Australia’s confusing and inconsistent vocational education system was 

leading too many people to go to university. 

“It is no wonder when faced with this, many potential students default to 

the university system, even if their career would be best enhanced through 

vocational education.”


“I want those trade and skills jobs to be aspired to, not looked down upon 

or seen as a second-best option. It is a first-best option.” 

Whatever that means. 

Just how bad is the system? The OECD finds that 83% of all 25 to 34-yearolds 

who have a Certificate III are employed — one of the highest rates of 

employment across the OECD. Completion rates for all levels of study in 

VET average 49% overall and 59% for diplomas. The completion rates for 

apprenticeships is 55% and traineeships 58% VET caters primarily to adults 

and enrols a far higher percentage of students from disadvantaged 

backgrounds than do universities. 

By comparison, the OECD says completion rates of a Bachelor’s degree 

program within the expected usual time-frame is a low 34%. Meanwhile, 

the employment rate for graduates is 85%, slightly higher than VET rates, 

but at a much greater cost to the community. Universities receive $11 

billion in funding annually while VET receives $4.1 billion. 

Just eight per cent of undergraduates are enrolled in key innovation 

growth industries of Information and Communication Technology, 

manufacturing, engineering and construction, which is a lot lower than the 

OECD average. 

The massive expansion of the university sector by the federal 

government in the hope of creating a more highly productive 

workforce has been a failure. Even before the pandemic hit, 

Australia was heading for a recession with low levels of productivity 

and low wage growth. So we blame the underfunded and 

ideologically damaged VET system for the woes of the economy. 

The reputation of vocational training has taken a huge hit over the past 

decade, as a result of the disastrous VET FEE-HELP scheme designed by the 

Commonwealth, which opened up the way for widescale fraud, and the 

inclusion of numerous for-profit training providers focused only on profit.


The Prime Minister complains about the difference in student fees 

on a state-by-state basis. This is a direct result of opening up the 

sector to for-profit providers who gouge government funding and 

students for maximum profit. 

The Prime Minister’s comments also do a disservice to the hundreds of 

thousands of students who have graduated from VET and are employed. 

VET graduate outcomes are remarkable, especially given that Australia has 

no industry policy and that training institutions don’t have sound labour 

market information on which to base the range of courses they offer. 

That said, VET is in need of urgent reform. Its curriculum focuses on entry 

level qualifications and is based around the assumption that people are 

preparing for specific jobs in primarily blue-collar employment. The 

evidence is that these jobs are in decline. VET curricular does not include 

core skills such as literacy, numeracy and basic digital competence, which 

are critical not only for occupational mobility, but also for further study. 

In a middle-class society, to be an attractive destination, tertiary education 

has to provide clear pathways to further study. In 2015 researchers from 

the University College London undertook a survey of year 12 students in 

England regarding their attitudes towards apprenticeship and work. They 

found that 56% of respondents were “very interested” or “quite interested” 

in starting an apprenticeship if it were likely to lead to higher education. 

On the other hand, some 73% of respondents were “not at all” or “not very 

interested” in an apprenticeship if there was no pathway to higher 

education. 

In high-performing OECD countries, the VET system has a direct pathway 

for students from one level of education into higher education. It does this 

through applied education. 

Australia has exceptionally high levels of graduates trained theoretically, a 

large concentration of low-skilled workers and a dearth of intermediateskilled 

workers. In a 2018 federal government survey of more than 120,000 

graduates, 39% of all undergraduates employed (full-time and part-time) 

and 27% of graduates in full-time work said their jobs did not allow them 

to fully use their skills or education.


By comparison, in the OECD and the European Union, successful 

economies have an education system that focuses on an intermediate 

skilled workforce and a higher skilled workforce and minimises pathways 

into low-skilled jobs. 

The growth industries in Australia include architecture, building, 

engineering, business, health, and education and training — key enrolment 

areas of vocational education and training. These industries will require 

intermediate skills, especially as standards are raised and supervisory and 

management personnel become increasingly important. Many VET 

graduates who are already working in these areas now require access to 

higher education — applied higher education that is directly related to 

their employment. 

To achieve better outcomes, the reform of vocational education and 

training has to start at upper secondary education and ensure that 

graduates from VET can access entry into an applied university as well as 

gain work. 

As a comparison, upper secondary education in much of the OECD has 

twin tracks — a professional stream and an academic stream and both 

begin in Year 11. 

Consider the fact that in Australia, many students complete Year 12 and 

then have to undertake a Certificate II in a pre-apprenticeship or an 

apprenticeship/traineeship at the Certificate III level. This means students 

are going backwards educationally. Under a twin track system, this 

problem would not occur. 

Also, the Certificate III courses that form a significant percentage of VET 

enrolments are classified by the European Union and New Zealand as 

upper secondary education, not higher education. Again, students who 

study these courses after finishing Year 12 are going backwards 

educationally. 

The mantra of an industry-led system has not and will not capture the 

imagination of the Australian public. Strengthening connections between 

all the education sectors and developing a clear industry policy is vital to 

creating an aligned system.


Similarly, policy makers need to understand that Australia cannot continue 

to financially deprive one sector of education and expect it to be able to 

make something new from nothing. That is plain stupidity. 

Australia needs a strong post-secondary education system. Vocational 

education and training is under-resourced and ideologically damaged. The 

starting points for reform need to be with its curriculum and connection 

with upper secondary education. Employers, employee organisations, and 

educators together with government need to work cooperatively so that 

our education sector can contribute to efforts to transition our economy. 

Policy warriors and slogans are unhelpful. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/jobmaker-sloganeering-wont-fix-a-vet-systemgouged-by-profiteers/ 


Bruce Mackenzie 

Bruce Mackenzie was the chief executive of Holmesglen TAFE, one of the 

nation’s biggest providers of vocational training, for 31 years. He is now the 

chief researcher at Mackenzie Research Institute, which was named in his 

honour. He continues to be one of the country’s strongest advocates for the 

TAFE system.




Out with the old: 

JobMaker’s ‘serious flaws’ could fuel age discrimination 

By Josh Butler Political Editor for The New Daily on October 8, 2020 

The federal government’s JobMaker subsidy has come under fire over fears 

it will encourage unscrupulous companies to sack experienced workers in 

favour of publicly funded younger ones. 

“There are many flaws in it that haven’t been thought through,” Australian 

Council of Trade Unions president Michele O’Neil said. 

A centrepiece of Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s 2020 budget was the 

JobMaker hiring credit, which will offer up to $200 a week for businesses to 

hire workers under the age of 30 who are currently on JobSeeker, Youth 

Allowance or the Parenting Payment. 

Businesses hiring those aged 30 to 35 will attract a $100 subsidy, with both 

payments limited to 12 months. 

The payments are predicated on a new employee working at least 20 hours 

a week, and employers “must demonstrate that they have increased their 

overall employment” – that is, increased the number of people they 

employ. 

The number of new apprenticeships and traineeships is set to plunge 

30 per cent over the next two years.


The treasury estimates the program will create 450,000 jobs for people 

under 35, but some fear it will simply “swap” young people for older 

people on the unemployment line. 

Ms O’Neil said the ACTU was concerned by a scenario in which businesses, 

encouraged by the wage subsidy, sack one older worker and hire two or 

three young workers to replace them. 

“You’ve increased overall headcount and payroll, but replaced older 

workers with younger ones,” she told The New Daily. 

“The employer will get double the wage subsidy if they employ two 

workers for 20 hours a week than if it was one for 40 hours. There’s no 

requirement for secure jobs or full-time jobs. They could hire them for a 

short period and replace them with another worker.” 

ACTU secretary Sally McManus said she had similar fears. 

Labor leader Anthony Albanese also voiced concerns about what this 

would do to older workers. 

“If you’re over 35, the first hit is JobKeeper gets cut. The second move 

is JobKeeper gets removed. The third hit is that your unemployment 

benefits go back to $40 a day,” he told Sky News on Wednesday. 

“So, you’re put back into poverty. And the last hit is that there’s no support 

for you. And you’re competing to get back into work against people who 

are receiving subsidies. So, we need to support young people. But we need 

to not forget those people who are aged over 35.” 

Ian Yates, chief executive of the Council On The Ageing, said he feared 

older workers would be left out in the cold. 

“The two most vulnerable groups for unemployment are 18 to 24 and 55- 

plus. Older people can be more long-term unemployed and tend to take 

twice as long to get back into work as the average worker. Some never do,” 

he told The New Daily. 

Mr Yates said COTA was “very happy” to see the subsidy for young people, 

but called for a similar subsidy for older Australians too, to ensure one atrisk 

group wasn’t disadvantaged at the cost of the other.


\ 

Employees may be encouraged to take on younger workers 

at the expense of older ones. Photo: AAP 

“In previous crises, many older people were made redundant and never 

worked again. That’s a real tragedy, to be unemployed in the last decade of 

your working life, and still needing to pay off debts,” Mr Yates said. 

“The subsidies should also be directed to people 55-plus. Let’s make it an 

even playing field.” 

He said there was “a real danger” of employers favouring hiring new young 

workers over keeping older unsubsidised workers. 

“We need a very clear statement from the government that makes a 

business say they’re not putting [a young person] on as a result of sacking 

someone else,” Mr Yates said. 

“They should have to declare that they won’t sack someone. A lot of 

employers would never do it, but there are many out there who would.” 

Addressing those concerns on Wednesday, Mr Frydenberg said he 

expected the “double-barrel test” of having to increase headcount and 

overall payroll would be sufficient to stop employers gaming the system. 

“As of the end of September, the headcount has to be higher, and the 

payroll needs to be higher,” he told the National Press Club in Canberra. 

“We’ve got those integrity tests in place … we believe that having that 

double-barrel test will ensure that we get additionally across the 

economy.” 

Ms O’Neil said unions were also concerned at the tight pool of welfare 

recipients who were eligible for the hiring credit. 

She claimed many women had been forced out of work and were back 

home to look after children following changes to childcare payments.


However, these women may be unemployed and looking for work but not 

on JobSeeker or parenting payments. 

“They’re less likely to be on the payments, so they’re out of work but not 

eligible for the payment,” she said. 

The Australian Unemployed Workers’ Union worried that the hiring credit 

would encourage short-term and insecure work, as well as holding 

concerns about a lack of support for workers above the age of 35. 

“This will exacerbate the existing trend, with only 10 per cent of new jobs 

created since May this year being full-time,” the AUWU said in a 

statement.” 

Source: 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2020/10/08/out-with-the-old-jobmakers-seriousflaws-could-fuel-age-discrimination/




Privatised VET, Coalition’s wage schemes no fix for Australia’s 

skills chasm 

by Bruce Mackenzie | Government | Michael West Media 


Year 12 leavers will be competing with people who are already on 

Jobseeker and who will no doubt get priority with employers eager 

for the $200 subsidy per worker. What a terrible message to send to 

youth, writes Bruce Mackenzie, that they first have to go on 

unemployment benefits before they are likely to be offered a job. 

It’s good to know we lead the world in something beyond the export of 

coal and gas. But it is not something we should be proud of. As a country 

we have one of the largest imbalances in skill level in the workforce, an 

imbalance that is condemning large swathes of the population to insecure, 

low-skilled work for long periods of time. 

Australia ranks 6th out of 35 nations for the most university graduates 

(41% of the population) according to an OECD labour force survey of 25 to 

64-year olds. For our proportion of low skilled workers, we sit bang in the 

middle, at the OECD average of 24%.


But for intermediate skills, we languish in 29th place out of the 35 nations 

surveyed, with only 35% of our workforce with such skills. Compare this 

with powerhouses such as Germany, with 58% of its population trained at 

an intermediate level and just 26% holding university degrees. Similarly, 

Sweden’s intermediate skills workforce sits at 52% and Switzerland’s at 

50%. 

Yet Australia’s growth industries are expected to be in areas requiring 

intermediate skills such as health care, social assistance, construction, 

education and training, and scientific and technical services. Intermediate 

jobs include site supervisors, lab technicians, nurses and childcare workers, 

to name just a few. These jobs are not gender specific and not age-related. 

To fill the demand for an intermediate skilled workforce over the years, 

Australia has long relied on migration. 

Here are some other facts about employment in Australia. Young people 

with medium and high-level qualifications (university graduates) work 

increasingly in low-paid employment. The increase since 2006 was larger 

than the OECD average. We have one of the highest shares of employees 

working in short, part-time jobs among OECD countries (13%). And 25% of 

Australian workers (one in four) are employed casually. 

So it’s unfortunate that the government’s recent budget announcements of 

yet more wage subsidy schemes – the apprenticeship wage subsidy 

scheme and the $4 billion Jobmaker Hiring Credit scheme – will only 

exacerbate this situation. 

A major social issue 

Jobmaker is being promoted as a solution to the astronomical rate of 

youth unemployment, which was disastrous even before the pandemic and 

has only worsened in recent months. 

In December 2019, the unemployment rate among those aged 15 to 24 

was 11.5%, more than double the rate of the adult working population 

(5.1%.). Youth unemployment is a major social issue for most OECD 

countries.


Jobmaker is an employer subsidy scheme: it offers $200 a week to those 

who hire someone between 16 and 29 and $100 a week to hire someone 

between 30 and 35, provided the person has been on Jobseeker, youth 

allowance or parenting payment for a least one of the previous months. 

The employee has to work at least 20 hours per week if the employer is to 

attract the subsidy. 

But the last thing Australia needs is a focus on subsidising low-skilled 

work, which is effectively what the Jobmaker scheme will do. There is 

no evidence anywhere in the world that supports the proposition that 

employer incentives lead to an increase in skilled employment. 

The subsidised jobs are likely to be found in low-skilled areas, such as jobs 

in fast food outlets, supermarkets and retail. The lack of incentive, or need, 

for these employers to encourage or facilitate upskilling means that these 

insecure, low-paying jobs are no stepping stone to a better career or 

further qualifications. They may be jobs for life. 

Then there’s the apprenticeship wage subsidy scheme (“Boosting 

apprenticeship commencements”). Governments target apprenticeships 

because they are popular with the public. Yet the drop-out rates are high, 

at about 40-50% for traditional apprentices, mainly because of employerrelated 

issues. 

Traineeships are also called apprenticeships. While traineeships in areas 

such as retail, hospitality and so on achieve better completion rates than 

traditional apprenticeships, the continuing employment rates are terrible – 

especially after the government subsidy cuts out. 

Another difficulty with apprenticeships, unlike other educational programs, 

is that participation is conditional on the person first obtaining 

employment. 

In recent years, students completing year 12 but not going on to university 

have chosen low-skilled employment rather than continue their education 

through Vocational Education and Training. Such jobs at least gave them 

some disposable income and enabled them to stay engaged with the 

community. However, such jobs are going to be ever harder to find now. 

There are already 13 jobseekers for every job vacancy.


Terrible message to youth 

People leaving Year 12 will be competing with people who are already on 

Jobseeker and who will no doubt get priority with employers eager for the 

$200 subsidy per worker. What a terrible message to send to youth – that 

they first have to go on unemployment benefits before they are likely to be 

offered a job. 

The overwhelming focus on university education, in the hope that this 

would lead to more demand and productivity improvements, has also not 

transpired. In fact, even before the huge investment in expanding access to 

university places, productivity was declining even though the number of 

graduates was going up. 

But there is another way. With 2.5 million people currently unemployed or 

underemployed, Australia desperately needs a strategy that enables people 

to re-engage with education while simultaneously offering an income. A 

crucial aspect of Australia’s long-term economic recovery and growth will 

be filling the chasm in the labour market at the intermediate skill level – a 

chasm caused by a decade of irresponsible and ultimately damaging 

fascination with privatising VET. 

The best defence against the ramifications of the pandemic and of 

increasing automation on people who are unemployed is to invest in 

broad-based education and to provide students with financial assistance 

while studying. 

The concept of a stipend while studying is similar to the strategy 

developed by the Commonwealth and state governments in the ‘60s and 

‘70s in the form of scholarships and studentships. These encouraged 

unprecedented gender and socio-economic diversity in our tertiary 

institutions. Along with an expansion of tertiary places, the strategy 

underpinned the nation’s economic growth for decades. 

A diploma of professional studies 

The Mackenzie Research Institute has developed a position paper that 

proposes the development of a “Diploma of Professional Studies” that 

supports studies in high-growth industries. The diploma targets young 

people who may have missed out on developing their full educational 

potential because of disruptions caused by the pandemic.


However, it would be of equal value to adults who are unsure of their 

academic capability. 

The diploma would include a focus on core skills in literacy, numeracy and 

digital competency as well as assessable work integrated learning. A broad 

curriculum is vital because narrow qualifications are inappropriate for a 

world in a state of flux. lt is also impossible to confidently predict what will 

be the employment opportunities in the future, and core skills provide 

some insurance against uncertainty. Last year, the OECD estimated that 

14% of existing jobs could disappear over the next 15 to 20 years, with 32% 

likely to change radically. 

Providing opportunities for the forgotten groups who are likely to fall by 

the wayside as a result of the pandemic would also increase Australia’s 

productivity base. Some of the $4 billion being spent on the JobMaker 

Hiring Credit would go a long way to assist the strategy. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/privatised-vet-and-coalitions-wage-schemes-nofix-for-australias-skills-chasm/ 


Bruce Mackenzie 

Bruce Mackenzie was the chief executive of Holmesglen TAFE, one of the 

nation’s biggest providers of vocational training, for 31 years. He is now the 

chief researcher at Mackenzie Research Institute, which was named in his 

honour. He continues to be one of the country’s strongest advocates for the 

TAFE system.




Jobmaker will create just 10% 'genuinely additional' jobs 

of Coalition's total pledge, treasury says 

By Paul Karp for The Guardian on 26 October 2020 

Department estimates 45,000 jobs out of the government’s previously 

boasted 450,000 will actually be created by the youth hiring credit 

Source: https://www.ato.gov.au/general/jobkeeper-payment/employees/ 

The Coalition’s youth wage subsidy will create 45,000 “genuinely 

additional” jobs, just 10% of the 450,000 number boasted by Josh 

Frydenberg on budget night, according to treasury. 

Treasury officials revealed the conservative estimated benefit of the 

jobmaker hiring credit on Monday, ahead of a snap inquiry likely to spark 

calls to legislate more safeguards to the program. 

The hiring credit is the last major plank of the budget’s economic measures 

yet to pass parliament, after Labor waved through income tax cuts and 

business tax concessions.


But despite $98 billion of new spending to boost the Australian economy, 

questions remain around whether the measures will be enough to cut short 

the Covid-19 recession. 

On Monday the treasury secretary, Steven Kennedy, advised there is room 

for the federal government to spend more on fiscal stimulus if required. 

The jobmaker hiring credit would pay employers $200 a week for each 

additional employee they hire aged 16 to 29 and $100 a week for 

those aged 30 to 35. 

On budget night, Frydenberg said treasury “estimates that this will 

support around 450,000 jobs for young people”. 

On Monday Jenny Wilkinson, the deputy secretary of treasury’s fiscal 

group, told Senate estimates it was “very hard to judge” whether 

businesses would have hired a new employee anyway or will have done so 

only because of the hiring credit. 

“In costing this we’ve made a conservative assumption that about 10% of 

employment is genuinely additional – it would not have happened but for 

the hiring credit,” she said. “A significant proportion are going to be 

additional.” 

Wilkinson added there were “very wide” margins of error on the estimate. 

International studies suggested wage subsidies can create “close to zero” 

additional jobs up to 30%, depending on design and economic context. 

Labor’s shadow employment minister, Brendan O’Connor, said the 

evidence meant the $4 billion program is set to create just 45,000 jobs 

“costing nearly $90,000 per job”. 

He called on Frydenberg to “explain the discrepancy between his inflated 

jobs number claims compared to treasury’s estimates”. 

“This government is all about announcements but fails on delivery.” 

The Greens will amend the bill to prevent employers sacking existing staff 

to claim the subsidies, on top of the government’s unlegislated safeguards 

that employers must increase their headcount and payroll to claim 

payments.


Brendan O’Connor has also hinted at “potential amendments” from Labor, 

although it will be difficult for the opposition to stand in the way of a 

stimulus program if the government does not take up its suggestions. 

In its review of budget measures, the parliamentary library has 

warned jobmaker hiring credits could have “potentially distortionary 

displacement effects”. These include the risk of hiring younger workers at 

the expense of others who are ineligible and “deadweight effects”, of 

paying employers for workers “they would have hired anyway”. 

Wilkinson defended the scheme, noting that businesses who received 

subsidies for jobs they would have created anyway “could make decisions 

to hire someone else, or to invest”. 

“[The hiring credit] provides additional support in terms of what they want 

to do to support the economy.” 

The finance minister, Mathias Cormann, said the program was targeted at 

young people because they would “find it harder to reconnect” to jobs and 

the government wanted to avoid “a new generation of long-term 

unemployment”. 

“Older [people] have a longer track record and demonstrated 

employability, they’ll find it comparatively easier to find work, so they won’t 

need the same level of support and incentivisation,” he said. 

Earlier, Kennedy told Senate estimates that although the budget had 

“resulted in a sharp rise in debt”, Australia’s fiscal policy “remains 

sustainable” because interest rates are low and debt levels still below other 

advanced economies. 

Kennedy has consistently argued that during the recession unemployment 

is a bigger problem than debt. The Reserve Bank of Australia has 

similarly given the government the green light for further spending by 

noting debt levels are manageable. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/oct/26/jobmaker-will-createjust-10-genuinely-additional-jobs-of-coalitions-total-pledge-treasury-says




JobMaker scheme given green light: Here's who will benefit 

By Jessica Yun for Yahoo Finance on 12 November 2020 

Source: Getty 

The controversial JobMaker hiring credit scheme has officially passed 

Parliament, giving Australian employers greater incentive to hire younger 

workers. 

JobMaker is designed to boost the employment prospects of 16 to 35-year 

olds, with the Government estimating it will support 450,000 jobs. 

Like JobKeeper, the JobMaker hiring credit is a wage subsidy paid to 

employers at a fixed rate. 

Business owners will receive $200 per week to hire workers between 

16 to 29, or $100 a week for workers between 30 to 35. This will be 

paid in quarterly arrears by the ATO.


Workers will only be eligible if they’re already receiving JobSeeker, Youth 

Allowance (Other), or the Parenting Payment for at least one of the three 

months prior to their date of employment. 

They also have to work at least 20 hours of paid work to be eligible and is 

only eligible with one employer at a time. 

But employers will have to increase their headcount and payroll to qualify 

for the scheme, meaning new people must be hired and workers who are 

already employed at a business don’t qualify. 

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced the new wage subsidy had passed 

on Wednesday night. 

“Youth unemployment was particularly impacted by restrictions imposed as 

part of the health response to the Covid-19 pandemic, with the JobMaker 

Hiring Credit specifically designed to encourage businesses to take on 

additional young employees and increase in employment,” Frydenberg said 

in a statement. 

“The JobMaker Hiring Credit will ensure hard-working Australians and 

businesses have the support to get back to work and is part of the 

Government’s Economic Recovery Plan to create jobs, rebuild the economy 

and secure Australia’s future.” 

The legislation which passed included no amendments from Labor or 

members of the crossbench, who tried to make the scheme more 

transparent and block businesses from the subsidy if they fire or cut hours 

from current workers in order to qualify. 

The Government rejected these amendments and said they were 

unnecessary, and that current protections from the Fair Work Act will still 

apply, ABC reported. 

“There are significant legislative protections in place, in terms of the 

legislation that went through the parliament last night, which is a big win 

for the job prospects of hundreds of thousands of Australians,” 

Frydenberg told the Today Show on Thursday morning.


One Nation founder Pauline Hanson’s support was crucial to the passing of 

JobMaker after backflipping on her stance. Initially pushing for 

amendments, she ultimately offered her support to the legislation after 

Frydenberg presented her with unemployment figures on young 

Australians. 

The scheme will apply for workers hired from 7 October, but employers will 

have to wait until February 2021 to get the subsidy. 

Source: 

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/jobmaker-passes-224940314.html 


Jessica Yun is a Sydney-based journalist covering personal finance, economy, 

the gig economy, property, retail, workplace and career issues




The harm JobMaker will do to women and older workers 

far outweighs any benefits 

by Emma Dawson, Executive Director of Per Capita for The New Daily 


JobMaker aims to get young people working, 

but it can only harm older workers and women. Photo: Getty 

The Morrison government’s JobMaker hiring-subsidy scheme has passed 

the Parliament – rushed through after its measures aimed at getting 

unemployed Australians under 35 back into work were subjected to a very 

short inquiry by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. 

Multiple submissions, including Per Capita’s, noted the focus on 

younger Australians likely to experience long-term economic scarring 

due to high levels of unemployment early in their careers was 

welcome, but should not have come at the expense of support for 

older workers. 

Amendments that would have protected employees over 35 being 

sacked in favour of subsidised younger workers, and to increase the 

transparency and parliamentary accountability of the scheme, were 

opposed by the government and eventually voted down in the Senate 

after a characteristic backflip by One Nation.


Older workers will now almost certainly be disadvantaged by the 

implementation of JobMaker, especially women who will be hoping to 

return to part-time jobs in retail and hospitality as economic activity 

picks up. They have now been effectively priced out of the market. 

But there are more significant problems with the approach to job 

creation embodied in the JobMaker hiring subsidy, which is aimed at 

remedying the impact of COVID-19 and ensuing economic collapse. 

While wage subsidies are a tried and tested method of encouraging private 

sector employment growth, the scheme is aimed solely at the number of 

jobs created, rather than their quality. 

If it meets its target of putting almost half a million younger Australians 

back to work it will succeed in getting the headline unemployment rate 

down as soon as possible. 

Trouble is, the jobs it creates will likely be casual or part-time, fixedterm 

contracts that do little to address the chronic insecurity and 

under utilisation that has characterised work for young Australians for 

more than a decade. 

Such jobs, too many of which come without sick pay or annual leave and 

often don’t even guarantee a reliable number of hours from month to 

month, stymie the opportunities of young people to build financial 

security, buy homes and start families. 

They leave people in a constant state of insecurity and rob huge chunks of 

our population of the confidence to borrow, spend and invest in their 

futures – confidence that is fundamental to supporting economic growth. 

Unfortunately, the design of this scheme is consistent with the 

government’s broader approach to economic recovery, which is focused on 

the metrics rather than the substance, of the challenges facing our nation. 

Another more dangerous example is the decision to relax responsible 

lending laws, a move that flies in the face of the recommendations of the 

Hayne Royal Commission. 

The government apparently intends to pass the enabling legislation, the 

Consumer Credit Reforms, before the end of the parliamentary sitting 

year.


Once again it will follow another quick and dirty consultation process, this 

time via an exposure draft open for submissions for just over two weeks. 

Labor has already signaled its opposition to the bill, with shadow assistant 

treasurer and financial services spokesman Stephen Jones warning 

that “rolling back consumer protection is a no-go zone”. 

Given that keeping the protections in place was Commissioner Hayne’s 

first recommendation, it’s important to ask why the government is now 

siding with the banks to push cheap debt into the private sector. 

A boost for rip-off lenders 

Encouraging already embattled households to borrow in order to provide a 

short-term boost to consumer spending is highly irresponsible. 

Indeed, it was the root cause of the Global Financial Crisis, which spurred 

the introduction of those same laws by the Rudd government more than a 

decade ago. 

As former Liberal leader John Hewson has noted, this wrong-headed 

move is “just a short-term fix to make the recovery look better than it 

really is”. 

More critically, it shifts responsibility for the economic recovery off the 

government and onto individual households and small businesses when 

unsustainable private sector debt poses a much greater threat to 

Australia’s economic stability than does any amount of public debt 

incurred to inject much-needed fiscal stimulus into the struggling 

economy. 

Too much of the government’s response to this recession is similarly 

targeted at the optics – at improving statistics rather than living standards 

– and there is strong evidence that concerns about returning to surplus are 

influencing spending decisions far too early in the cycle. 

The approach seems to be to shore up asset prices, get the headline 

unemployment rate down, encourage private sector borrowing and 

spending and limit investment in the public sector, despite record-low 

borrowing rates for the government.


If all goes according to plan, the standard measures on which we assess 

our economy may well look pretty good come the next election, but the 

reality of household experience will likely be much less rosy. 

The wrong balancing act 

The small-government response to this recession is a recipe to bake in 

inequality of income and wealth across Australian society. 

This is not only unfair, it will create a drag on economic growth over the 

longer term, as indebted families with inadequate incomes and poor job 

security suffer declining living standards, resulting in a permanent drop in 

consumer spending on the day-to-day essentials that make up well over 

half of Australia’s economic activity. 

As we engage in the biggest national reconstruction since the Second 

World War, it’s not enough to just create more jobs or keep asset prices 

strong: The quality of jobs created is critically important, as is the 

distribution of growth and prosperity across society. 

Rather than worrying about balancing the federal budget in the years 

ahead, the government would be well advised to focus on balancing the 

economy itself, by ensuring that all Australians emerge from this crisis with 

better jobs, less-indebted households, and higher standards of living than 

we had before the pandemic struck. 

Source: 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2020/11/15/jobmakersdangerous-goodintentions/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning%2 

0News%20-%2020201116 

-------------------------------- END -----------------------------


JobTrainer: No new incentives or 

subsidies to encourage employers 

to hire apprentices or trainees 

• Even with an extra $1 billion in funding, 

total government support is still likely 

to be lower than its 2012 peak


JobTrainer: No incentives or subsidies to encourage employers 

to take on new apprentices or trainees 

Decade of neglect leaves TAFE with fewer courses and 

demoralised teachers — how will it lead the coronavirus 

recovery? 

By National Education Reporter Conor Duffy for ABC News 

on 9 July 2020 

Greg Keenan, who has been both a TAFE student and a member of staff, 

says he's seen its decline firsthand. (ABC News: Brendan Esposito) 

Key points: 

• Prime Minister Scott Morrison sees skills as the key to Australia's 

economic recovery from COVID-19 

• An Australian Education Union survey has found 81 per cent of 

TAFE staff had their departments' budgets cuts in the past 

decade 

• Half of staff said class sizes had increased even with the cuts 

Despite the Prime Minister's plans for a skills-led COVID-19 economic 

recovery, Australia's biggest and oldest vocational education provider, 

TAFE, has had courses and budgets slashed, a new survey has found, 

with students saying it resembles a "ghost town".


A once-in-a-decade State of our TAFE survey of more than 1,000 staff from 

all of the provider's institutions has laid bare the real impacts, with staff 

"demoralised", students missing out on classes and funding reduced to a 

decade low. 

The survey, conducted by the Australian Education Union (AEU), reported 

that 68 per cent of TAFE staff had courses cut, while 81 per cent had 

departmental budgets slashed. 

About half of respondents said class sizes had increased. 

"[It] has had a direct impact on staff morale in terms of course closures, 

campus closures and loss of opportunities for our students," AEU national 

president Corenna Haythorpe said. 

"What we know is TAFE is the trusted brand. 

"Scott Morrison has said very clearly that he wants to see over a 

million Australians back in work and yet his rhetoric around 

vocational education simply omits to mention TAFE." 

'Tumbleweeds blowing through the park' 

For Greg Keenan, the survey results came as no surprise. 

The 60-year-old has 13 TAFE certificates hanging in his auto workshop in 

south-western Sydney. His first dates back to 1987. 

Greg Keenan has completed 13 TAFE courses over more than three decades. 

(ABC News: Brendan Esposito)


Adding to his panel-beater and car-sprayer qualifications, he is now 

studying to become a licensed mechanic, to set himself up for his final 

decade of work. 

"When I first started at TAFE it was a busy place packed full of people, 

everyone doing courses," Mr Kennan said. 

"Now it's just like a ghost town, you can just about see the tumbleweeds 

blowing through the car park." 

Mr Keenan, a former train driver, locomotive inspector and police officer, is 

an expert at reskilling. 

He even worked at Campbelltown TAFE as a storeman from 2011 until 

losing his job in 2018. 

He said courses like panel beating had been cut back so much that 

students may have to travel hours each day to get to a specific campus. 

"I've just seen it deteriorate, [it's just] gone downhill," he said. 

TAFE funding at decade low 

Australia's biggest skills trainer for more than 130 years, TAFE, is funded via 

a mix of state and federal government support. 

The Productivity Commission's 2020 Report on Government Services 

(ROGS) found that while vocational education had better employment 

outcomes than those of universities, its money had been cut. 

The ROGS report found expenditure by all governments dropped by more 

than 20 per cent, or $1.6 billion, from its 2012 peak of $7.65 billion. 

Spending per student is also at a decade low in every state except 

Tasmania. 

In May, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he saw skills as the key to 

Australia's economic recovery but there have been few details on how the 

Government will support that vision. 

A report released by Victoria University's Mitchell Institute in December last 

year also found vocational education was unsustainable, with funding at its 

lowest level since 2008 and state contributions shrinking.


"Most states and territories are spending less in real terms on VET 

recurrent funding than they did 10 years ago … overall investment in VET is 

still trending downwards," the report found. 

Public versus private 

Employment and Skills Minister Michaelia Cash declined an interview but, 

in a statement, pointed to the states and the previous Labor government 

seven years ago for the sector's position. 

"TAFEs are fully administered by the states and territories, with the 

Commonwealth providing states with $1.5 billion every year to run 

vocational education and training including TAFEs," Senator Cash said. 

Since the Prime Minister's May announcement, there has been no extra 

money allocated to the sector. But the Government did announce a 

$1.3 billion plan directly subsidising businesses to employ apprentices. 

The ABC understands the Government is now working with the states to 

develop a new national skills agreement that could include a new 

vocational funding model, similar to that which exists for hospitals. 

Experts would like any agreement with the states to include obligations for 

them to increase their spending. 

The Minister did not address questions about what role the Government 

sees for TAFE in this new agreement but the Productivity Commission is 

taking submissions for a final report due out in November. 

In its interim report on the current scheme, the commission favoured a 

greater role for private providers, despite the rorting that came with a 

Federal Labor scheme in 2012. 

The report cited better outcomes for students, flexibility and increased 

competition as the policy rationale. 

The skills to transition 

While governments consider their options, the demand for reskilling 

continues to grow, as the national economy goes through its first recession 

in decades and its biggest contraction since the 1930s, according to the 

Reserve Bank.


A new generation is grappling with the sudden loss of income amid the 

coronavirus pandemic and recession. 

Matt Sismey, 35, lost his job as a groundsman at a retirement village at the 

height of the pandemic. 

"We'd just moved into a new house and we had a four to five-month-old at 

the time, so it was pretty stressful," he said. 

Mr Sismey has enrolled in a landscape design course at TAFE and in the 

meantime started up his own business creating gardens and green spaces. 

He hopes his new TAFE skills will allow him to transition from the shovel to 

the keyboard as he gets older, when the hard work would begin to take its 

toll on his body. 

"Ultimately the end goal is I can do more design within my work basically. 

So it's not just physical labour, it can be something where I can spend a bit 

more time in an office behind a desk," he said. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-09/tafe-funding-down-as-morrison-looksfor-coronavirus-recovery/12311154


JobTrainer: No incentives or subsidies to encourage employers 

to take on new apprentices or trainees 

JobTrainer explained: what is the government's new scheme, 

who qualifies and what does it pay? 

By Peter Hurley for SBS News on 17 July 2020 

The Australian government has announced a $2 billion skills package it has 

dubbed JobTrainer. 

It follows JobKeeper, the wage subsidy program (worth about $70 billion); 

JobSeeker, which doubled the $550-a-week unemployment benefit (as well 

as other government income payments, at a cost of $14 billion); and 

JobMaker, providing $250 million to stimulate work in the entertainment, 

arts and screen sectors. 

The JobTrainer package has two parts. 

The first part, worth $1.5 billion, is aimed at keeping those already in 

apprenticeships and traineeships employed. 

The second part is aimed at school leavers and those looking for work. It 

provides $500 million for vocational education and training courses. That 

funding is conditional on matching funds from state and territory 

governments. 

Subsidising wages 

The $1.5 billion to subsidise the wages of currently employed apprentices 

and trainees extends a pre-existing program called Supporting Apprentices 

and Trainees. 

It covers half the wage eligible employers pay apprentices and trainees, up 

to $7,000 a quarter ($28,000 a year). This compares to $9,750 the 

Jobkeeper pays as a flat rate of $750 a week. 

But unlike JobKeeper, employers are not required to demonstrate reduced 

turnover to qualify. 

There is a cut-off criteria according to organisation size, but it’s more 

generous than the scheme it extends. Previously the subsidy was only 

available to businesses with fewer than 20 employees. Now the limit is 200.


The federal government estimates about 90,000 businesses will use the 

scheme, supporting about 180,000 apprentices or trainees. The scheme is 

scheduled to run till 31 March 2021. 

Vocational education and training 

The second part of the JobTrainer announcement is expected to support an 

extra 340,000 free or low-cost course places from September 2020 – 

dependent on the states and territories matching the federal government's 

$500 million. 

Funding will prioritise courses in areas the National Skills Commission has 

identified to as likely to see job growth. Examples nominated include 

health care and social assistance, transport, warehousing, manufacturing, 

retail and wholesale trade. 

Many of the 340,000 training places are likely to be shorter courses, known 

as skills sets, which are parts of full qualifications. 

These skills sets can provide students entry into new industries and also 

pathways to full qualifications which Australians can access through 

existing funding and subsidy arrangements. 

Public, not-for-profit and private training organisations will all be eligible 

to apply for funding to provide these courses. 

The vocational education and training system has suffered many problems 

over the past decade – including policies that resulted in widespread rorts 

and funding cuts. 

Even with an extra $1 billion in funding, total government support is 

still likely to be lower than its 2012 peak. 

What’s missing from JobTrainer 

JobTrainer doesn’t provide any new incentives or subsidies to 

encourage employers to take on new apprentices or trainees. 

In April and May 2020 the number of new apprentices and trainees fell 33 

per cent on the same months in 2019. 

The Mitchell Institute has previously highlighted how fewer apprenticeships 

and traineeships can have negative long-term effects.


This is especially true for school leavers. About 12 per cent of all school 

leavers take an apprenticeship or traineeship as a pathway into the 

workforce. 

Not making a successful transition from school to the workforce is 

associated with poor long-term outcomes. These include higher rates of 

long-term unemployment, high incidences of health problems and a 

lifetime engagement with the workforce characterised by low pay and 

precarious work. 

Fewer new apprenticeships also disrupts the pipeline of skilled workers. An 

apprenticeship usually takes four years. This means a reduction in new 

apprentices now will result in fewer people completing their apprenticeship 

in four years’ time. 

The JobTrainer policy probably won’t be enough to keep all current 

apprentices and trainees in their jobs. Employers faced with reduced work 

and uncertain conditions may still make the difficult decision to suspend or 

cancel a training contract. 

But it is certainly welcome assistance to keep those losses to a minimum. 

Source: 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/jobtrainer-explained-what-is-the-government-s-newscheme-who-qualifies-and-what-does-it-pay 


Peter Hurley is a Policy Fellow at the Mitchell Institute at Victoria University. 

He does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any 

company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has 

disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. 

------------------------------ END ----------------------------


NBN Backflip: NBN double costs, 

triple time


NBN Cost blow out by $29 billion and 6 years late 

Malcolm Turnbull dumps promises as NBN costs blow out 

by $29 billion 

By James Hutchinson and Joanna Heath for The Sydney Morning 

Herald on December 12, 2013 

A $29 billion blowout in the funding needed to complete the original 

national broadband network has forced Communications Minister Malcolm 

Turnbull to abandon election promises, admitting the company would no 

longer be able to finish the first stage of the network by 2016. 

Initial plans to limit network construction costs to government funding may 

also be threatened, with new funding models put forward by NBN Co 

looking much like Labor’s current estimates. 

In a much anticipated strategic review released publicly for the first time on 

Thursday, NBN Co said it would cost $33 billion to roll out a mix of 

technologies, slightly less than the existing $37.4 billion project. 

But in a damning assessment of the former NBN Co management and 

Labor’s policy, the company argued that the current financial estimates 

were wrong, and that the project would cost $72.9 billion in funding – 

instead of $44.1 billion - and take three extra years to complete. The review 

provided the first full assessment of the state of the massive infrastructure 

project and recommended steps to complete the project, but revealed for 

the first time holes in Labor’s broadband policy, and cast doubts over NBN 

Co’s ability to meet the Coalition’s broadband policy assumptions. 

The 134-page document, written by NBN Co’s new management and 

consulting firms, was critical of its predecessors, saying that, while there 

were no “material issues” with the company’s financial accounts, the plan 

relied primarily on “blind faith” and was extremely optimistic. 

It said that, whereas the current plan was to spend $37.4 billion in capital 

expenditure on the project, it would actually cost $55.9 billion. The 

$44.1 billion in peak funding previously estimated by NBN Co would need 

to increase to $72.9 billion to finish the project by 2024 due to construction 

delays and decreased revenues.


Much of it, the assessment suggested, would come from debt funding 

which it said would be nearly impossible to attain without a government 

guarantee. 

“Based on overseas experience it is possible to radically redesign the NBN 

Co FTTP deployment to reduce the cost per premises,” the review said. 

Consultancy KordaMentha, which conducted an independent assessment 

of NBN Co’s financials, primarily blamed NBN Co’s management. 

It also suggested that the 3000 staff currently tied directly to NBN Co 

were significantly more than required. 

“The Independent Assessment found that NBN Co has attracted a 

committed, motivated and generally capable group of people who want to 

do important, meaningful work,” it said. 

“It concluded that the culture and leadership of the organisation are widely 

seen to be a major problem and that the organisation is currently carrying 

a level of overhead and headcount predicated on the achievement of the 

corporate plan, which is in excess of current requirements.” 

Reviewed outlook 

The review, which appeared designed primarily to justify the Coalition 

government’s preferred technologies, suggested it would switch to a 

mix of technologies in a bid to complete the network by 2019. 

In addition to the existing fibre cabling being directly connected to homes 

and businesses in some areas, NBN Co would roll out fibre to the node 

technology, using Telstra’s existing copper network. 

It would also retain the cable broadband networks owned and operated by 

Telstra and Optus, upgrading them to pass 3.4 million homes and attain 

faster speeds than currently available. 

The revised plan would cost $33 billion in capital expenditure, up from the 

$20.4 billion the Coalition assumed in its April policy, and required peak 

funding of $41 billion, nearly identical to the $44 billion Labor said it would 

require for its own project.


The Coalition admitted that its previous goal of providing a minimum 25 

megabits per second broadband speeds to all Australians by 2016 would 

not be achieved. 

“We need to start now. There is nothing that can be delivered by 2016 by 

anybody,” NBN Co executive chairman Ziggy Switkowski said. 

The strategic review recommends NBN Co begin immediately to seek new 

interim arrangements with Telstra on the use of its copper network and 

prepare for re-negotiations with Optus, Telstra and NBN Co’s construction 

partners. 

NBN Co itself will have to change many of its processes, including 

operational functions, procurement, delivery and operations, the report 

says. 

The report says a “major transformation” of NBN Co is required to improve 

coordination between the different segments of the business. 

“Clear executive accountabilities are required, combined with a strong 

transformation infrastructure which actively manages an integrated 

program of work,” the report reads. 

The review said it could optimise the rollout and reduce the cost of rolling 

out fibre to the home. However, selective redactions from the report meant 

NBN Co did not release its estimates for a lower-cost fibre rollout. 

Mr Turnbull said the government had requested no redactions from the 

document while Dr Switkowski said it was looking to keep commercially 

sensitive numbers from public view. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/malcolm-turnbull-dumps-promises-as-nbn-costsblow-out-by-29-billion-20131212-2z8ga.html



NBN budget revised up again to $51 billion 

as higher costs and slower revenue bite 

by senior business correspondent Peter Ryan for the ABC News 

on Friday 31 August 2018 

Key points: 

• NBN budget revised up to $51 billion, 75pc higher than the 

2016 pre-election coalition commitment 

• The additional $2 billion will be sourced from private markets, not 

government funding 

• Calls for write-down of NBN value rejected 

The peak budget for the completion of the National Broadband Network 

has been increased to $51 billion after the higher costs of the rollout and 

deferred revenue. 

An additional $2 billion will be sourced from private investment markets to 

make up the shortfall, increasing the NBN's budget from the previous $49 

billion. 

The original $29 billion in funding was topped up by a special $19.5 billion 

loan from the Federal Government in 2017, which Finance Minister Mathias 

Cormann said was negotiated on commercial terms. 

Newly appointed NBN Co chief executive Stephen Rue said the additional 

$2 billion, which includes $1 billion for contingencies, was yet to be 

sourced and "would not be needed for several years". 

Mr Rue said NBN Co did not ask the Federal Government for another topup 

loan and that the company needed to stand on its own feet without 

more Government financial assistance. 

In its latest corporate plan released today, NBN Co predicted 80 per cent of 

Australian homes and businesses would be connected to high-speed 

broadband by the end of the 2019 financial year. 

The rollout is scheduled to have 11.7 million premises as "ready to 

connect" and 8.1 million homes with an active NBN connection.


The $1 billion contingency is for risks set aside in what NBN Co calls the 

"final complex stages of the build". 

Unusual to tap private funding 

Mr Rue denies the revised peak budget of $51 billion is a blowout and said 

it is in the range of $47 billion to $51 billion in last year's corporate plan. 

He said it is unusual for a government-funded agency to tap private 

markets for additional funding and confirmed he had not sought the 

$2 billion from the Federal Government. 

"As an operator, you'd expect us to be in a position to go to the market on 

our two feet and get those $2 billion and I'm very confident we'll do so," 

Mr Rue told The World Today. 

Mr Rue also rejected speculation that the NBN will ultimately need a 

taxpayer-funded bailout or write-down given the additional costs. 

"The NBN has a very strong business model and as a result of that I'm very 

confident in the investment that has been made in this business," Mr Rue 

said. 

Mr Rue dismissed suggestions from ratings agency S&P Global that the 

onset of a lightning fast 5G network would supersede the capacity of the 

NBN. 

"I'm very comfortable that it will stand the test of time and stand up to any 

competition," Mr Rue said. 

Mr Rue would not be drawn on the Federal Government's decision to ban 

Chinese telco giant Huawei from supplying the 5G mobile network. 

"I have no intention of entering into any debate about national security," 

Mr Rue said. 

Huawei Australia was banned from tendering for the NBN rollout several 

years ago on national security grounds. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-31/nbn-cost-revised-up-to-51-billiondollars/10187108



How did the ‘clever country’ end up with a $90 billion 

botched NBN? 

by Kim Wingerei | Business | Michael West Media on June 24, 2019 

The Coalition’s botched NBN is not just a costly technological failure, but a 

policy debacle that has cost Australia’s taxpayers billions of dollars, as well 

as contributing to the severe devaluation of a whole industry. Kim 

Wingerei reports. 

ON WEDNESDAY, 5 February 2015, the Telstra share price reached $6.47. It 

is the closest it ever got to the “T2” share price of $7.80 in October 1999 — 

the second tranche of the Telstra sell-off by the Howard Government. Two 

weeks later, after that 2015 peak, Telstra announced the retirement of CEO 

David Thodey, to be replaced by Andy Penn. Today the share price is $3.86, 

having dipped as low as $2.57 (June 2018) during Penn’s somewhat 

tortured tenure. 

It would be harsh to compare Penn to Thodey on the merits of the share 

price only but their approaches to the role of CEO have been diametrically 

opposite. Penn has focused his attention on what (institutional) 

shareholders want to hear — albeit he‘s yet to deliver on many of those 

promises. In contrast, the affable Thodey was strongly and publicly focused 

on customer service and the results showed in strong improvements in 

Telstra’s customer service rankings during his time in charge, as well as 

better profits and a raising share price. 

Andy Penn’s Telstra has not scored well on any of those measures and 

anecdotally Telstra’s service is once again on par with an industry notorious 

for a distinct lack of customer care. But in Penn’s defense, his term as CEO 

of Telstra has coincided with the roll-out of the National Broadband 

Network (NBN) — a policy and execution disaster that will take decades for 

the telecommunications industry to recover. 

The history of the NBN is well known – from what was a truly nationbuilding 

idea drafted on the back of an envelope (or was it a napkin?) by 

Kevin Rudd and then Communications Minister Stephen Conroy – NBNCo 

was established in April 2009.


Ten years and much political interference later, it is still several years away 

from completion, over budget and well behind on initial revenue estimates. 

Most of the debate (and the interference) has centered on the technology 

choices. It is not my purpose to dwell on that here, suffice to say the result 

of the debacle is a hybrid access network that falls a long way short of 

being nation building, future proof or world leading. Quite the contrary. 

From my writers den in Ubud, Bali, I can report a much faster and stable 

internet connection than I usually experience back home in Australia. 

Mostly overlooked, and maybe more important – tragic even – is the 

business model that the NBN has foisted upon an already beleaguered 

industry. As the network owner and essentially the monopolist (through 

heavy-handed regulation) telecommunication service providers have little 

choice but to buy a “plain vanilla” service for the same price as everybody 

else, and resell it to consumers under the illusion of differentiation. With 

over 180 resellers to choose from, it’s akin to choosing shampoo in a super 

market aisle, the only difference being the colour and shape of the bottle. 

(It is, isn’t it?) 

In reality, the main differentiator is price in a race to the bottom that puts 

unrelenting pressure on NBNCo to deliver services at the lowest possible 

price. As NBNCo enters its annual price talks with service providers this 

month, it is unlikely to change. 

But it gets worse. Because of the way the NBNCo “hands over” its service to 

the resellers, it is technically not responsible for the customer service 

experience. The reseller, on the other hand, does not have end-to-end 

control over the service either. Consequently, customers are so often 

caught between the promises made and the realities of a fundamentally 

flawed system of fulfillment and delivery, being shifted between wholesaler 

and retailer, both shunting responsibility. 

These two factors – unrelenting price competition and the inability for 

resellers to provide better customer service – combine to drive operating 

margins down for all the participants in the industry, reducing profits which 

in turn hampers innovation.


And although we like to think of telecommunications as a utility – like 

electricity, gas or water, a buy-and-forget” kind of service – it is anything 

but. The average household now has dozens of devices (phones, 

computers, tablets, gaming consoles, televisions, alarm systems and an 

ever growing plethora of “smart” devices) that all rely on a steady stream of 

bits and bytes. When something goes wrong, we want service, and we want 

it now. 

That complexity may be part of what AGL discovered when they suggested 

buying Vocus – Australia’s fifth largest telco – to integrate it into their 

utility business model. Like several suitors before them, one week of 

looking under the hood of a fiendishly complex business built on dozens of 

acquisitions they struggle to integrate, AGL ran away. 

Incidentally, the proposed offer for Vocus would have valued the business 

at around $3 billion. Since they walked away, Vocus’ market capitalisation 

has dropped down to $ 2.07 billion — a far cry from its peak of $ 5.61 

billion in May 2016. 

It’s a similar story with TPG — another one of our five largest 

telecommunications companies, its value has dropped $ 3.6 billion from its 

peak in August 2016. 

Between them, Telstra, Vocus and TPG has dropped more than $38 billion 

in value from their peaks over the last four years – or 41 per cent – during a 

period when the ASX 200 gained 15 per cent (from February 2015 to 

today). 

Over the same period, Singtel’s share price, of which our No. 2 telco, 

Optus, represents a significant chunk, has dropped 36 per cent. (Vodafone 

Australia completes the top five but is indirectly listed by a closely held 

entity with minimal trading volumes so valuation data is not similarly 

relevant.) 

By comparison, top US telecommunications stocks have performed either 

on par with or better than the share index over the same period, and it is a 

similar story with most European telco stocks.


In a world where demand for telecommunications services continues to 

grow, where technology innovation is not just totally dependent on good 

data delivery, but fueled by it, Australia is lagging behind on every 

measure. 

It cannot all be blamed on the NBN, though. Many would argue the 

problems started when the Howard government ignored all industry advice 

and ACCC recommendations to separate Telstra’s infrastructure and retail 

businesses – or at least force it to divest from its cable assets – when 

creating Telstra as a publicly-listed company. Those decisions have also 

contributed to the NBN, once a great idea but butchered in execution, 

ending up as a dysfunctional quagmire, stifling a whole industry and losing 

billions of taxpayer and shareholder dollars. 

Add the $51 billion that the NBN will cost (minimum) to the $38 billion in 

lost shareholder value for which it is partly to blame, rather than a “nation 

builder”, the NBN is a $90 billion national travesty. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/how-did-the-clever-country-end-up-with-a-90- 

billion-botched-nbn/ 


Kim Wingerei 




Author of ‘Why Democracy is Broken – A Blueprint for Change’.



Two million homes to get access to NBN fibre-to-the-home 

in $3.5 billion plan 

By Lisa Visentin, federal political reporter covering education and 

communications, for The Sydney Morning Herald 


Two million Australian households will be able to demand fibre-to-thehome 

internet by 2023 as part of a $3.5 billion upgrade of the National 

Broadband Network in residential streets to begin within months. 

The Morrison government says the major infrastructure investment will 

create as many as 25,000 jobs over the next two years as the existing fibreto-the-node 

rollout is extended along streets across Australia. 

Two million eligible premises will be able to access superfast NBN speeds 

under a $3.5 billion upgrade. CREDIT: SUPPLIED 

The upgrade, which NBN Co will finance through borrowing from private 

debt markets, will give a further six million homes, or 75 per cent of 

premises along the fixed-line network, access to broadband speeds of up 

to one gigabit per second by 2023. 

This includes two million eligible households that will be able to access 

high-speed plans by requesting an extension of the fibre network from the 

street to the home. A further 2.5 million households have access through 

upgrades to the Hybrid Fibre Coaxial network and another 1.5 million 

through the newer fibre-to-the-curb network.


Communications Minister Paul Fletcher said new fibre-to-the-home 

connections would only be built if a customer ordered a high-speed plan, 

and there would be no upfront connection charge. 

"If a customer doesn't ask for it, we won't roll the fibre to your home. If the 

customer demonstrates that he or she has got the demand, then we will 

roll the fibre [out]," Mr Fletcher said. 

"This is totally consistent with the approach we've followed for seven years, 

which is being responsive to demand and tailoring the rollout to demand." 

Fibre-to-the-home for every Australian household was a central feature of 

Labor's NBN plan, but was axed by the Coalition after the 2013 election in 

favour of a mixed technology approach. 

Former prime minister Kevin Rudd, who announced the original NBN , has 

previously lashed the government for ditching the fibre-to-the-home 

rollout, which will now be a feature of Mr Fletcher's plan. 

"Labor's NBN would have connected 93 per cent of premises with superfast 

fibre-optic cable & the rest by wireless/satellite. The Liberals butchered it," 

Mr Rudd tweeted in June. 

But Mr Fletcher said Labor's plan had been to build fibre everywhere 

before people were willing to pay for it. Former Liberal prime minister 

Malcolm Turnbull in his recent book said he changed the NBN's 

technology approach in part because people were not ready to pay for 

superfast speeds. 

The announcement comes as the rollout of the NBN hits 99 per cent 

completion, with 18 per cent of premises already able to access ultra-fast 

speeds through fibre-to-the-home connections or HFC. 

The NBN Co is required to provide 25Mbps peak speeds to all premises 

and 50Mbps to 90 per cent of fixed line connections, but there has been 

growing demand for faster speed tiers. 

Mr Fletcher said the project was "shovel ready", with detailed plans and 

modelling for the location of the new fibre networks to be developed in 

the coming months.


Construction will begin by the end of the year, with almost half of the two 

million premises to benefit from the new fibre networks to be located in 

the regions. 

The $3.5 billion upgrade covers the capital construction costs, including the 

fibre-to-the-home connections. It is part of broader $4.5 billion package 

that includes a $700 million initiative, announced on Tuesday, to provide 

more than a million businesses around the country with the option to have 

fibre rolled into their premises free of charge. 

Competitor TPG, in response to the $700 million regional announcement, 

said NBN Co should look to provide infrastructure in areas under-served by 

private companies rather than build over existing fibre networks. 

"However, it is critical that NBN does not overbuild or displace private 

investments which would have been delivered more efficiently by a 

competitive market," a TPG spokeswoman said. 

Labor communications spokeswoman Michelle Rowland said the regional 

fibre announcement showed the coalition had got it wrong when it moved 

away from the fibre-to-the-home model. 

"After spending $51 billion on a second-rate network, and wasting 

seven years, it turns out fibre is what Australian businesses needed all 

along," she said. 

The upgrade is the first sign of NBN Co using some of the $6.1 billion it 

raised in the private debt market in May. 

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said as well as refinancing the existing 

$19.5 billion Commonwealth Government loan by June 30, 2024, NBN Co 

will bring forward "important investments in Australia’s future broadband 

capability" through private debt, which he said was possible due to its 

strong future cash flow position. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/two-million-homes-to-get-access-to-nbn- 

fibre-to-the-home-in-3-5b-plan-20200922- 

p55y26.html#:~:text=Two%20million%20Australian%20households%20will,streets% 

20to%20begin%20within%20months.



Backflips and somersaults 

– the NBN black comedy takes a new twist 

by Kim Wingerei | Economy & Markets | Michael West Media 


Image by Alex Anstey 

There are those who do back-flips, and triple backward somersaults with a 

twist. Then there is Communications Minister Paul Fletcher. The saga of the 

National Broadband Network continues as the Government this week 

announced a large-scale upgrade to fibre, heralding it as “an idea whose 

time has finally come”. 

It’s cost $14.5 billion more than budget, is under-performing and now the 

Government wants to spend another $3.5 billion to upgrade it, while 

competition looms. 

Australia is ranked 50 in internet speed worldwide. We’re well below almost 

every country in Europe and North America and many including 

‘developing’ countries in South-East Asia. And we are failing badly when 

compared with our cousins across the ditch. Kiwis enjoy twice the average 

download speed of what Australians enjoy.


Australia could have had a world-class telecommunication infrastructure 

utility. Instead, it has ended up with a substandard national broadband 

network that may be obsolete within a decade without further significant 

investment in fibre. 

As Gary McLaren, former NBNCo chief technology officer says, 5G, the next 

generation of mobile networks being rolled out by Telstra, Optus and 

TPG/Vodafone over the next few years, promises speeds and reliability on 

par with, or better than, what NBNCo is offering the majority of Australians, 

at competitive prices. 

When Communications Minister Paul Fletcher announced last Thursday a 

further investment of $3.5 billion in the NBN, he said the upgrade was “in 

response to increased demand for faster speeds”. Except that such demand 

was predicted more than a decade ago. The original plan would have met 

that demand now, and much higher demands into the future as consumers 

want high definition video, live sports, games and quality video 

conferencing and to connect more and more devices to the network. 

And unlike his predecessors in the Communications Minister portfolio, 

Fletcher cannot claim ignorance of the complexities of telecommunication 

technology. As a former Optus executive, he had a front row seat to the 

shambles that has been Australia’s telecommunications policy for decades. 

For those unfamiliar with Telco jargon, fibre is a technology that not only 

offers consistently fast speed but has an almost unlimited capacity for 

being upgraded to meet future demand. The multi-technology mix of the 

revised NBN consists of fibre, copper (the old phone network), coaxial 

cable (the Pay TV networks originally rolled out by Telstra/Foxtel and 

Optus) and wireless (both cellular and satellite). 

The final cost of the build and operating losses to date is $51 billion 

according to the updated NBNCo’s Corporate Plan just released. The rollout 

was more or less (99%) complete in July this year. 

When the national broadband network (NBN) was first announced by 

Labor before the 2007 election, Kevin Rudd touted it as a $15 billion 

“investment in Australia’s future”. When it became a real plan a few years 

later, the figure was $43 billion, later revised to $45 billion once NBNCo 

was formed and detailed budgets were done. It was going to connect 93% 

of households using fibre optic cable by 2021.


That vision has disappeared in the rear-view mirror of brutal party politics. 

The network provides those speeds to only 18% of households and of the 

rest, most get speeds of between 25 and 50 Mbps. 

When the Abbott government came to power in 2013, the NBN project 

was behind plan and over budget, and then communications minister 

Malcolm Turnbull was told to “fix it”. A new board and executive team were 

put in place and decided to downgrade the network speed and quality to 

contain costs and speed up the time taken to build the network. 

Turnbull’s revised plan, using a mixture of technologies instead of all fibre, 

was expected to cost $29.5 billion and be completed by 2019. 

The final cost of the build and operating losses now is $51 billion according 

to the updated NBNCo’s Corporate Plan just released. The roll-out was 

more or less (99%) complete in July this year. 

This week’s announcement allows NBNCo to incur more debt and raise 

total funding to $57 billion. Some $3.5 billion will be required to fund an 

upgrade of a mix of technologies to allow 70% of households to access 

speeds above 500 Mbps. Some 2.2 million households are already directly 

connected to fibre, and the upgrade will allow an additional 2 million 

households to connect. When the upgrade is completed in 2023, about 

40% of households should have access to the fastest speeds using fibre. 

Still a far cry from the 93% of the original plan. 

As noted, 5G technologies and more nimble private companies building 

both competitive cable networks and wireless alternatives offering faster 

speeds pose a huge challenge to the NBN. 

Importantly for the mobile carriers who will own the 5G networks, 

operating margins will be much better than reselling NBNCo cable. 

NBNCo can’t sell direct to consumers. It has more than 200 resellers all 

competing to sell the same service at low profit margins. The three main 

carriers (Telstra, Optus and TPG/Vodafone) are the largest resellers, 

representing 90% of NBNCo’s revenue. The only incentive for them to be 

involved currently is the lack of alternatives to meet broadband demand. 

Once that changes, NBNCo no longer has a captive market.


The Coalition Government has already flagged that it wants to privatise it, 

and Telstra, the only realistic industry buyer in the foreseeable future, is 

salivating at the prospect of buying back an asset at a discount after it has 

already sold it once (as part of the original NBNCo setup). 

Other potential buyers are private equity players and big overseas pension 

funds who like to acquire infrastructure assets with secured revenue 

streams. 

Then there is the option of floating NBNCo on the stock market. Tony Boyd 

of the AFR reckons it could be worth $100 billion (including debt) by 2025, 

comparing it to other infrastructure assets such as Transurban at 22 times 

EBITDA. This ignores the fact that unlike toll road users, telco customers 

will be able to bypass the NBN “highway”. Moreover, NBNCo has a very 

different cost structure and is exposed to market and technology related 

risks that a toll road operator is blessed without. 

A more accurate valuation would be to compare NBNCo to New Zealand’s 

Chorus, a broadband infrastructure provider in a less regulated and more 

competitive market. Chorus is currently valued at 5.4 times last year’s 

EBITDA. That would value NBNCo at a more realistic $25 billion, $2.5 billion 

less than its anticipated remaining debt in 2025. 

Boyd, Fletcher and the majority of those responsible for telco industry 

policy remain of the view that telecommunications infrastructure is a 

“natural monopoly”. It is a view shared with almost nobody within the 

industry and such a monopoly does not exist in any other comparable 

country. 

Gary McLaren is adamant that the only way out of this malaise is to 

reintroduce competition at all levels of the industry. He is suggesting that 

the first stage is to break up NBNCo into technology and functionally 

based operating units and privatise those, as suggested by the Vertigan 

inquiry in 2014. Any further government funding should be for subsidising 

and upgrading services in rural and remote Australia.


NBNCo is already facing competition on all fronts, and not just by 5G. 

Australia’s third largest Telco, TPG (merged with Vodafone), is offering fibre 

to the building in the major cities. No.4 telco Vocus has its own 

international cable connectivity and major inter-city transmission capacity 

that can compete with the NBN for so called backhaul (the trunk lines of 

data transfer between hubs). 

It will take many years and a lot more policy somersaults to catch up as the 

taxpayers continue to foot the bill for one of the most egregious public 

policy failures of our time. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/nbn-upgrade-backflip/ 


Kim Wingerei 




Author of ‘Why Democracy is Broken – A Blueprint for Change’. 

---------------------------------- END -------------------------------


Failure-Low Paid Workers: Small 

Business Bailout Package: 

encourages employers to discard 

the lowest paid workers


Small business bail-out package: encourages employers to 

discard the lowest paid workers 

Small business bail-out package favours higher paid 

over low paid workers 

by Michael West | Michael West Media 

on March 25, 2020 

There is a flaw in the Government’s small business bail-out package; it 

encourages employers to discard the lowest paid workers and keep the 

more expensive ones. Michael West reports with @13foot7. 

The Federal Government’s bail-out package appears to be poorly designed. 

As the chart below from @13foot7 shows, employers receive more money 

from government for their more highly paid workers. 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

13foot7 

@13foot7 

#SME Bus & #NFP mth benefit for retaining 1 extra employee depends on 

e/ee’s salary: 

Annual Salary / Monthly benefit 

$10k. $ 0 

$15k. $ 0 

$20k. $ 24 

$25k. $130 

$30k. $234 

$35k. $321 

#ausecon #ausbiz #auspol


7:17 PM · Mar 23, 2020·Twitter for iPhone 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

For a worker on $15,000 a year or less, no assistance is given. For a worker 

on more than $50,000, the employer picks up a monthly benefit of $800. 

The package may be deliberately designed this way but it mitigates against 

the poorer employees. 

As reported here already, the QE package (creating new money in the 

economy via Quantitative Easing) entails the government divesting its 

responsibility to hand out money to the banks. The banks are then 

expected, with this new money, to hand it out to small business. The big 

challenge for small business however – especially with lockdown – is 

finding any customers at all. A loan would be furthest from the minds of 

most employers. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/small-business-bail-out-package-favours-higherpaid-over-low-paid-workers/



Michael West 

Michael West established michaelwest.com.au to focus on journalism of high 

public interest, particularly the rising power of corporations over democracy. 

Formerly a journalist and editor at Fairfax newspapers and a columnist at 

News Corp, West was appointed Adjunct Associate Professor at the University 

of Sydney’s School of Social and Political Sciences. 

You can follow Michael on Twitter @MichaelWestBiz. 

--------------------------- END ---------------------------


Failure-ROBODEBT: Half a million 

Australians to receive refunds 

over Centrelink ROBODEBT 

scandal 

© AAP IMAGE / Alan Porritt 

Scott Morrison 


23.12.2014 to 21.9.2015 

Treasurer 21.9.2015 to 28.8.2018 

Prime Minister 24.8.2018 

Minister for the Public Service 29.5.2019 

Picture: Lukas Coch/AAP 

Christian Porter 


21.9.2015 to 20.12.2017 

Attorney-General 20.12.2017 

Minister for Industrial Relations 29.5.2019 

Fairfax 

Alan Tudge 

Assistant Minister for Social Services 

30.9.2015 to 18.2.2016 

Minister for Human Services 

18.2.2016 to 20.12.2017 

AAP 

Stuart Robert 

Minister for Human Services 

21.9.2015 to 18.2.2016 

Assistant Treasurer 

28.8.2018 to 29.5.2019


Half a million Australians to receive refunds over 

Centrelink ROBODEBT scandal 

RoboDebt Scandal TIMELINE 

by Luke Henriques-Gomes for The Guardian on 29 May 2020 

December 2016 

• Growing complaints of faulty Centrelink debts, amplified by social 

media campaigning 

• Guardian reports first call to halt “automated” debt recovery scheme 

• Centrelink whistleblower breaks ranks and tells Guardian only a 

fraction of debts were genuine 

January 2017 

• Commonwealth ombudsman launches investigation 

• Leaked Centrelink staff logs show fundamental failings of debt 

recovery process 

February 2017 

• Government makes minor adjustments after backlash 

• Guardian reports that robodebt victims may be able to sue 

March 2017 

• Department of Human Services accused of doxing robodebt victim 

• DHS blames debt recipients as Senate inquiry begins 

April 2017 

• Commonwealth Ombudsman criticises scheme in report 

• Government warned scheme is illegal after losing AAT cases 

July 2017 

• Senate inquiry calls for robodebt suspension 

February 2018 

• Data shows one in six robodebts later wiped or changed 

April 2018 

• Former AAT member claims robodebt is illegal


February 2019 

• Victoria Legal Aid launches federal court challenge 

May 2019 

• Centrelink wipes debt in court challenge, argues case cannot proceed 

June 2019 

• Victoria Legal adds second plaintiff to court action 

July 2019 

• Flood-hit Townsville caught up in robodebt scheme 

• After fresh scandals, Labor calls for robodebt to be scrapped 

August 2019 

• Guardian reveals scheme in shambles, secret plan to target vulnerable 

September 2019 

• Gordon Legal launches a class action with support of Labor’s Bill 

Shorten 

November 2019 

• Government abandons “reverse onus of proof”, promises to only raise 

debts once it can substantiate them with pay records 

• Government settles Victoria Legal Aid action 

February 2020 

• Emails show government was warned scheme was unlawful 

• In class action defence, government claims no duty of care on welfare 

March 2020 

• Guardian reveals leaked documents showing size and scale of the 

scandal 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/29/robodebt-governmentto-repay-470000-unlawful-centrelink-debts-worth-721m




#ROBODEBT – 2017 to 2020 

We're all talking about the Centrelink debt controversy, but 

what is 'robodebt' anyway? 

ABC Radio National Heidi Pett and Colin Cosier for Background 

Briefing on Friday 3 March 2017 

It's been making headlines since summer, when thousands of Australians 

suddenly found out they owed money to Centrelink. 

Critics call it "robodebt", but how does the controversial system actually 

work? 

What is it? 

The official name is the Online Compliance Intervention. 

Sorry, this audio has expired 

Alan Tudge 

It's a newly automated debt recovery system that the Federal Government 

hopes will recover $4.5 million in welfare debt every day.


How does it work? 

The Department of Human Services, which looks after Centrelink, has a 

computer program that gathers data from other government agencies like 

the Australian Tax Office and then compares it with data that people have 

reported to Centrelink. 

The system is designed to quickly check whether the income that you 

reported to Centrelink — used to calculate what benefits you're entitled to 

— is the same as what your employer has told the tax office. 

Centrelink has used data matching for a long time and as Human Services 

Minister Alan Tudge has pointed out, this particular algorithm was used by 

the previous Labor government. 

OK, so what's changed? 

The main change is what happens after the computer detects a 

discrepancy. 

In the past a Centrelink officer would do a basic investigation before 

deciding whether to send out a letter. But since July 2016, the computer 

prints out and sends the letter on its own. 

The letter asks people to log on to myGov and explain why the income 

they've reported to the welfare agency is different to what their employer 

has reported to the tax office. 

Before the system was automated, only 20,000 interventions were made a 

year. Now the amped up system is running at 20,000 a week. 

The Government says it's wrong to characterise these as "debt letters" — 

Centrelink is just trying to get more information about what's behind the 

discrepancy. 

If these are just requests for more information, why are people 

getting debts? 

Many people report that they never got those initial letters, and the first 

they heard of a problem with Centrelink was when they started getting 

calls from private debt collectors contracted by the department.


This is likely because the initial letters had been sent to old addresses, or 

messages to myGov accounts people didn't check anymore. 

You have 21 days to log on and correct the record. You may be asked to 

submit payslips or other proof of income from up to six years ago. 

If you don't, the discrepancy is assumed to be evidence of an 

overpayment and a debt is raised. 

How is that allowed? 

For anyone but the Government, it's not. But Simon Rice, a professor of law 

at the Australian National University, explains that there's an exception for 

the welfare agency. 

"The Government has an entitlement, a right, that ordinary people don't. It 

can convert an overpayment into a debt. The Social Security Act does that." 

But that privilege, he says, should come with an expectation that they 

"have absolutely impeccable systems in place so that when they exercise 

these privileges they do so fairly". 

How many of the debts are real? 

Alan Tudge says the system is working. (ABC News: Nick Haggarty) 

Mr Tudge says that "on 20 per cent of occasions, the recipient is able to 

validly explain the discrepancy in the data. In the other 80 per cent of 

occasions, a debt notice is subsequently issued."


Critics say this is evidence of a 20 per cent error rate, though the 

Government disputes this. 

It may in fact be higher. 

That figure doesn't include the number of people who are still trying to 

prove that their debts have been miscalculated, a process which can take 

months. 

How do miscalculations happen? 

There are two main ways: 

1. Many people receive Centrelink payments for short periods of 

unemployment or illness. The automated program uses annual 

income data from the tax office and averages it out. If your boss has 

given the wrong dates to the tax office, or if you earned more some 

weeks that others, then averaging creates a false impression that you 

were earning undeclared income while you were getting Centrelink. 

2. If the information you have given Centrelink about your employer is 

slightly different to that recorded by the tax office, it appears you 

have two jobs and didn't declare one of them to Centrelink. This can 

be as simple as a typo in the name. 

So are some people paying debts they don't think they owe? 

Yes, some people have had to go on a payment plan for their debt, even if 

they are in the process of contesting them. 

That doesn't seem fair... 

Over the past few months the Government has made a number of changes 

to how the system operates. 

One major change is that people won't have to start paying back their 

debts if they are under review. 

Another is that the letters are now being sent out by registered post, to 

make sure they're going to the right addresses and people don't have 

debts raised against them without their knowledge. 

But the changes are not retrospective.


How many people are trying to prove they don't owe these debts? 

Background Briefing filed a freedom of information request to find out how 

many people were asking for an online reassessment or a formal review of 

their debt. 

It was blocked by the department, who said it would generate too much 

work for them to find out. 

(That's after they said they'd found the documents, and after Background 

Briefing paid them $45 in search and retrieval fees.) 

How much money has it recovered so far? 

The department also refused to provide numbers on how much money had 

been paid back to date. 

What happens next? 

A Senate inquiry is underway and the Commonwealth ombudsman has 

also launched an investigation into the system, which will report later this 

year. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-03/centrelink-debt-controversy-what-isrobodebt/8317764




People who criticise Centrelink's debt recovery could have 

personal information released to 'correct the record' 

By political reporter Henry Belot for ABC News 27 February 2017 

Blogger Andie Fox wrote an opinion piece for Fairfax Media early in 

February claiming Centrelink had "terrorised" her over a debt she claimed 

she did not owe. 

A few weeks later, her personal details were supplied to a journalist who 

wrote a comment piece from the Government's perspective, raising the 

prospect that Centrelink had been "unfairly castigated". 

Department secretary Kathryn Campbell said releasing personal 

information was necessary to ensure public confidence in the automated 

debt recovery system. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-27/dhs-warns-to-disclose-centrelinkrecipients-history/8307958




AFP drops Alan Tudge investigation over 

Centrelink information leak 

By political reporter Henry Belot for ABC News on 8 May 2017 

The Australian Federal Police has decided not to investigate Human 

Services Minister Alan Tudge over the controversial disclosure of a welfare 

recipient's personal information to a journalist. 

Mr Tudge and the Department of Human Services (DHS) have faced 

widespread criticism over its decision to release the welfare details of a 

blogger who wrote an opinion piece in Fairfax newspapers criticising 

Centrelink's much maligned debt recovery system. 

Department secretary Kathryn Campbell said releasing the information was 

necessary to ensure public confidence in the automated debt recovery 

system. 

"The recipient had made a number of claims that were unfounded and it is 

the opinion of officers that this was likely to concern other individuals," she 

said. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-02/department-of-human-services-defendsrelease-blogger-personal/8317910




Government to pay back $721 million as it scraps Robodebt for 

Centrelink welfare recipients 

Rebecca Gredley 29 May 2020 

More than $720 million raised through the Morrison government’s controversial 

robo-debt program will be refunded. 

About 470,000 debts were raised through the defunct welfare scheme, 

which is now the subject of a class action challenge. 

“Services Australia will now put in place the mechanisms needed to start 

making refunds, including how affected customers are advised of next 

steps,” Government Services Minister Stuart Robert said on Friday. 

Artist impression of how LNP consider themselves as they will not apologise 

"Refunds will also be made for any interest charges and/or recovery fees 

paid on related debts," Human Services Minister Stuart Robert said in a 

statement. 

A Class Action is pending.


Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-29/federal-government-refund-robodebtscheme-repay-debts/12299410 

https://www.zdnet.com/article/au721-million-in-robo-debts-to-be-returned-as-australiangovernment-admits-error/ 

https://7news.com.au/business/finance/half-a-million-australians-to-receive-refunds-overcentrelink-robodebt-scandal-c-1068003 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-19/robodebt-scheme-human-services-department-haltsexisting-debts/11717188 

More than $720 million raised through the Morrison government’s 

controversial robo-debt program will be refunded. FILE. Credit: AAP




Stuart 'Robodebt' Robert and unfunded empathy 

By Michelle Pini | Independent Australia on 1 August 2019 


The Minister responsible for Centrelink's shambolic robodebt recovery 

system, Stuart Robert, thinks it is working well, despite at least a 

20 per cent inaccuracy rate, writes executive editor Michelle Pini. 

IT'S INTERESTING that Minister for the NDIS and Government 

Services Stuart Robert – who was stripped of his portfolio for ministerial 

misconduct and later promoted, only to rort taxpayers again – has been 

given senior oversight for the payment of Government funds to those most 

in need. 

It is interesting and also mind-boggling that someone who managed to 

take taxpayer funds under false pretences but was still given the benefit of 

the doubt, has no issue with a system to claw back money from 

others while pronouncing them guilty until proven innocent.


I SCAM DEAD PEOPLE 

Robert recently apologised for his Department trying to take $7,000 from a 

dead person (in one known instance). But instead of acknowledging there 

may be problems with Centrelink’s debt recovery system, he said only that 

he understood why people might be angry about receiving possibly 

fictitious debts. 

He then offered the following sage advice: 

“I certainly understand that and I always encourage people, if in doubt, 

contact the Department.” 

Robert made this statement without any hint of irony, despite the obvious 

inability of privately outsourced call centres under his control to handle the 

volume of such enquiries. In the 2018 financial year alone, 46 million calls 

went unanswered and a further 5.3 million calls were abandoned due to 

absurd waiting times. 

But we digress. Back to the issue of extorting money from the needy. 

STRENGTHENING WELFARE 

According to Prime Minister Scott Morrison: 

“What we’re doing in the welfare system is strengthening it.” 

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? “Strengthening” evokes thoughts of a 

benevolent government providing additional assistance to the needy. 

Except that the Coalition Government’s idea of “strengthening” the welfare 

system refers to the systematic targeting of vulnerable people to repay – 

what are often fake – debts. 

Approximately 500,000 Australian citizens have been sent automated 

letters of demand from Centrelink, alleging that debtors – including people 

with disabilities, carers, students, the aged and unemployed people – owe 

the Government, often vast, sums of money that must be repaid, including 

interest.


Speaking with IA, former Victorian Chief Crown Prosecutor Gavin Silbert 

QC said: 

I am very troubled by the fact that honest, law-abiding citizens are receiving 

letters of demand, threatening legal action. They are letters threatening to 

recover alleged debts plus interest, to deduct the so-called debts directly from 

wages, and to stamp passports, preventing these citizens from leaving the 

country until the debts are repaid. 

… The letters demand documented proof from the recipients going back as 

far as ten years. And in many cases, these debts have been found to be false. 

When challenged, however, many debts (about 100,000 so far) have been 

either waived entirely or significantly reduced due to inaccuracies in the 

”robot’s” calculations. 

When questioned in Parliament by Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese as 

to when the Government would admit that the robodebt scheme had 

failed, Robert replied it was working well because, apparently, 

“80 per cent of debts issued were accurate.” 

Even if this is correct, a 20 per cent rate of inaccuracy is monstrous. The 

system is clearly not working properly. 

Robert then went on the attack: 

“Does the Leader of the Opposition seriously want the Government to wipe 

$1.121 billion from 408,000 debts because the member doesn’t believe in 

income compliance?” 

UNFUNDED EMPATHY 

This, of course, is an absurd over-simplification. There is a proper and 

humane method of recovering money owed to the Government. Robert 

himself reimbursed money owed only after a Senate Inquiry. There were no 

letters of demand, wages automatically deducted, or travel rights revoked. 

No doubt, approaching the issue of “income compliance” in a 

compassionate and efficient manner, where people are treated with respect 

and presumed innocent until proven guilty, is more of what Prime Minister 

Scott Morrison dismisses as “unfunded empathy”, though he was referring 

to the raising of Newstart at the time.


Yet Stuart Robert still thinks the system is operating well. 

Robert told Lara Tingle, proudly: 

“The Department has recovered $1.9 billion in overpayment and we have a 

legal responsibility to do that.” 

However, Mr Silbert told IA: 

“Government departments are meant to be model litigants — what is 

happening here is bullying and it is fraudulent.” 

If this is an example of your administration’s policies working well, Mr 

Robodebt, we can only wonder what it might look like if one of them went 

wrong. 

Source: 

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/stuart-robodebt-robertand-unfunded-empathy,12958#.XVDXQjoamYE.twitter




Robodebt claims the life of a 19-year-old mum 

By Gerry Georgatos | Independent Australia on 21 September 2019 

Centrelink's robodebt system has been responsible for suicides and hardship 

around the country (Image by Dan Jensen) 

Centrelink's robodebt scandal has been claiming the lives of people 

struggling with debt, yet our Government remains inactive on the 

issue, writes Gerry Georgatos. 

A ROBODEBT contributed to the death by suicide of a 19 year-old-mother. 

Stressors and suicide are commonly linked. Society is defined by the sum 

of its relationships, many of which are so classist, racist, sexist, ableist and 

ageist that we devastate people. 

Australia is heading towards 3,000 suicides, including a record number 

of suicides of First Nations people — 110 suicides so far this year. At this 

rate, the suicide toll at the end of the year could, for the first time, pass 200 

losses.


In supporting many of the families who have lost children and older loved 

ones, sadly, I know that the majority of those lost were most certainly 

preventable and not inevitable. 

It breaks my heart to know that a robodebt tipped a young mother to 

suicide. It is harrowing and an indictment of our nation, as a society, of our 

Government. 

I will not identify the community or the region as there is relentless, 

unimaginable grief and I do not want to compound their distress with 

them being inundated. The family is devastated and angry. 

A 19-year-old single mother experiencing an arc of issues living below the 

poverty line, alone with a baby and without the support of the biological 

father, struggling day-to-day then receives a robodebt around $9,000. This 

is not how it should be. 

She sought assistance from the community shire office and was told they 

could not help. She visited the office a number of times, distressed about 

the unaffordable debt and unsure how she could owe this amount. This 

is not how it should be. 

Along with an accumulation of stressors and isolation, the robodebt 

indisputably contributed to her negative self, to the point where it all 

became too much, tipping her. 

It's my view that Centrelink should denounce and reject robodebts. Those 

who are responsible, be it the Government as a whole, are morally 

culpable. Where is the person-to-person contact? Unaffordable debt is a 

sudden and dramatic hit for people living poverty, especially a young mum. 

There should always be sensitive, civil people to first approach and not 

barbaric ruthlessness. Our Government needs to be better than this. But it 

isn't. 

This young mum is gone forever. The baby is without a mother, now being 

cared for by an aunty. 

Our Government and the Commonwealth have to own that they contribute 

to the suicide toll. They are not there for the most vulnerable. There is little 

authentic suicide prevention, reductive supports or negligible outreach.


There was a young gentleman in his early 20s, in another community, 

almost the continent apart from the 19-year-old mother, who had to do 

the Community Development Program for his welfare payment — in effect, 

sweeping dirt. Meaningless activity, meander and ambling, day after day, 

his spirit finally embered until he took his life in a shed near the dirt site he 

swept every day. Is this how we are to treat people? 

Australians need to understand the harrowing details, the issues and grim 

realities because. without the truth, with censorship by omission, our 

governments will not be galvanised into reforming dangerous practices nor 

in investing in the supports that are long overdue. 

The suicide crisis is getting worse and I've just described two preventable 

losses from 110 where, in fact, our governments themselves could have 

prevented them. The majority of the 110-plus suicides of First Nations 

peoples were preventable. 

The suicide toll of First Nations people can be reduced – in fact, to a 

quarter – and to significantly less, the Australian suicide rate if we focus on 

poverty as the overarching suicidality narrative. I have written hundreds of 

articles on suicide prevention, but this Government is flailing commitments 

and failing to deliver suicide prevention. In my view, they are contributing 

reprehensibly to an increasing suicide toll. They are not alone, but they are 

the most culpable. 

There's a lot of posturing on suicide prevention, a lot of commitments, but 

a lot of nothing done. 

It is my certain belief that after a decade of every ensuing year showing an 

increasing suicide toll, we can, for the first time in a long while, reduce the 

suicide toll to less than the preceding year and that would be inspiring. But 

we aren't taking this step into the right direction. 

We can halve the suicide toll for all Australians if we focus on 

socioeconomic stressors as a major cause. I remind that close to 

100 per cent of First Nations suicides are of people who lived below the 

poverty line, with the above the poverty line rate dramatically less in 

comparison to the overall Australian suicide rate. I remind that the majority 

of Australia’s 3,000 suicides are of people within or proximal to poverty or 

with socioeconomic disadvantages.


We need to speak out and leave no-one behind. We need to remind 

ourselves that the majority are not born into privilege. All of us, without 

exception, can be born into the best or worst of ourselves. If we want to be 

decent human beings – if we really believe in the “fair go” – then we must 

be there for those whose journey needs us. 

Source: 

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/robodebt-claims-the-lifeof-a-19-year-old-mum,13127 


Gerry Georgatos is a suicide prevention and poverty researcher and 

national coordinator of the National Suicide Prevention & Trauma 

Recovery Project. You can follow Gerry on Twitter @GerryGeorgatos.




Over 2000 people died after receiving Centrelink robo-debt 

notice, figures reveal 

by Shalailah Medhora, Triple J for ABC News 

on 18 February 2019 

More than 2030 people died after receiving a Centrelink debt notice, also 

known as robo-debt, according to new data released by the Department of 

Human Services. 

Human Services Minister Michael Keenan says new statistics don't show 

robodebt contributed to people's deaths. CREDIT:ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN 

Of those, 429 - roughly one-fifth - were aged under 35. The figures cover a 

period from July 2016 to October 2018 

To give you a comparison, there were 3139 deaths of people aged between 

15 and 35 in 2016 overall, according to the Australian Institute of Health 

and Welfare. 

While the department does not collect data on the cause for death in these 

cases, nearly a third - 663 people - were classified as "vulnerable", which 

means they had complex needs like mental illness, drug use or were victims 

of domestic violence. 

Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, who asked the Department for the 

information, told Hack that there could be more people with vulnerabilities 

than what is reflected in the official stats.


"Because of the way the system works at the moment, people don't feel 

confident or don't feel safe or trust the person that they're reporting to to 

flag that they feel vulnerable, or flag that they might have poor mental 

health at the time," she said. 

Senator Siewert also said evidence from a Senate inquiry into the system 

found that getting a debt notice when you've done nothing wrong can 

bring on depression or anxiety. 

"People talk about feeling stressed and anxious through the system, feeling 

humiliated and they get depressed." 

"That sets alarm bells for me, the high proportion of people with 

vulnerabilities," she said. 

This should be ringing alarm bells for the Government in terms of 

further investigation." 

The vast majority of people who died were still receiving Centrelink 

payments at the time of their deaths. Responsibility for Centrelink lies with 

the Department of Human Services. 

More than 500 people who died were receiving Newstart payments, and a 

further 520 were on the Disability Support Pension. 

Men were twice as likely to die than women. 

Minister says there's no link 

A spokesperson for Human Services Minister, Michael Keenan, 

told Hack the automatic debt notice process is "reasonable, lawful and 

fair". 

They said the department had sent out 900,000 discrepancy notices - that 

is, a letter asking the welfare recipient to explain why the info they've given 

doesn't match what the department has. That doesn't always lead to a 

formal debt notice because the recipients of the letter can provide 

additional information that clears the discrepancy. 

"Any suggestion that the Department of Human Services' debt recovery 

efforts have contributed to customer deaths is simply not supported by the 

facts or statistics," the spokesperson said.


"The department sent more than 900,000 debt letters to individuals during 

the period 1 July 2016 to 31 October 2018. A total of 2030 of those 

individuals died during the same period, which represents 0.21 per cent." 

This was more than ten times lower than the overall death rate for all of the 

department's customers during the same period, which was 3.64 per cent." 

It's important to note here that the figures provided by the spokesperson 

include deaths of people who receive a pension payment, which by 

definition puts them in the older age bracket. 

"The number of days that elapsed between customers receiving a debt 

letter and their death was 222 days, or almost eight months. Any number 

of factors in an individual's life could have contributed to their death 

during such an extended period and it would be foolhardy to draw a link to 

one particular cause without evidence to support such a claim," the 

spokesperson said. 

"Debt recovery remains an important priority for the Coalition Government 

and where people have been overpaid, they will be required to pay the 

money back. Since 1 July 2016, this Government has achieved savings of 

$2.9 billion through cracking down on welfare fraud and non-compliance." 

Senator Siewert will seek further information from the department. She 

wants answers to clarify how, if at all, the robo-debt system exacerbates 

stress and anxiety. 

"I find it quite disturbing, and it indicates to me that the department 

should investigate further and I'll be chasing this up during Senate 

estimates this week," Senator Siewert said. 

What is robo-debt? 

In 2016, Centrelink started using a computer system to match up tax 

records with welfare payments, to see if there were any discrepancies. 

The old non-automated system generated 20,000 letters to people who 

had received Centrelink payments a year. But in the early days of the new 

system, that jumped to 20,000 letters a week.


Centrelink has raised nearly 410,000 debt notices since the 

automated system began in July 2016, but 70,000 have been written off 

or reduced already. 

"Robodebt has unleashed thousands of debt notices in error to parents, 

people with disabilities, carers, students and people seeking paid work, 

resulting in people slapped with Centrelink debts they do not owe or debts 

higher than they owe," ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie said. 

"It has been a devastating abuse of government power that has caused 

extensive harm, particularly among people who are the most vulnerable in 

our community." 

The family of 28-year old Melbourne musician Rhys Cauzzo told The 

Saturday Paper that "aggressive" payment demands from a debtcollection 

agency on behalf of Centrelink contributed to his suicide. 

"People with severe depression don't handle financial pressure. And these 

numbers didn't make sense. He was always anal about keeping financial 

records," Rhys' mother, Jenny Miller, said. 

Because it was computer-generated, Hack started hearing stories of how 

people were told they owed thousands of dollars due to admin errors. 

Like hospitality worker Laura, who was told she owed $24,000 - basically 

her annual income. 

"[I felt] physically sick and I lost my shit straight away." Laura 

told Hack getting the debt notice was stressful and impacted her mental 

health. 

"I've suffered from depression for a very, very long time and especially at 

the end of last year when I first got this debt I was already not feeling well 

because of other things, so I ended up not being at work for a month," she 

said. 

"No one's listening... I'm basically being called a fraud and a liar and that I 

don't matter." 

"It straight away said I was guilty, and a year later [I'm still trying] to prove 

I'm not guilty," Laura said.


"That's a year's worth of my life of stress and struggle that I shouldn't have 

had to deal with... It's a joke." 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/2030-people-have-died-afterreceiving-centrelink-robodebt-notice/10821272




Robodebt: government admits it will be forced to 

refund $550 million under botched scheme 

By Luke Henriques-Gomes for The Guardian on 27 March 2020 

Exclusive: Confidential documents reveal size and impact of yearslong 

debacle and that government is still pursuing Australians to try 

and validate debts. 

The federal government has privately admitted it will be forced to refund 

more than 400,000 welfare debts worth about $550m that were wrongly 

issued to hundreds of thousands of Australians under the botched 

robodebt scheme. 

Confidential government advice seen by the Guardian reveals for the first 

time the scope, size and impact on the vulnerable of the years-long 

robodebt debacle, including that the government expects to lose 

an upcoming class action against the income compliance program and 

intends to settle. 

It can also be revealed that despite government assurances that all 

Centrelink resources have been diverted into processing a growing backlog 

of new dole claims thanks to the coronavirus crisis, Services Australia staff 

continue to chase Australians for payslips and bank statements in an effort 

to validate potentially unlawful welfare debts. 

Facing a class action from Gordon Legal and calls from Labor and the 

Greens to immediately refund debts calculated using the unlawful “income 

averaging” method, the government has publicly declined to detail its next 

course of action, saying only that it has refined the program in response to 

“feedback”. 

But a leaked ministerial submission to cabinet from government ministers 

Stuart Robert, Anne Ruston and Christian Porter, prepared last month, 

reveals the commonwealth expects to refund more than 400,000 debts 

over the next 12 months.


“Services Australia estimates that it will administer 449,500 refunds 

determined under the programme, and their associated repaid debts 

would be refunded commencing in July 2020 and concluding within 

12 months,” it says. 

The submission says Services Australia estimates that “$555.6 million in 

cash payments have been received from recipients to date for those inscope 

debts”. 

About 80,000 debts would be reassessed before “refunding or reaffirming 

the debt”, the submission says. 

Guardian graphic Photograph: Guardian graphic 

It is understood that the expenditure review committee of cabinet agreed 

last month to instruct the commonwealth’s legal representatives to begin 

settlement negotiations on the basis that it is prepared to refund invalidly 

raised debts. 

But they were also instructed to first oppose paying interest on the debt 

refunds, demand Gordon Legal withdraw its negligence claims, and would 

reconsider if the proposal was unsuccessful. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/mar/27/robodebt-governmentadmits-it-will-be-forced-to-refund-550m-under-botched-scheme




Robodebt scam exposed as a rort 

By Kerry Smith for GreenLeft on March 31, 2020 

Photo: Australian Unions/Facebook 

The tide appears to be turning against the federal government’s punitive 

robodebt scheme which, for years, has robbed hundreds of thousands of 

people and caused much distress.


The Guardian reported on March 27 that Attorney General Christian Porter 

“privately admitted” that over the next 12 months the government will 

have to refund more than 400,000 people who were robbed by the scheme 

to the tune of about $550 million in total. 

The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) said the government must 

wipe “all controversial welfare robodebts” and pay people back. 

ACOSS spokesperson Dr Cassandra Goldie said on March 27: “It appears 

that government must repay about 70% of what it has collected, having 

received $785 million as at August 2019”. 

She said the robodebt scheme should “never have seen the light of day” 

and that, given the unprecedented demand for Centrelink, its staff “should 

not be tasked with administering robodebt, especially when people cannot 

get through to someone on the phone to access essential income support”. 

ACOSS senior adviser Charmaine Crowe described the robodebt scheme as 

a “monumental failure in public administration”. 

She said ACOSS has heard reports that “the government is continuing to 

chase people about robodebt at a time of mass job loss, and 

unprecedented demand for Centrelink”. 

“Robodebt has caused so much distress and heartache in our community. 

The least the government can do now is ensure people are repaid as soon 

as possible,” Crowe said. 

ACOSS is calling for Centrelink staff numbers to be boosted by 15,000. The 

government has promised 5000. 

It also wants the government to fund a hotline for those trying to access 

income support; run a campaign to advise people on what they need to do 

to access income support; and to suspend “mutual obligation” 

requirements during the coronavirus pandemic. 

Gordon Legal is planning to launch a class action, arguing the scheme is 

unlawful and demanding compensation. Peter Gordon has previously acted 

successfully for asbestos victims.


Gordon told the ABC on September 19 the robodebt case would allege 

that it is wrong to collect money from hundreds of thousands of people by 

“the simplistic application of an imperfect computer algorithm”. 

“We think that before the government docked the pensions or took the tax 

refunds of widows and carers, and aged pensioners it needed to have 

better evidence; it needed to consider each case individually,” Gordon said. 

Gordon Legal will ask the courts to determine whether the more than 

700,000 debts raised by Centrelink after July 1, 2015, entitles it to recover 

the amounts claimed. 

The courts will also be asked to rule on whether the so-called collection 

fees, levied by Centrelink, should be refunded and whether those who have 

repaid all, or part, of those amounts should be paid interest. The case will 

also seek compensation for any distress or inconvenience caused to those 

who have been unfairly targeted. 

Source: 

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/robodebt-scam-exposed-rort




Robodebt removed humans from Human Services, 

and the Government is facing the consequences 

By national affairs correspondent Greg Jennett for ABC News 

on 30 May 2020 

Image from couriermail.com.au 

The problem with artificial intelligence is that it's artificial. 

The problem with the intelligence of humans is that it's limited, variable 

and compromised by judgement and values. 

Put both together and you get a good understanding of how and why the 

Federal Government muddled its way into, and out of, the expensive, 

stressful "Robodebt" debacle. 

A computer algorithm couldn't tell the difference between real and 

artificially calculated money "owed" in 470,000 cases. 

Humans, too driven by the desire for "integrity efficiency" and "budget 

repair", didn't stop to question strongly enough whether the automated 

means for gathering an estimated $2.1 billion could ever justify the 

agonising ends for welfare recipients.


Scott Morrison was one of those who enthusiastically promoted "faster and 

more targeted interventions" through "streamlining existing compliance 

activities". 

Scott Morrison championed the program as social services minister 

and treasurer. (AAP: Lukas Coch) 

As treasurer in 2016 and social services minister before then, Mr Morrison 

joined a long line of ministers, including Christian Porter, Alan Tudge and 

Stuart Robert, who believed in the promise of automated welfare debt 

recovery. 

They believed because they wanted the money it saved, not because they 

had satisfied themselves of the system's reliability. 

"A more targeted approach to managing people" is how the now Prime 

Minister had described it in mid-2016. 

The story of how the data-matching scheme was invented with vim by a 

coterie of high-powered bureaucrats and sold to starry-eyed ministers is 

fabled in Canberra. 

"Give our Department some extra money, and we'll get you an extra $2 

billion" was the pitch. 

Never mind that in their zeal, the Human Services Department would 

actually remove humans entirely from the process of identifying alleged 

debts and mailing what amounted to letters of demand to more than 

370,000 people.


Nor had anyone evidently stopped to take rigorous legal advice on 

whether the brave new world of data-matched welfare recovery actually 

stood up to the laws of the land, which stand as the barrier between 

Government excess and the protection of the people. 

Although it's almost never released, we now know that subsequent legal 

advice to the Government warned its chances of defending numerous 

court actions would be close to zero. 

Viewed against such advice, the only surprise in Stuart Roberts' abject 

capitulation in a Gold Coast park late on a Friday afternoon is not that it 

came, but that it didn't come sooner. 

No apology either. 

And the small matter of the outstanding $721 million in refunds? People 

will have to wait for months throughout the new financial year until it's 

fully paid out. 

Lawyers mounting a massive class action against the Government on 

behalf of those who felt wronged by the system — we may never know 

exactly how many were — are still mobilising, undeterred by the 

impending refunds. 

Publicly, they're in it for the compensation now. 

But every retreat the Government's made since late last year suggests this 

case is destined for negotiation in the settlement room, not in any 

courtroom, because the risks to the Commonwealth — and taxpayers — 

are immense if a judge ever gets to pick through the manifest failings of 

the income-averaging and data-matching scheme. 

The Guardian Australia has reported on "leaked advice prepared for 

ministers Robert, Anne Ruston and Christian Porter" calling for Robodebts 

to be abandoned because the scheme was "no longer viable" or "cost 

effective" and would not rake in the money anticipated. 

Mr Robert's subsequent surrender suggests he has heeded that advice, as 

well as the legal advice that data methods used by the department would 

not stand up in court. 

20,000 letters a week were sent.


Not that it took Mr Robert to discover these flaws since he moved into the 

Government Services role — they'd been obvious from the outset. 

As early as 2017, the Senate had flushed out tell-tale statistics of a scheme 

that simultaneously failed to deliver the Government the money it had 

banked on, while inflicting grief on 200,000 people. 

Sticking to the clawback system's proper name — the Online Compliance 

Intervention program — the inquiry found that despite Human Services 

pumping out "please explain" letters to people at an awesome rate of 

20,000 a week, the robotic computers were already falling short of their 

human creators' expectations. 

Led by its then-secretary Kathryn Campbell, the department was aiming for 

$300 million in the first six months of 2016-17, but had only landed 

$24 million in repayments. 

An unknown portion of the cash handed back had come from people who 

may not have owed it, but paid anyway to avoid further harassment. 

Leap forward to 2020, under cover of the COVID-19 crisis, the backpedalling 

on Robodebt has been fast, furious and well-hidden from public 

scrutiny, as Australians might sadly come to expect these days with fullblown 

financial and administrative disasters (there've been a few of them). 

The general idea of data matching to identify welfare overpayments, 

known as the Income Compliance Program, remains a cornerstone of 

government policy. 

But with legal action afoot, 470,000 refunds coming and not so much as a 

"sorry" to those affected, the final reckoning on Robodebt's legacy is still 

outstanding. 

No computer will do it. 

A responsible human might have to. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-30/robodebt-stuart-robert-scottmorrison/12303322




Coalition won’t rule out passing new laws to reboot 

ROBODEBT scheme - 2 June 2020 

The federal government will not rule out using new laws to allow a future 

reboot of the botched robodebt scheme, an option Guardian Australia can 

reveal was explored in an opinion from its top lawyer last year. 

Guardian Australia can reveal the opinion from the solicitor general – 

referred to in a ministerial submission that has formed the basis for 

the government’s response to an ongoing class action – was received in 

September. 

It suggests the government was aware of serious legal doubts about the 

scheme two months prior to settling a federal court challenge and eight 

months before it announced it would refund 460,000 unlawful debts, worth 

$720 million. 

A spokesman for Stuart Robert on Monday declined to discuss “privileged 

legal advice” and twice failed to rule out the use of legislation to legalise 

the averaging of tax office income data for future debt recovery. 

It is understood this option was discussed by ministers in March and last 

month, when the government finalised the announcement of 470,000 

refunds, but no decision has been made. 

In February, ministers were told of the possibility of using legislation in the 

context of defending the Gordon Legal class action. 

“This option was canvassed by the solicitor general in his opinion in 

September 2019 and could be modelled on taxation legislation,” the 

ministerial submission said. 

“Legislative change could be prospective or retrospective. However, a 

prospective legislative change may not affect past debts, so may have no 

impact on the [Gordon Legal] class action.”


The opinion was also delivered well before a 19 November email provided 

to a Senate committee in which the Australian Tax Office confirmed it had 

been told by bureaucrats the scheme was unlawful. 

Prime Minister Morrison, who announced aspects of the robodebt 

scheme in 2016 as treasurer, also argued the unlawfulness of using 

income averaging did not mean “those debts don’t exist”. 

Luke Henriques-Gomes – The Guardian 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jun/02/coalition-wont-rule-outpassing-new-laws-to-reboot-robodebt-scheme?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other 

Stuart Robert, Scott Morrison and Christian Porter 

Stuart Robert spokesman twice failed to rule out use of legislation to 

legalise averaging of ATO income data for debt recovery




Class action reforms must ensure access to justice 

for the vulnerable 

Editorial for The Sydney Morning Herald on June 3, 2020 

The federal government’s decision to pay back $721 million to people who 

were wrongly punished by the robo-debt revenue-raising program 

highlights both the benefits and the risks of the legal process known as 

class action. 

Minister for Government Services Stuart Robert on Friday announced he 

would make payments to about 373,000 people who had been forced to 

refund welfare payments when the government used an inaccurate 

automated checking system to recalculate their benefits. 

The government lost a test case brought by one plaintiff last year but it 

only announced the payouts after law firm Gordon Legal started a class 

action on behalf of other people. Despite Friday’s announcement, the law 

firm is still planning to sue for damages and interest. 

Supporters say this is the classic case where wronged individuals can use 

class actions to secure justice that none of them could individually afford. 

There are many examples of successful cases. Victims of toxic chemical 

spills in Williamtown, near Newcastle, were recently awarded $212.5 million 

from the federal government following three class actions; and Johnson & 

Johnson has settled out of court dozens of cases worldwide for defective 

breast implants. 

Yet company directors have raised concerns that class actions are 

becoming so common they are making it impossible to do business 

without fear of being sued. They cite figures showing a three-fold increase 

in cases in the past decade. 

Too often, they say, class actions earn fees for plaintiff lawyers and for 

outside litigation funding companies who finance them, but leave next to 

nothing for the people whose interests they are supposed to represent.


The Australian Law Reform Commission found about 28 per cent of 

litigation proceeds went to funders, 55 per cent to affected shareholders 

and 15 per cent to legal costs. 

There has been a flurry of regulation in the past six months. In general, the 

Coalition has tended to be more sympathetic to companies that are 

potential targets of actions and the ALP has supported plaintiff law firms 

with whom it has close links. 

Business fears that a Victorian ALP government proposal to change the 

way lawyers charge for their services will trigger a new wave of class 

actions. Victoria wants to legalise so-called “contingency fees” where 

lawyers take a cut of the settlement if they win. 

The federal government, on the other hand, has moved to protect 

companies from class actions by shareholders who say they should have 

been warned about events that could affect the share price. 

'Robo-debt' repayments to hit $721 million but lawyers chasing damages 

Because of the huge uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, 

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg suspended so-called “continuous disclosure” 

laws, freeing companies from issuing profit guidance for six months. 

He has also proposed requiring litigation funding companies to register 

with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, saying this will 

ensure litigation funders keep all participants in the class action informed 

and screen out cowboy operators. 

Plaintiff lawyers and litigation funders are concerned, however, that the 

new rules will make it harder for them to bring genuine cases. 

It will take time to sort out whether a balance has been struck between 

fighting vexatious claims by ambulance chasing lawyers on the one hand 

and giving the wronged access to costly justice on the other. 

In fighting the former, the newly proposed oversight measures must not 

go too far and strangle reasonable cases, such as the robo-debt class 

action, that give ordinary people a fighting chance in the courts. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/class-action-reforms-mustensure-access-to-justice-for-the-vulnerable-20200603-p54z6k.html




Scott Morrison shoots down robodebt royal commission 

by Rebecca Gredley for The Morning Bulletin on 23rd June 2020 

There's no need for a royal commission into the botched robodebt 

scheme because 'it's being fixed', Scott Morrison insists. 

The government services minister, Stuart Robert, pictured with Scott Morrison, said 

Services Australia would pay ‘some 190,000 [people] from 1 July’ 

after Centrelink’s robodebt program issued unlawful debts to welfare recipients. 

Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP 

Labor is demanding a probe into the discredited robodebt scheme, which 

is also facing a class action alongside an ongoing Senate inquiry. 

But the prime minister says the government is dealing with the issue. 

"We're aware of what the issue is and we're fixing the problem, we're 

getting the payments made," he told reporters in the NSW south coast 

town of Eden on Tuesday.


"Let's not forget what this issue is about - the use of income averaging as 

the primary reason for raising a debt." 

Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus says nothing short of a royal 

commission will do. 

"The way to get complete answers - the way to get Australians the answers 

they deserve - is through a royal commission," Mr Dreyfus said. 

Mr Morrison has apologised for the robodebt scheme and promised to 

reimburse more than 300,000 people targeted. 

The repayments will likely exceed $700 million. 

Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese wants the royal commission to 

uncover exactly when the government knew the program was illegal. 

"Australians deserve the truth. The government has continued to hide from 

scrutiny and refused to answer basic questions about the scheme," Mr 

Albanese said. 

"Only a royal commission will ensure they are held to account." 

The Greens have welcomed Labor's support for the probe, with senator 

Rachel Siewert saying the party will continue campaigning for justice. 

"The government has obfuscated and denied what has happened with 

robodebt for years now and they will continue to do so unless we have a 

formal judicial review," she said. 

The scheme matched Australian Taxation Office and Centrelink data to claw 

back overpaid welfare payments. 

It was ruled unlawful last year, with the Federal Court saying Centrelink 

could not have been satisfied the debt was correct. 

Mr Albanese says a royal commission could help provide recommendations 

on automated data-matching. 

He said the inquiry could also examine how much the scheme cost 

taxpayers, how many debts were issued and how many people were 

harmed.


The previous Labor government introduced a similar process in 2011 but 

had each case reviewed by a staff member at the Department of Human 

Services, while the coalition moved to a fully-automated system in 2016. 

The class action against the scheme looks set to go to trial over three 

weeks in the Federal Court, starting in September. 

Essential polling for Guardian Australia earlier this month found 53 per cent 

of respondents supported a royal commission, while 23 per cent didn't. 

Source: 

https://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/pm-shoots-down-robodebt-royalcommission/4042608/




Scott Morrison's robodebt to society 

By Michelle Pini | Independent Australia on 25 June 2020 


Labor has joined the Greens' call for a royal commission into 

"robodebt" — an unlawful Morrison Government debt recovery 

scheme. Executive editor Michelle Pini reports. 

IT'S A SEEDY TALE spanning four years, linked to 2,000 premature deaths*, 

three senior ministers, two prime ministers, unlawful government 

behaviour and pending class action. 

The unconscionable "robodebt" debt recovery scheme, conceived, 

delivered and overseen by this Coalition Government, should have been 

enough to end the careers of all responsible ministers. Certainly, once its 

illegality was discovered, the scheme should have ended immediately.


The money should have been promptly paid back. There should have been 

an instantaneous and unequivocal apology. 

The fact that none of these things happened and that the Morrison 

Government stubbornly refuses to answer questions? Well, that should be 

enough to end this Government. 

Certainly, a royal commission is needed. 

THE DEBT SCAM 

The robodebt scheme, devised by Scott Morrison when he was Social 

Services Minister, sent automated letters of demand via Centrelink, alleging 

that vast sums of money owed, as far back as ten years prior, needed to be 

repaid with interest. Over 500,000 letters were issued — including to 

people with disabilities, carers, students, the aged and the unemployed. 

As Gavin Silbert QC pointed out in IA: 

Given that robodebt was designed to threaten people into providing 

documents required to establish a debt, the process was clearly in breach of 

the Commonwealth’s obligations to act as a model litigant, which lies at the 

root of our democracy. Yet Centrelink and its Minister, Stuart Robert, 

steadfastly continued to defend the indefensible, producing a tsunami of 

suffering and misery including suicides, depression and marriage 

breakdowns without a skerrick of compassion and made worse where those 

affected were current welfare recipients. 

In 2010, four people were found to have died from the “pink batts” 

insulation program. It was tragic and, of course, it shouldn’t have 

happened. But the responsible minister resigned and his political career 

was over. There was a Royal Commission. The then Rudd Government was 

held accountable and the scandal made front-page news for months 

afterwards across Australia. The effects reverberate within the Labor Party 

today. 

This is not about comparing deaths and pronouncing some as more 

important than others. But the callous disregard for the deaths of people 

linked to the Coalition Government’s illegal robodebt scheme points to the 

conclusion that this is what happens today. Some lives matter more than 

others — at least where this Government is concerned.


Four years on, the robodebt scam and its correlation to 2,000 suicides is 

still shrouded in secrecy and has only made intermittent appearances on 

the pages of our media duopoly's publications. 

In November last year, the robodebt scheme was declared by the Federal 

Court to be invalid. The Government could no longer claim that it was 

unaware it was unlawful. 

This raised more questions than it answered. When did the Government 

first become aware it was illegal? Why did it persist after thousands of 

reports of the scheme's inaccuracy? Would all letters be null and void? 

Whose money would be refunded? Would the scheme continue? 

SORRY, NOT SORRY 

Nonetheless, as well as exhibiting no evidence of remorse, Stuart 

Robert declared proudly on national television: 

“The Department has recovered $1.9 billion in overpayment and we have a 

legal responsibility to do that.” 

Interestingly, the current Government Services Minister (an oxymoron in 

itself) chose to use the word “legal” in association with a government 

policy that had been declared by the court to be unlawful. 

Former Prime Minister (and PM when the scheme was first 

hatched) Malcolm Turnbull apologised this week. Speaking from the safety 

of his post-parliamentary vantage point, Turnbull seems to have acquired a 

social conscience. 

Turnbull said: 

“I am very sorry it has created the dismay and distress that it has … Look, it 

failed and it obviously had serious issues of legal validity, so yes I am very 

sorry that that worked out the way it did.” 

And finally, on 11 June, Scott Morrison, after years of defending the 

abominable scheme of his own making, gave an apology of sorts in 

Parliament: 

“I would apologise for any hurt or harm in the way that the Government has 

dealt with that issue and to anyone else who has found themselves in those 

situations."


There was no mention that evidence of over 2,000 suicides had emerged 

back in February 2019. 

But it is hard to apologise sincerely for something when you fundamentally 

believe you have nothing to be sorry about. The current Prime Minister 

famously announced he could not afford “unfunded empathy,” when asked 

about an increase to Newstart. What he didn’t disclose at the time is that 

empathy of any kind is simply missing from his repertoire. 

Occasionally, there are naked glimpses into Morrison’s complete absence 

of concern for others. This week, for example, when asked if he thought it 

unacceptable that pregnant women in the Canberra town of Yass are 

forced to travel at least an hour to give birth, frequently causing them to 

do so on the side of the road, the PM replied: 

“That’s why we’ve committed $150 million to upgrade the Barton Highway.” 

When Parliament subsequently exploded with laughter, Morrison appeared 

completely bewildered. 

This speaks volumes, not only to the state of mind of this PM but of his 

Government’s wilful disregard for the consequences of its actions on real 

people. 

FIXING DEBTS 

Thus, a royal commission is not needed, according to Morrison because: 

"We're aware of what the issue is and we're fixing the problem, we're getting 

the payments made." 

No further details as to how this will be achieved were forthcoming. 

But just in case any of us were expecting any empathy for 2,000 dead or 

the untold misery to their families, the PM added: 

"Let's not forget what this issue is about — the use of income averaging as 

the primary reason for raising a debt." 

Morrison simply has no capacity for empathy.


DEBT TO THE DEAD 

The most disturbing and heartless part about this scandal is that vulnerable 

people were broken by robodebt and then trod on and ignored by a 

seemingly deaf and blind government services department, led at different 

times by Scott Morrison, Christian Porter, Alan Tudge and now, Stuart 

Robert. 

IA sought comment from Robert’s office but was told to read the Prime 

Minister’s latest media statement. Going by his gormless recent 

performances, it is no surprise the Government Services MInister's media 

advisers have recommended a "no comment" stance. 

For its part, the Labor Party made a few noises in Parliament over the fouryear 

period but was hardly a forthright advocate for the victims of the 

heinous scheme until recently. 

Opposition Leader at the time and now Shadow Minister for Government 

Services Bill Shorten is now among those calling for a royal commission. 

Shorten told IA in a statement: 

‘Millions of Australians were targeted for four long years by this Government, 

in a bid to artificially boost the budget bottom line with up to 740,000 

unlawful debts… 

The Prime Minister himself was the architect of this cruel scheme designed to 

extract $1.5 billion in unlawful debts from the Australian people.’ 

Greens spokesperson on Family and Community Services Senator Rachel 

Siewert, who has long advocated on behalf of robodebt victims, said in a 

media statement: 

The Government has clearly demonstrated they are not going to hand over 

this information willingly and will continue to hide behind “public interest 

immunity claims” or claims that they have no “duty of care". This is why it's 

so important to have a royal commission, we need to understand what 

happened and make sure it never happens again. 

…Even after robodebt was deemed illegal the Government had the audacity 

to suggest they may change the laws and haven’t ruled out taxing the 

refunds of illegal robodebts!


Details of how Morrison is “fixing it” remain unclear — like most of the 

activities of this Coalition Government. A class action is pending. A royal 

commission remains the only hope for the many unanswered questions 

and to ensure this is never repeated. 

Without doubt, the families of over 2,000 people who are believed to have 

died as a result of robodebt deserve that much. 

Source: 

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/scott-morrisons-robodebtto-society,14035 

*EDITOR'S NOTE: 

Media Services Australia requested we change this story, as the 

Government disputes a link between robodebt and 2,000 premature 

deaths. However, while we do not state that robodebt is the sole cause of 

2,000 deaths, 2,000 suicides did occur following the receipt of robodebts 

indicating this scheme as a contributing factor — as reported by the ABC, 

the Sydney Morning Herald and several other publications.




Robodebt: changes to Criminal Code pave way for action 

against lawyers who vigorously defend clients 

by Ian Cunliffe | Featured | Michael West Media | August 12, 2020 


The Commonwealth has been extremely cruel to Centrelink recipients but 

there’s no suggestion that those who designed and implemented 

Robodebt will face any punishment. Yet lawyers who unwittingly cause 

distress to public officials when defending clients could face criminal 

charges. Ian Cunliffe investigates. 

Officially called Online Compliance Intervention, Robodebt has caused 

widespread misery and stress to Centrelink recipients. Hundreds of 

thousands of people were sent letters demanding immediate repayment of 

debts ranging from small amounts to well over $100,000. In some cases, 

before the recipients had been notified by Centrelink, the debts were sent 

to debt collectors. 

Gordon Legal, which is running a class action into Robodebt, says at least 

600,000 Robodebts have been raised. The Department for Social Services 

(DSS) said last year it sent more than 900,000 debt letters in the period 

from July 1, 2016 to October 31, 2018.


According to Guardian Australia, Kath Madgwick and Jennifer Miller, have 

separately alleged that their sons, Jarrad Madgwick, 22, and Rhys Cauzzo, 

28, died by suicide after receiving debt notices through the Robodebt 

program. 

Greens senator Rachel Siewert has also said she has been told of “five 

families … who believe their family members’ suicides are connected to 

receiving a Robodebt letter”. 

The DSS told the Senate Committee on Community Affairs, which was 

inquiring into the scheme, that more than 2,000 people died after receiving 

Robodebt letters. It is not clear how many were suicides, but the 

department revealed that roughly a fifth were under 35, and nearly a third 

of those had been classified as “vulnerable”. 

While the head of the department Kathryn Campbell said on July 31 that 

she did not accept that any people had died over Robodebt, she added 

that: “We know mental health issues are very difficult. We have apologised 

for the hurt and harm; none of us can imagine what goes on in individuals’ 

lives.” 

What is Robodebt? 

In 2016, Centrelink introduced a new automated system to try to detect 

overpayments by using income information held by government agencies, 

usually the Australian Tax Office (ATO), and compared it to the income a 

person reported to Centrelink. 

If the system thought there was a discrepancy, Centrelink sent a letter 

advising of a potential debt and asked the person to provide further 

information such as payslips about their income. If they didn’t respond – 

perhaps because they didn’t get the letter – Centrelink used the ATO 

information to infer the person’s income per fortnight and per year to 

determine a debt. 

For example, the ATO might have information from an employer that the 

person received $2,000 in a particular fortnight. Centrelink would then 

infer that the person earned $2,000 each and every fortnight.


Centrelink required people to repay the debt it calculated if the person did 

not provide information disproving that $2,000 in one fortnight meant 

$2,000 every fortnight. Previously, if you could not provide the information 

requested, Centrelink would write to your employer or bank to get this 

information before deciding if you had been overpaid and if so, by how 

much. 

Other assumptions were also made by the robot. For example, a random 

deposit into a bank account was assumed to be income while gross 

receipts were taken as net receipts, and so on. 

Traps for lawyers defending clients 

I defend people who have been accused of having Robodebts. But until I 

started researching the Commonwealth Criminal Code recently in relation 

to so-called national security offences, I had no idea of the existence, or 

scope, of traps awaiting lawyers like me who vigorously defend their 

clients. 

Those traps exist because of substantial amendments made two years ago 

to the Code, making it much more authoritarian. That Code now makes it a 

very serious offence, with up to 13 years’ imprisonment, for causing harm 

to a Commonwealth public official. 

So while the Commonwealth has been extremely cruel and reckless at best 

to members of the public with its Robodebt scheme, there has been no 

suggestion that those who designed and implemented Robodebt will be 

criminally or even civilly punished. 

‘Harm’ is defined to include harm to a person’s mental health (whether 

temporary or permanent). 

It is also an offence to threaten to cause serious harm to a Commonwealth 

public official if the accused person is reckless as to the threat causing 

serious harm. Even if no harm actually results, the offence would be 

proven. The maximum penalty is nine years.


Punishment for causing mental distress 

The accused is regarded as having the intention to cause harm to an 

official’s mental health if the person is aware that it will occur in the 

ordinary course of events. 

Recently, I was defending a refugee who was clearly seriously mentally 

affected by a Robodebt letter saying that she owed more than $135,000 – 

to be repaid from the earnings of her taxi-driver husband while they 

support seven young children. She received the news of the debt while in 

bed having just delivered her last born – twins. 

The alleged debt had two components. I succeeded in getting the 

Commonwealth to waive about $95,000. But then I was phoned by a 

Centrelink lawyer who seemed to be reneging on that hard-won 

agreement. I threatened to make a big fuss and accused the lawyer of 

acting inappropriately and callously. Perhaps I put her into a depressive 

funk. That was not my aim, but I did want to make a passionately stinging 

point that she would long remember. 

However, it could also be argued I was reckless because my comments 

could have caused serious harm – even if they didn’t. The offence seems to 

be established even if no harm actually resulted – just that it could 

have. That is very unusual: you don’t get convicted for manslaughter just 

for being reckless – your recklessness has to actually cause death. 

The law in Australia, as in comparable countries, has shied away from 

punishing people – even civilly – for saying things that inflict mental 

distress. 

I regard myself as quite justified in taking a robust line with officials in such 

an extreme case. But would that save me if I were charged? Under the 

Criminal Code it is largely irrelevant whether the accused person was 

justified in what they did.


Public officials protected species 

Should public officials really be a protected species in this regard? 

My conduct might also have exposed me to two years imprisonment for 

‘Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials’. That would apply if I 

‘obstructed, hindered or intimidated’ Centrelink’s in-house lawyer. Those 

expressions are not defined but the interpretation will be what they mean 

in ordinary parlance. 

They are very broad terms and could well be interpreted to cover my 

attempt to shame the lawyer into what I saw as a more compassionate, 

fairer approach of not putting on my client’s record that a large whack of 

the money had been written off. 

These are bad provisions. Like much of the Criminal Code they go much 

too far. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/robodebt-changes-to-criminal-code-pave-wayfor-action-against-lawyers-who-vigorously-defend-clients/ 


Ian Cunliffe 

Lawyer, formerly senior federal 

public servant (CEO Constitutional 

Commission, CEO Law Reform 

Commission, Department of PM&C, 

Protective Security Review and first 

Royal Commission on Intelligence 

and Security; High Court Associate 

(1971) ; partner of major law firms. 

Awarded Premier's Award (2018) and 

Law Institute of Victoria's President's 

Award for pro bono work (2005).




Robodebt court documents show government was warned 

76 times debts were not legally enforceable 

By Luke Henriques-Gomes reporter for the Guardian 


Exclusive: statement of claim names Alan Tudge as among a handful 

of insiders aware program flawed 

Gordon Legal says that on 1 March 2017 Coalition minister Alan Tudge received a 

brief that stated ‘33% of Robodebt-raised debts “were changed to $0 on 

review/reassessment”’. Photograph: David Gray/Getty Images 

The federal government was warned 76 times by a tribunal that Centrelink 

robodebts were not legally enforceable, according to court documents. 

Gordon Legal claims that the dozens of judgments– which were previously 

hidden from public view – show the government knew the scheme was 

unlawful because it declined to appeal on every occasion. 

In a fresh statement of claim filed days before a federal court trial, the firm 

also names government minister Alan Tudge among a handful of insiders 

said to be aware the program was flawed as early as January 2017.


And it alleged several instances through 2017 and 2018 where top officials 

were made aware how people caught up in the program were threatening 

self-harm while on the phone to Centrelink staff. 

The class action is set down for trial on Thursday, despite the government’s 

concession it will pay back $721 million to people unlawfully accused of 

being overpaid benefits. 

Gordon Legal is seeking interest payments and damages for the stress and 

inconvenience experienced by about 600,000 people who received debts, a 

larger group than the 370,000 people the government had agreed to pay 

back. 

The firm is also now asking the court to impose exemplary damages to 

punish the government for its conduct running the scheme between 2015 

and 2019. 

It alleges the commonwealth was aware it was issuing unlawful debts, 

pointing to discussions between officials including Tudge in 2017 about 

the inaccuracy of its calculations. The commonwealth has roundly rejected 

the claim in pre-trial hearings. 

In another new development, Gordon Legal also points to 76 decisions at 

the administrative appeals tribunal where robodebts were set aside 

because the calculations used by Centrelink “could not lawfully support the 

existence of a debt”. 

The firm says in each case the commonwealth elected not to appeal and 

argues it is further proof that it knew the scheme was not legal. One of the 

76 decisions was made in December 2019, after the government had 

already backed down on the scheme. 

While these AAT decisions were never made public, if the government 

appealed it risked a higher tier of the tribunal ruling against it and 

publishing its judgement. Guardian Australia previously revealed the 

existence of five of these earlier decisions from 2017. 

The first of the decisions against the government was handed down in 

February 2017 and the bulk made that year.


Many of the firm’s new claims centre around the knowledge of Tudge, who 

was responsible for human services in 2016-17, and top department 

officials from the period. 

The firm says that on 1 March 2017 Tudge received a brief that stated 

“33% of Robodebt-raised debts ‘were changed to $0 on review/ 

reassessment’”. 

At the time, the government had staunchly defended the scheme in public, 

despite increasing warnings from experts and advocates published by the 

Guardian. 

It is also suggested top officials within the Department of Human Services 

(DHS), now Services Australia, were being regularly notified of threats of 

self-harm among robodebt recipients. 

The court documents reference a 13 July 2017 email in which department 

officials Malisa Golightly, Craig Storen and Tudge “received an email from 

within the Commonwealth that stated ‘a DHS recipient took their own life’ 

following receipt of Robodebt notification”. 

In separate events, two mothers have alleged their sons took their own 

lives after receiving debts in 2017 and it is unclear whether the email 

relates to either of these cases. Government officials have previously 

denied the scheme was linked to suicides. 

In August 2017, Jason McNamara, a senior manager at DHS, is said to have 

been informed of a robodebt letter recipient who threatened to self-harm 

or take their own life. 

Gordon Legal claims documents viewed by McNamara state the man told 

Centrelink he “felt he was being unjustly targeted and had a plan to end his 

life”. 

Among several instances was another case from October 2017 where 

Centrelink’s escalation team noted a robodebt letter recipient “was 

‘distressed’ and ‘commented that he would self-harm and then terminated 

the call’”, the documents state.


After several government officials including Tudge were named at a case 

management hearing on Wednesday, lawyers for the Commonwealth said 

they would now consider whether to call witnesses for the trial. 

It remains possible the two parties could reach a settlement. 

The government has maintained it believed the scheme was legal until it 

received advice to the contrary in late 2019 following a legal challenge 

from Victoria Legal Aid. 

Meanwhile, new data confirms the total value of unlawful demands issued 

through the scheme eventually topped $1.1b billion. 

Figures provided to a Senate committee show the government plans to 

“zero” $398.3 million worth of debts, wiping demands where no money 

had been repaid. 

Added to the $721 million in refunds the government has announced, it 

takes the total value of unlawful debts issued throughout the four-year 

program to $1.12 billion. 

It confirms reporting in Guardian Australia from June, which revealed the 

value would certainly exceed $1 billion, though it’s lower than estimates 

from the time which suggested it could reach $1.5 billion. 

Overall, about 531,000, or 68%, of the 771,576 debts issued since July 2015 

will be either refunded or wiped. 

The debts are being wiped because the government has conceded it 

cannot legally raise debts using the “income averaging” of a person’s 

annual ATO pay data. 

The practice used calculations drawn from yearly pay to allege a person 

misreported their fortnightly income to Centrelink and was overpaid 

benefits. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/19/robodebt-courtdocuments-show-government-was-warned-76-times-debts-were-not-legallyenforceable?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other




Source: 

https://www.zdnet.com/article/ministers-and-officials-named-in-updated-robodebt-class-action-claim/




Ministers and officials named in updated robo-debt 

class action claim 

By Asha Barbaschow | ZD NET on September 21, 2020 

Former Minister for Human Services Alan Tudge is alleged to 

have known that Centrelink's debt collection practices were 

causing harm long before the scheme was paused. 

Alan Tudge / FAIRFAX 

The class action lawsuit brought on by Gordon Legal against the 

Commonwealth of Australia in relation to the Centrelink Online 

Compliance Intervention (OCI) scheme, colloquially known as robo-debt, 

was scheduled to begin 21 September 2020, but the trial was pushed out 

to allow the applicants to file an amended statement of claim. 

In the amended statement of claim, Gordon Legal has alleged two 

Australian ministers and a handful of government officials had knowledge 

robo-debt was causing harm to vulnerable Centrelink customers. 

The Department of Human Services, now Services Australia, kicked off the 

data-matching program of work in 2016, which saw the automatic issuing 

of debt notices to those in receipt of welfare payments through the 

Centrelink scheme.


From 1 July 2016 through 31 August 2019, Centrelink's OCI program 

saw 1,159,662 assessments be initiated using the automated datamatching 

technique. 

The amended statement alleges that former Minister for Human Services 

Alan Tudge was aware robo-debt notifications contained errors on the 

department's part. 

The amendment also alleges that the Commonwealth knew about the 

vulnerability status of its customers as the knowledge could be inferred 

from the eligibility criteria for receiving financial assistance. It added that 

any recovery by the Commonwealth of an asserted overpayment could 

cause significant financial hardship. 

In addition, the claim alleges that the department knew its fortnightly 

averaging practices were erroneous back in February 2015 and that in 

March 2017, Tudge was told 33% of robo-debts "were changed to AU$0 on 

review". 

According to the applicants, two department officials -- Social Services 

chief operating officer Annette Musolino and Malisa Golightly, who is 

currently Deputy Secretary Immigration and Settlement Services at the 

Department of Home Affairs -- were allegedly made aware in March 2017 

of a draft recommendation by the Ombudsman in relation to the OCI 

system that the Commonwealth "should … give further consideration as to 

how to mitigate the risk of possible over-recovery of debts". 

The claim said the two officials allegedly never sought to dispute or qualify 

that recommendation, and neither did Tudge, when he was told of the 

same in April. 

The claim further accuses the department of being told on 76 occasions by 

the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that Centrelink robo-debts had 

been set aside on the basis that the fortnightly income assumption could 

not lawfully support the existence of a debt. The applicants allege the 

Commonwealth acted unlawfully in determining and asserting any debt 

overpayment, in requesting or demanding repayment, and recovering the 

asserted debt.


"The Commonwealth had and has no statutory or other power to raise and 

recover or seek to recover any Asserted Overpayment Debt, or impose any 

penalty thereon, in respect of any Applicant or Group Member," the claim 

reads. 

"The Commonwealth knew of these matters (including their unlawfulness) 

because: It was party to Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviews in which 

Asserted Overpayment and which it elected not to appeal or have reviewed 

(AAT Unlawful Debt Decisions), including the 76 decisions," it adds. 

The amended claim lists dozens of situations where customers were 

threatening self-harm or even suicide in response to receiving a debt letter. 

It also alleges that Tudge in July 2017 was told a "DHS recipient took their 

own life" following receipt of a robo-debt notification. 

Tudge ended his tenure as Human Services minister in December 2017 and 

is currently Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure. 

The claim also accuses former Minister for Families and Social Services 

Paul Fletcher of having knowledge that a certain ATO payment differential 

was not an overpayment. 

Gordon Legal launched the robo-debt class action in November last year 

on behalf of five representative applicants and hundreds of thousands of 

people who are included in the case as group members. 

The essence of the applicants' case is that debts raised by robo-debt are 

unlawful, and all recipients should be compensated by the federal 

government. Gordon Legal was previously seeking interest payments and 

damages, but is now asking for exemplary damages due to the 

government's continued running of the scheme in light of its new claims. 

Instead of the class action kicking off on Monday, another case 

management hearing was heard instead to discuss the amended claim. The 

Commonwealth, represented by Michael Hodge QC, said the applicants 

were "trying to run a case which is outside the pleaded case". 

"They haven't pleaded either knowledge or reckless indifference in relation 

to actual unlawfulness. They pleaded knowledge of other things in relation 

to minister Tudge," Hodge said.


During the hearing, Justice Bernard Murphy said that given Hodge's strong 

focus on the allegations made against Tudge, over the other new claims, 

the judge noted that "likely there was some substance in the complaint, 

otherwise [Hodge] wouldn't have pushed it as hard as [he did]". 

"I'm becoming frustrated with the pleadings fight in this case. I'm 

frustrated with both sides … on the applicants' side, the pleading has 

moved around; it wasn't adequately particularised … I suspect when you 

are confronted with Mr Hodge's complaints about your submissions that 

you'll find some of them are outside the pleaded case," Murphy said. 

"From Mr Hodge's side, there's a fair bit of strategy going on in all of this … 

my focus is on giving both parties a fair opportunity to put their case and 

to make sure the respondent understands the case that's being brought 

against it. 

"This affects hundreds and thousands of people." 

Representatives for the Commonwealth will have until Friday to provide a 

list of issues it has regarding the amended statement of claim, while the 

applicants will have until October 2 to respond. In the interim, another case 

management hearing has been set for Thursday. 

Source: 

https://www.zdnet.com/article/ministers-and-officials-named-in-updated-robodebt-class-action-claim/




Monday 16 November 2020




Billion-dollar robodebt settlement reveals massive scale 

of welfare crackdown disaster 

Luke Henriques-Gomes for The Guardian on 17 November 2020 

Deal will effectively limit scrutiny of unlawful and damaging 

compliance checks 

Alan Tudge oversaw the robodebt scheme as human services minister 


In March 2017 Alan Tudge, then the human services minister, was under 

pressure over a different scandal. 

Fresh from releasing the personal information of a debt recipient who had 

written an article critical of the robodebt scheme, and threatening so-called 

welfare cheats with jail, Tudge told the ABC’s Fran Kelly that critics who 

believed the program was flawed had a “philosophical objection to 

widespread compliance checks”. 

Despite the bluster, what few aside from those inside Tudge’s department 

knew was that the government was already receiving warnings about the 

legality of the Coalition’s chief welfare crackdown measure. 

And they went beyond the initial complaints of community campaigners, 

welfare groups and early critics in the parliament, including the 

independent MP Andrew Wilkie, the Greens’ Rachel Siewert and Labor’s 

Murray Watt.


On Monday, on the first day of a class action trial into the robodebt 

scandal, the saga finally came to its apparent conclusion, as the 

commonwealth agreed to a $1.2 billion settlement with 400,000 victims of 

the scheme – perhaps one of the biggest and most expensive policy fiascos 

of a generation. 

The deal negotiated by the law firm Gordon Legal includes $112 million in 

additional compensation on top of previous commonwealth 

announcements. 

Centrelink’s income compliance program, which ran from 2015 to 

November 2019, forced some victims to pay unlawful welfare debts in the 

tens of thousands of dollars. Some were pursued relentlessly by privately 

contracted debt collectors, were homeless, suffering poor mental health or 

had serious disabilities. 

There have been reports of suicides linked to the scheme, strenuously 

denied by the government. 

The settlement also speaks to the way the government has handled this 

saga from day one. 

It spares the government two weeks of potentially embarrassing 

documentary evidence about, as Labor’s Bill Shorten put it, “who knew 

what when”. 

Tudge, for example, was named in Gordon Legal’s submissions as either 

knowing the scheme was unlawful or being “recklessly indifferent to it”. 

(Those claims were strenuously denied by the commonwealth in pre-trial 

hearings and the government accepted no liability or knowledge in the 

agreed settlement.) 

When Tudge gave his interview to Kelly in March 2017, the government is 

said to have already lost four robodebt decisions at the first tier of the 

administrative appeals tribunal. 

Though the claim will now not be tested by the court, Gordon Legal 

alleged there were at least another 72 tribunal decisions that “set aside” 

robodebts. 

The overwhelming majority took place in 2017, when Tudge was the 

minister.


These decisions were never made public, and despite the commonwealth’s 

obligations as a model litigant, not once did the government appeal a case 

to the tribunal’s second tier to clarify the law. The second tier publishes its 

judgments. 

Despite the legal doubts, the scheme rolled on. Centrelink continued 

regularly garnisheeing people’s tax returns, including a homeless woman 

who spoke to Guardian Australia. The estates of more than 3,000 people 

are among those now being refunded the unlawful debts. 

Terry Carney, who wrote at least five of the AAT decisions, abruptly lost his 

position at the tribunal in 2017 after four decades. Guardian Australia 

revealed in 2018 that Carney’s view that the scheme was unlawful. 

Stuart Robert became the government services minister in May 2019, a few 

months after Victoria Legal Aid finally launched a federal court test case 

against the scheme. 

Early in the proceedings, the debt owed by the applicant in the case was 

wiped. The government then told the court that there was no longer a case 

to answer. Undeterred, Legal Aid recruited a second applicant. 

In November Robert abruptly announced what he called a “refinement” to 

the scheme, scrapping the averaging of annual Australian Taxation Office 

pay data to issue debts. Robert claimed only a “small cohort” of people had 

been issued a debt based solely on income averaging. 

A week later, the government settled its case with Victoria Legal Aid. 

The “small cohort” described by Robert was in fact 300,000 debts 

unlawfully recouped by the government. 

In purely financial terms, the “refinement” has cost $721 million in refunds, 

$400 million in debts the government has been forced to wipe, 

$112 million in compensation and at least $600 million in costs 

administering the scheme. All for a program that was supposed to save 

taxpayers more than $3 billion. 

The human cost is yet to be fully accounted for.


Gordon Legal’s settlement will not please everyone. Split between 400,000 

people, the $112 million equates to only modest compensation for many 

and is roughly equivalent to the interest they are owed. Legal costs are yet 

to be determined. 

Others who responded to Centrelink’s demands by providing pay slips or 

bank information won’t get a refund either. Gordon Legal initially argued 

that those debts were “tainted” due to a reversal of the onus of proof. 

The government was actually confident of defeating Gordon Legal’s claims 

of negligence in court, confidential advice seen by the Guardian showed. 

But it also believed a strategy to proactively announce refunds, before 

seeking to settle the case, would “temper criticism of the government’s 

actions”, allow the government to have “more control” over the process, 

“reduce the incentive for the Applicants to persist with the class action, and 

minimise the Commonwealth’s potential liability for interest and legal 

costs”. 

What was left unsaid – even in the private advice – is that a settlement also 

means the government will continue to avoid the scrutiny Labor, the 

Greens and welfare campaigners hope might now come from a royal 

commission. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/17/billion-dollar-robodebtsettlement-reveals-massive-scale-of-welfare-crackdown-disaster 

--------------------------------- END ------------------------------


Broken Promise-Water: $2b 

Water Infrastructure Fund with $0 

Spend


$2 billion Water Infrastructure Fund: $0 spend over 4 years 

Water infrastructure money on offer, 

but not a cent came out of last $2-billion fund 

by Jamieson Murphy, National Rural Affairs reporter for Guardian 

News on November 4, 2020 

CASH FOR WATER: Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack 

has urged all Premiers to take up the funding offer. 

The Deputy Prime Minister has written to every state and territory Premier, 

urging them to put their hands out for the billions of dollars on offer for 

water infrastructure developments. 

However, Labor says the government has been forced to make up for lost 

time, after it was revealed not a cent was handed out from a $2 billion loan 

program for water projects over four years. 

The government has since rolled the unused money into the National 

Water Infrastructure Development Fund, taking the fund from $1.5 billion 

to $3.5 billion. 

Deputy Prime Minister and Infrastructure Minister Michael McCormack said 

it was "time to put the politics aside" and get everyone working towards 

the same goal - building more dams, pipelines and weirs. 

"We can't build water infrastructure without states being on the journey 

with us, and we really want them to do just that," Mr McCormack said.


"There have been a number of water projects that we have invested in 

conjunction with the states, but there's also a lot of protects which really 

now need to take that next step." 

However, Labor's water spokesperson Terri Butler said the government was 

inept at water policy, pointing to revelations about the $2 billion National 

Water Infrastructure Loan Facility at the recent Senate estimates, which 

failed to dish out any money over four years. 

"They announced the loans facility in 2016 and claimed at the time it 

would be a catalyst for investment in dams and water infrastructure," 

Ms Butler said. 

"They banged on about it for four years. They released 50 different 

press releases about it, and they haven't written a single loan out of it. 

"At the recent budget they took it out the back and shot it. It was a 

failed program." 

The unused money from the scrapped loan program was rolled into the 

National Water Infrastructure Development Fund and will instead be used 

as grants, $567 million of which has been committed to upgrades for 

Dungowan and Wyangala dams. 

"It should have been grants from day one - they didn't listen to the 

feedback that no one wanted loans," Ms Butler said. 

"Now they've belatedly put money into an infrastructure grant fund and 

now hopefully this will finally unlock something that should have been 

available the whole time." 

Mr McCormack said there were "many and varied reasons" why much of 

the money on offer hadn't been dished out yet, but "now it's time to draw 

a line in the sand". 

"Let's put what's happened in the past behind us and move forward, let's 

actually just dig some holes and push some dirt around," he said. 

"If this is successful, we can point to projects that are making a difference 

and fight for more [funding], and the Prime Minister shares that view." 

However, Ms Butler said the public "should be sceptical about their 

promises".


"They're always about the photo-op and never about the follow up," 

she said. 

"They promised to build 100 dams [in 2013] and haven't built any in 

eight years. Emu Swamp [near Stanthorpe] is the only one they can 

point to and that's not even off the ground yet." 

Source: 

https://www.nambuccaguardian.com.au/story/6997718/water-money-on-offer-butnot-a-cent-came-out-of-last-2-billion-fund/ 

https://www.farmonline.com.au/story/6994681/water-money-on-offer-but-not-acent-came-out-of-last-2-billion-fund/ 

---------------------------------- END --------------------------------


Failure-ABC: SCOMOs death by a 

thousand cuts


SCOMOs death by a thousand cuts 

ABC's Importance to Australian Life 

The ABC Charter 

In modern times media plays a significant role in almost all aspects of our 

lives. Australia’s high concentration of media ownership makes strong 

independent public broadcasting imperative for Australian culture and 

democracy. 

The ABC and SBS play unique and important roles in Australian life. 

Independent in spirit and at law, the ABC is uncompromised by 

commercial or political influence and is able to report without fear or 

favor. 

It serves the public interest, scrutinising governments and other powerful 

bodies, including the media Itself. 

The ABC is part of the glue that binds this country together. A national 

broadcaster - one that all Australians know to tune to in times of 

emergencies and one which has the trust of the nation is important to our 

future. It cannot be suddenly resurrected in times of need if it is 

eroded and loses its pre-eminent position in Australian life. Its 

importance will only become greater, as digital media technology 

fragments audiences and different groups in the community grow to have 

less in common. 

Source: 

https://me.abcfriendsvic.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2016/03/app_b_abc_value__charter.pdf



No Politics at Aunty’s Table 

… a small snippet on budget cuts 

ABC breaches its own charter because of budget cuts … 

The level of support given to the arts is another area of complaint: 

One of the criticisms made of the recently announced cuts 

to ABC staff and programs is that it could place the 

broadcaster in breach of its own charter. 

The reason? 

It could be failing in its requirement to cover the arts. 

This kind of debate around how the public broadcaster functions and 

what it should be doing is a welcome influence towards 

accountability and relevance for all Australians. Campaigns relating to 

how the ABC interprets and fulfils its charter have considerable value. 

Politicians and the ABC’s competitors have not been, and should not 

be, shy about entering this debate. More recently, however, political 

and commercial interests have focused on changing not just how the 

ABC interprets its Charter, but to changing the Charter itself. 

Unsurprisingly, these changes would advance the interests of 

those proposing them. 

Source: 

file:///C:/Users/poult/Documents/No%20Politics%20at%20Auntys%20table.pdf



ABC funding cut to pay for Captain Cook Statue in 

Scott Morrison’s electorate 

By Amanda Meade and Patrick Keneally for The Guardian 

on 8 May 2018 

Funding for the ABC has been cut by $84 million with the treasurer, Scott 

Morrison, saying the reduction is justified because “everyone has to live 

within their means”. 

The ABC’s managing director, Michelle Guthrie, told staff she was “very 

disappointed and concerned” about what amounted to a substantial 

budget cut and it would impact audiences. 

“This decision will make it very difficult for the ABC to meet its charter 

requirements and audience expectations,” Guthrie told staff. 

The cut comes on top of the government’s decision not to continue a 

further $43 million targeted grant to support news gathering and after cuts 

of the magnitude of $254 million since 2014. 

In a shock move Fifield also announced a second efficiency review for the 

ABC and the SBS, echoing the Lewis review in 2014 which recommended a 

merger of some parts of the two broadcasters and the sale of ABC property 

assets. 

Savings from the ABC cuts will be redirected to other spending measures 

within the communications and arts portfolio, according to the budget 

papers, including $48.7 million for the commemoration of the 250th 

anniversary of James Cook’s landing in Botany Bay. 

The New South Wales government will be given $25 million of this money 

for activities at the Kamay Botany Bay national park in Morrison’s 

electorate of Cook such as exhibitions, educational material and a voyage 

of the replica HMB Endeavour. 

The government has never explained why it handed Foxtel $30 million in 

the last budget.


Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/08/abc-funding-slashedby-84m-in-budget-to-help-broadcaster-live-within-their-means 

Scott Morrison Will Spend $50 Million On A Memorial To Captain Cook 

While taking $84 million off ABC budget



Liberal Party members vote to privatise ABC – June 2018 

Liberal Party members have called on the Turnbull Government to move 

Australia's embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and privatise the ABC. 

More than 100 MPs and members are in Sydney for the Liberal Party's 

annual federal council which is expected to be the last before the next 

federal election. 

The council backed a West Australian motion to voted overwhelmingly in 

favour of a Young Liberal bid calling for the, "full privatisation of the 

Australian Broadcasting Corporation, except for services into regional 

areas". 

The Government has been increasing pressure on the ABC, lodging several 

complaints with its Managing Director Michelle Guthrie. 

A new religious-right, conservative force has recently taken over the 

Victorian branch of the Liberal Party and — along with elements of the ACT 

and West Australian division — is using the federal conference to flex its 

muscle. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-16/liberal-members-vote-to-privatise-abcmove-embassy-to-jerusalem/9877524



Liberals on another planet … 

By PETER MANNING | Pearls and Irritation – A Public Policy Journal 

on 21 June 2018 

It disturbs me a great deal that it was the Federal Council of the 

Liberal Party that called by a large margin for the privatisation of the 

ABC. 

Not the rambo Young Liberals. Not a local branch in Sydney’s southern 

Shire or Northern Beaches. Not a state Branch gone troppo. But the full 

Federal Council. 

What’s happened to the liberalism of Robert Gordon Menzies, John Gorton 

and even Malcolm Fraser? To the small “l” Liberals of Fred Chaney, Philip 

Ruddock, Andrew Peacock and even Don Chipp? To those “conservatives” 

who protect key social, cultural and economic institutions whose remit is to 

serve the public interest while business, families and individuals remain free 

to pursue their lives? 

As we know, neo-liberalism took over the Liberals with John Howard, many 

“small l” Liberals got the chop (apart from Ruddock who was given 

Immigration for his sins) and Reagan and Thatcher ruled the Western 

world. Greed was good, “user pays” arrived, and the public sector had to 

justify its existence. 

Like beady-eyed developers, Liberal attention is now drawn to a muchloved 

and much-trusted ABC. The Treasurer Scott Morrison and his offsider 

Mathias Cormann have of course decried the idea of privatising the ABC 

but we’ve heard Liberal promises before – “there will be no cuts to the 

ABC or SBS” said Tony Abbott – and they mean little. 

It saddens me because of its serious disconnection not only to the long 

tradition of ABC excellence in broadcasting but also to the popular will. As 

the outpouring of letters to editors around the country show, the public is 

outraged. The Federal Council is putting neo-liberal ideology before the 

electoral damage it will surely bring upon Liberal candidates.


What bubble are the delegates to the Council in? 

• Is it planet Murdoch? 

• The Sydney Institute? 

• The Institute of Public Affairs? 

• The Bolt Report? 

Happily, most Australians don’t take their cues from these minority 

extremists. But it is seriously worrying that Australia’s governing party’s 

members are so off centre. They appear so wrapped in paranoia about a 

middle-of-the-road institution like the ABC that it threatens like-minded 

institutions. Will the Australian War Memorial, the National Archives, the 

National Gallery and the National Library of Australia be next on the list? 

At the end of the day, members of the Federal Council need to have a 

good hard look at themselves, take a deep breath, and get a grip of reality. 

The ABC’s editorial independence is its major gift to the nation. It makes 

our democracy richer. The fact that a group like the Council could get itself 

into such a lather shows how out of touch it is. If it is so off the planet on 

this issue, how dysfunctional is this for the Liberal Party as a whole? 

Source: 

https://johnmenadue.com/peter-manning-liberals-on-another-planet/ 


PETER MANNING is a former producer and Executive Producer of 

“Four Corners” in the 1980s and head of ABC TV News and Current Affairs in 

the 1990s. He is currently a Visiting Fellow at the School of Communication at 

the University of Technology, Sydney.



Australia is a world-beater in the SECRECY Olympics 

By George Williams – The Australian on June 10, 2019 

AFP officers inside the ABC’s Ultimo headquarters during the raid 

Picture: John Lyons/Twitter. 

It comes as no surprise that the Australian Federal Police has begun to 

raid journalists. The events of last week are the culmination of nearly two 

decades of lawmaking by our national parliament. Our elected 

representatives have armed the police and intelligence agencies with 

formidable powers that can be used against the media. They have simply 

begun to use them. 

Australia leads the world in enacting national security and counterterrorism 

laws. About 75 have been passed by our federal parliament since 

September 11, 2001. This far exceeds the number of similar laws passed by 

Britain and the US. Our laws also differ because they go further in 

heightening government secrecy. They represent an assault on freedom of 

the press unique to Australia. 

Australia has a statute book littered with laws that enable sources to be 

identified, whistleblowers to be shut down and journalists to be jailed. 

Time after time when politicians were questioned about these laws, they 

said that they would not be used against the media.


They said these laws were about combating terrorism, and that our leaders 

could be trusted to ensure that over-broad powers were not used to 

damage our democracy. Basing freedom of the press on trusting those 

who have the most to gain from muzzling the media was never a wise idea. 

The focus over recent days has been on laws that permit the police to seize 

data and documents from journalists in aid of prosecuting people who 

reveal government secrets. Many laws now permit this. For example, 

section 35P of the ASIO Act makes it a criminal offence to disclose 

information about special intelligence operations in which ASIO officers are 

granted immunity from civil and criminal liability. 

A person can be jailed for up to five years merely for disclosing information 

about such an operation. There is no exception for reporting in the public 

interest. 

Of even greater concern are laws that undermine media freedom in secret. 

One example is the ability of enforcement agencies to access the metadata 

of journalists, including things like mobile phone records. This information 

can be accessed to identify the source of a media story without notifying 

the journalist. The information can then be used to prosecute people who 

have supplied information to the journalist. 

Another example is the power held by ASIO allowing it to compel any 

person, including journalists, to answer questions for the purpose of 

gathering intelligence. A person may even be detained in secret for up to a 

week. A journalist will face jail for up to five years if they fail to answer 

every question put to them. Any person who writes or tweets about the use 

of this power faces another five years. 

I could go on with other examples, many of which were forgotten once the 

debate over each law died down. Yet these laws remain in force and can be 

used at the discretion of the authorities. 

Put together, their impact and scope is shocking in showing how far media 

freedom has deteriorated. They are the sorts of laws one might expect in a 

police state rather than a democracy like Australia.


We can thank our politicians for these laws. 

They have used the fear of terrorism and threats to community safety to 

enact laws that shield government from scrutiny. Our liberties have had too 

few defenders. Each of the laws that restrict media freedom and freedom 

of speech has been passed with bipartisan support. Parliament has long 

ceased to be the protector of our democratic rights. 

Australia’s legal landscape has made this possible. We are the only 

democratic nation without strong national protection for freedom of 

speech and of the press. 

The best we have is an implied freedom of political communication derived 

from our Constitution. But this has been applied rarely by the High Court, 

and is likely to be of limited value where national security and the media 

are concerned. 

We lack anything like the first amendment to the US constitution, which 

states in unequivocal terms that ‘‘congress shall make no law … abridging 

the freedom of speech, or of the press’’. Nor do we possess the protections 

of free speech found in Britain’s Human Rights Act 1998, Canadian Charter 

of Rights and Freedoms 1982 or New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 

Laws such as these make a difference. They counterbalance the desire of 

governments to keep embarrassing and damaging material secret. They 

also provide legal backing to the media in reporting such information. 

If we want to avoid more raids and the further erosion of media freedom, 

we must convince parliament to enact long overdue protection for 

freedom of speech and of the press. 

Source: 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/australia-is-a-worldbeater-in-thesecrecy-olympics/news-story/e4709f4456f4fe4f87c25a6ce34ebf41 

George Williams 

Columnist – The Australian 

George Williams AO is one of 

Australia’s leading constitutional 

lawyers, having worked for many years 

as an academic and as a barrister. He is 

a Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the 

Anthony Mason Professor at the 

University of New South Wales.



Up to 250 ABC jobs to go, ABC Life brand scrapped, flagship 

radio news bulletin dumped to tackle $84 million budget cut 

by political correspondent Brett Worthington and political 

reporter Georgia Hitch for ABC News on 24 June 2020 

ABC managing director David Anderson announces up to 250 jobs will be cut. 

The ABC will axe up to 250 jobs and cut programming as it deals with 

budget cuts of $84 million. 

Key points: 

• There will be job cuts across every division of the ABC 

• Radio news will be cut back and ABC Life will be restructured and 

rebranded as ABC Local 

• The ABC aims to have 75 per cent of its content-makers located 

outside of the Ultimo headquarters by 2025 

Managing director David Anderson said a flagship radio news bulletin 

would go, the ABC Life lifestyle portal would be rebranded, and programs 

would be reviewed as part of a major overhaul of the national broadcaster. 

There will also be cuts to travel and to spending on television productions, 

as the organisation moves to become more relevant to more Australians 

and better reflect community diversity, he said. 

Mr Anderson said the redundancies and savings would affect every division 

across the ABC.


"We anticipate we may farewell as many as 250 colleagues through this 

process," he told staff in a briefing. 

The News division is set to lose about 70 staff, the Entertainment and 

Specialist division 53 staff and the Regional and Local division 19. 

Mr Anderson said there would be changes to executive staffing, but did 

not offer any details. 

And he said the organisation would aim to have 75 per cent of its contentmakers 

based outside its Sydney headquarters by 2025. 

The ABC had already flagged that it would shed about 250 jobs due to a 

three-year funding indexation pause announced by the Federal 

Government in 2018. 

Mr Anderson said the flagship 7:45am radio news bulletins would end, and 

be replaced by a five-minute bulletin at 8:00am. A 10-minute bulletin at 

7:00am will remain. 

The changes include: 

• ABC Life will become ABC Local and have a "broader editorial 

direction" 

• The travel budget will be cut by 25 per cent 

• Spending on external and independent television productions will be 

cut by $5 million a year 

• The ABC Comedy television channel will be rebranded to cater for a 

broader array of programs and content 

• Leasing of space at the ABC's Sydney headquarters will be explored 

• TV and radio broadcast channels will remain, but transmission cuts 

have been flagged for future years 

Regional and Local director Judith Whelan said ABC Life would lose nine 

staff. 

ABC Life editor Bhakthi Puvanenthiran said on Twitter that her team would 

be drastically cut under the change.


"It's devastating news and the details are unclear right now, but what I 

know for sure is I'm really proud of what we've built, telling diverse stories 

the ABC has never told before," she said. 

After the indexation freeze announced in the 2018 budget, then-managing 

director Michelle Guthrie said the organisation had suffered $254 million in 

cuts since 2014. 

The changes were announced as part of the ABC's new five-year plan, the 

main focus of which is pivoting the corporation towards on-demand and 

digital services and being "more relevant to more Australians". 

Part of the announced changes are the move to have the bulk of staff 

in areas outside of Sydney. (ABC North And West: Gary-Jon Lysaght) 

Government welcomes plan to move staff outside of Ultimo 

The ABC has long faced criticism from federal Coalition politicians, 

particularly those in the National Party, who have accused it of being too 

Sydney-centric. 

"To be more relevant we need the ABC to be in more communities," Mr 

Anderson said. 

"This is a difficult time for everyone. But the changes we have announced 

today are necessary to ensure the continuation of the essential services we 

provide in an increasingly challenging global media market. 

"The changes we make today will strengthen our position for the next five 

years and beyond."


Federal Communications Minister Paul Fletcher said he welcomed the 

ABC's commitment to make sure the bulk of its workforce was outside of 

the Ultimo offices. 

"The ABC needs to reflect all of Australia, and Sydney is not Australia and 

Ultimo is not Sydney," he said. 

"I welcome the fact that there's a commitment to no loss of jobs in regional 

Australia." 

Mr Fletcher said the job losses as a result of the funding cuts was not the 

Government's responsibility, but the ABC's board and management. 

Journalism jobs shed across media industry 

The ABC job losses come in the wake of a series of cuts and restructures at 

other Australian media organisations this year, bringing with them 

hundreds of job losses. 

The Australian Associated Press newswire was saved from impending 

closure after a group of investors and philanthropists stepped in, offering 

to buy the business. 

In May, News Corp announced a major restructure that will see almost all 

of its community and regional newspaper titles move to a digital-only 

format. 

Earlier this year, online news site Buzzfeed shut down its Australian 

operations and Network 10 closed its website 10Daily. 

Federal Labor Leader Anthony Albanese said the value of the ABC to both 

city and regional audiences was clear. 

"The ABC cuts that were made by this Government have had an impact on 

jobs and the quality of services provided," he said. 

"During the bushfires the ABC literally saved lives … people were relying on 

the ABC, it was the thing they could depend upon to tell them whether to 

go or leave. 

"It's appalling that the Government hasn't recognised that."


Labor leader Anthony Albanese said the 'ABC saved lives' during bushfires, 

condemns cuts. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-24/abc-announces-cuts-toprogramming-and-jobs-funding/12384972



$10 million for Fox Sports slammed as 

‘handout to Murdoch mates’ 

… $10 million would go a long way to supporting sports coverage to 

which all Australians can see for free. 

Reported by Josh Butler I Political Editor I The New Daily 

on July 22, 2020 

Foxtel will get $10 million to support the broadcast of women’s sports and 

“niche” competitions, in a move slammed as “the height of arrogance”. 

Communications minister Paul Fletcher and sports minister Richard 

Colbeck announced on Wednesday that the federal government had 

allocated the sum to Fox Sports,” to continue its support of coverage of 

women’s, niche and other under-represented sports”. 

Mr Fletcher said Fox Sports had “a strong commitment to broadcasting 

sports and events that may not otherwise receive television coverage.” 

It is an extension of a previous $30 million grant to the broadcaster in 

2017. Questions were raised over that decision, after the government 

declined to answer why and how the funding was allocated and spent. 

Mr Fletcher and Mr Colbeck said that in the last year, Fox Sports had 

broadcast “more than 4,888 hours of content” covered by the previous 

grant allocation. This included more than 3000 hours of women’s sport, 

said to be a doubling of the amount shown in 2016. 

“Giving tens of millions to Fox Sports while cutting funding to the ABC 

really is the height of arrogance,” Senator Hanson-Young told The New 

Daily. 

“This funding program for Murdoch’s Fox Sports says everything about the 

priorities of the Morrison Government. The Morrison Government is 

handing out millions of dollars of taxpayer money to a private, corporate 

broadcaster while slashing funding at the public broadcaster.” 

Labor MP Brian Mitchell claimed it was “rubbing the ABC’s face in it”.


The New Daily has contacted Mr Fletcher’s office for further information on 

how the funding was allocated, and whether the ABC or SBS were eligible 

to apply for the funding. 

“Today’s announcement raised taxpayer funding of Fox Sports to 

$40 million over six years, but provided no further transparency about 

these hand-outs, about which serious questions remain,” the Labor pair 

said, asking about the application process and which sports would be 

supported. 

“At a time when Australia is in recession, many households are facing 

unemployment and money is tight, $10 million would go a long way to 

supporting sports coverage to which all Australians can see for free.” 

“Australia’s sportswomen deserve better. Young girls can’t be what they 

can’t see.” 

Senator Hanson-Young also said women’s sport could be better promoted 

through free-to-air channels. 

Source: 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2020/07/22/10-million-for-fox-sports/ 

Paul Fletcher’s media release dated 22 July 2020 – next page


SCOMOs death by a thousand cuts



ABC, SBS exclusion from tech giants' payments 

a 'government' decision 

Reported by Zoe Samios and Fergus Hunter – The Sydney Morning 

Herald on August 3, 2020 

Competition tsar Rod Sims has said he did not provide the Morrison 

government with advice on whether public broadcasters, ABC and SBS, 

should be remunerated by Google and Facebook because the matter was 

too complicated. 

Mr Sims had previously expressed an intention to include ABC and SBS in 

the revenue-sharing part of a code of conduct, which will try to force 

Google and Facebook to compensate publishers for the use of news 

content. But the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 

(ACCC) appeared to have backflipped when it released the draft version of 

the code on Friday. Mr Sims indicated that the final decision was made 

by government. 

Under the draft code Google and Facebook will have three months to 

negotiate revenue-sharing deals with media companies before 

independent arbitrators are called in to impose a compulsory arrangement. 

The platforms will potentially face hundreds of millions of dollars in fines 

for breaches. 

Commercial media companies including Nine Entertainment Co 

(owner of this masthead) argued that the two public broadcasters 

shouldn't be compensated because they don't rely on advertising to fund 

journalism and their operating models haven't been undermined by the 

platforms' dominance. News Corp’s submission to the inquiry, which is 

available publicly, lobbied for the ABC to be included. 

An SBS spokesperson said the broadcaster was "disappointed" to have 

been excluded from the remuneration provisions.


"Nearly a third of our funding comes from commercial sources, so it is 

appropriate that Google and Facebook contribute to investment in our 

valued news content, which benefits all Australians," the spokesperson said. 

"We will continue to engage constructively in this process prior to the 

finalisation of the code." 

ABC declined to comment. 

News publishers and the digital platforms are expected to provide 

responses to the draft legislation by August 28. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/abc-sbs-exclusion-from-tech-giantspayments-a-government-decision-20200731-p55hfh.html 

ACCC chairman Rod Sims said that the inclusion of ABC and SBS 

was a matter for government. CREDIT:LOUIE DOUVIS



The ABC’s exemplary punishment of Emma Alberici 

sends a message to other journalists 

Reported by Bernard Keane is Crikey's political editor 


Someone at the ABC is leaking confidential information about Emma 

Alberici to its — and her — enemies at News Corp. What signal does that 

send to journalists whose job is to hold the powerful to account? 

EMMA ALBERICI (IMAGE: AAP/RICHARD WAINWRIGHT 

The ABC is normally quick to respond to attacks on itself and its staff made 

by other media outlets. 

It has an entire web page dedicated to “correcting the record”. When Dr 

Norman Swan was criticised for his coverage of the pandemic, the ABC 

released a long statement defending him.


An Australian attack on the ABC’s investigative reporting team drew 

a lengthy rebuke. An item on the ABC’s search engine optimisation 

practices elicited a monster 900-word response by ABC News 

communications lead Sally Jackson (coincidentally herself a 

former Australian media journalist). There are also media 

releases correcting claims by other media figures. 

But the ABC has fallen strangely silent recently as The Australian has 

attacked journalist Emma Alberici — including publishing confidential 

information about her employment. 

Alberici has been a regular punching bag for News Corp publications, 

The Australian Financial Review and senior Coalition figures for years. 

The government and its media cheerleaders launched an onslaught in 

2018 after she published an excellent, detailed analysis of company tax 

payments, one that survived multiple attempts, including by the ABC, to 

discredit it. 

That piece prompted fury from business figures whose companies were 

exposed as failing to pay tax and prompted phone calls by prime minister 

Malcolm Turnbull to friend and then-ABC chair Justin Milne. Milne, later to 

resign amid suggestions of sexual harassment, demanded then-managing 

director Michelle Guthrie fire Alberici because “they hate her”. Turnbull’s 

chief media adviser during the controversy was former senior ABC 

journalist — and one of Alberici’s predecessors as economics 

correspondent — Mark Simkin. 

Turnbull’s dislike of Alberici was said to go back further, to her handling 

of a 2013 election debate over the NBN. 

In recent weeks, however, the constant targeting of the journalist by 

News Corp and the AFR has shifted as the ABC has embarked on a round 

of redundancies. The Australian has repeatedly run details about Alberici’s 

employment status that can only have come from within the ABC — and 

which seem to breach basic requirements of staff confidentiality.


On June 25, The Australian reported not merely that Alberici had been 

targeted for redundancy by the ABC — which was widely known after the 

ABC announced its latest round of redundancies the previous day — but 

that “the ABC will undertake a ‘process of consultation’ with her, in which it 

will consult Alberici ‘on positions that fit with her skills set … she may move 

to another area, such as the ABC news channel’ ”. 

On July 20, Nick Tabakoff speculated Alberici could become a “shock jock”. 

Last week he reported her “redundancy is understood to have been 

reaffirmed” and “prospects of a radio redeployment occurring have faded”, 

though evidence there ever was a “radio redeployment” outside Tabakoff’s 

head is hard to find. This week Alberici is being reported as having refused 

an ABC News channel offer. 

The message from the leaks and their reporting is clear: the ABC has done 

its darnedest to find a role for Alberici (to the extent that reading an 

autocue for the handful of viewers who watch the ABC news channel is a 

role) but, sadly, can’t find one she will deign to accept. 

In contrast to the ABC’s regular output of corrections and refutations, there 

hasn’t been a single “Correcting the Record” response, of even modest 

length. 

In most corporations and public sector agencies, staffing matters are 

confidential. Workplace privacy principles limit what third parties can 

receive information about staff and when. Usually, not even colleagues are 

supposed to know about matters pertaining to issues like remuneration, 

conflict management, performance management and redundancy. 

The ABC knows this: it famously caused difficulties for itself over the years 

by refusing to reveal the salaries of high-profile staff to parliamentary 

committees. 

Alberici, however, appears to be an exception. Either confidential 

information about Alberici’s employment is being widely shared within the 

corporation, and being fed to another outlet, or those who hold such 

information close within senior management and ABC HR are themselves 

leaking it.


The ABC disputes that information is being leaked about Alberici. 

“Confidential information relating to potential redundancies has not been 

disclosed and no one in ABC management has commented in any way,” a 

spokesperson told Crikey. “Under the [ABC] enterprise agreement (EA), 

information regarding potentially redundant positions is included in the 

proposals for change, which are made available to all staff.” 

While it is correct that Alberici’s position, along with other positions 

proposed for redundancy, was identified to staff as being made redundant 

on June 24, that doesn’t address how personal information specific to her 

own redundancy process such as potential other roles and consultations 

about her “skill set” was also shared in accordance with the corporation’s 

EA. 

“Employees are consulted on how to respond to media speculation,” the 

ABC added. 

Alberici has resisted being forced out of the ABC, adding to her 2018 sin in 

the eye of executives of upsetting the Coalition and business with her 

journalism, and refusing to back down over it. 

It’s worth recalling how extraordinary the attacks by the government were 

on Alberici over an article that, far from being “riddled with errors”, as 

critics claimed, was forensic. 

Since the election of the current government in 2013, the tradition of 

ministers only communicating with the ABC via correspondence with the 

chair — a tradition observed, with trivial exceptions, by Coalition ministers 

like Richard Alston and Helen Coonan, and Labor’s Stephen Conroy, has 

been trashed. Under the current government, prime ministers and ministers 

feel free to complain directly to ABC executives. 

Remarkably, there has been no pushback from the ABC on this breach. 

Disturbingly, complaints from the prime minister’s office have been 

sent straight to the ABC director of news, Gaven Morris, for his personal 

actioning. 

Such complaints have traditionally been handled at arm’s length.


Then chair and managing director Donald McDonald and Russell Balding, 

and minister Richard Alston, were all scrupulous in keeping the enormous 

controversy over Alston’s 2003 complaints about the ABC’s Iraq War 

coverage confined to minister-chair correspondence and the ABC’s 

independent complaints handling processes. Under more recent 

management, Morris appears to take a different approach that is far more 

responsive to the Coalition. 

In one of the articles speculating about Alberici’s redundancy, The 

Australian journalist mocked her for her lack of work as the ABC’s chief 

economics correspondent, the role she was moved to after the axing of the 

long-running Lateline current affairs program, which has left a major hole 

in the ABC’s current affairs coverage. 

However, Crikey understands ABC management and editors have acted to 

prevent, or refused to publish, Alberici’s work in the economics role. 

Sources within the corporation say management has effectively blocked 

the economics route for her, prompting Alberici to make herself useful 

elsewhere, including on Foreign Correspondent and on Sydney radio. 

Alberici declined to respond to questions and directed Crikey to her 

lawyers, who did not return calls. 

Given how cowed ABC news and current affairs has become in recent 

years, the treatment meted out to Alberici, beyond the breach of staff 

confidentiality, seems designed to send a signal to ABC journalists: 

upset the Coalition, and defend your journalism, and you’ll be the 

subject of a public campaign designed to portray you in an 

unflattering light — including to any future employers in what is left 

of Australia’s media. 

At a time when Australian journalism is under existential threat, it’s a grim 

signal of how the ABC will approach the challenge of providing public 

interest journalism that holds the powerful to account. 

Source: 

https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/08/05/the-abc-alberici/



Ita and the ABC: out with the old and in with the new 

David Hardaker – Crikey on September 8, 2020 

Even as the national broadcaster lets 200-plus journalists and producers 

go, it's busy hiring a younger, more agile — and cheaper — workforce. 

COMMUNICATIONS MINISTER PAUL FLETCHER AND ABC CHAIR ITA BUTTROSE 

(IMAGES: AAP/ALEX MURRAY, AAP/LUKAS COCH) 

As dozens more journalists and producers walked out the door last week , 

part of an exodus of 250 staff, the ABC was quietly hiring a fresh pool of 

talent. 

The broadcaster has ads out for a dozen jobs for back-end developers, 

front-end developers, engineers, software developers and other digital 

experts as it thrusts into an IT-led future. 

It’s the new era of public broadcasting, one where, the ABC told Inq, it 

would require staff “with new skills that are in high demand, especially in 

information technology”. For the moment concepts like editorial 

independence are looking a little analogue. 

Eighteen months after being appointed ABC chair as a prime minister’s 

captain’s pick, Ita Buttrose has a monumental job to stop the organisation’s 

decline. 

Morrison hired Buttrose with the most flattering of words: “Australians trust 

Ita. I trust Ita. And that’s why I have asked her to take on this role,” he said.


Since that golden February day in 2019 — Ita was “honoured”, she said — 

it’s all gone south. 

And now there’s a new level of cold intent. The government will give 

nothing, despite the ABC pouring massive resources into covering the 

bushfires and despite the hundreds of employees who find themselves out 

on the streets in a recession. 

It has also cut the ABC out of its fee-for-news demand from Google and 

Facebook on the grounds it is funded by government not advertising 

revenue, meanwhile ensuring the Murdoch and Nine organisations are paid 

— another inventive turn of the screw. 

So what should Ita do? 

“I would like to see Ita now start to take the case for the proper funding of 

the ABC to the Australian community,” Maxine McKew, former high-profile 

ABC journalist and former member of the Rudd government, told Inq. 

McKew says she was “part of the cheer squad” when Buttrose was 

appointed. The decision was “inspired” because Buttrose was one of the 

most trusted figures in Australia. 

“Ita did the right thing when she publicly called out [Communications 

Minister] Paul Fletcher when he denied there’d been budget cuts,” McKew 

said, referring to reports Buttrose had “lashed” Fletcher over the cuts of 

some $84 million this year. Buttrose had also accused Fletcher of lying. 

But McKew believes it’s time for Buttrose to go public to push the ABC’s 

case with “a consistent and well-argued campaign about what’s at stake”. 

“Ita is an absolute terrier for the public interest,” she says. “She 

demonstrated that in the 1980s when she was asked to lead the AIDS 

campaign in order to promote public health. The issue now is the health of 

our democracy which requires a robust ABC.” 

President of the NSW and ACT Friends of the ABC Professor Ed Davis says 

Buttrose spoke to the group and left it in no doubt of her “deep 

commitment” to a well-funded ABC.


“We do see her going in hard and she does a lot, presumably, that we 

don’t see,” he says. “I am deeply concerned at how incredibly influential the 

IPA [Institute of Public Affairs] and News Corporation are on this 

government, and they are brazen in their desire to see an emasculated 

ABC.” 

The 19-year war of attrition 

The Coalition’s war of attrition on the ABC has carried on for 19 of the past 

25 years — it started when the Howard government was elected. Some 

government members have been there for the long haul, including serial 

complainant Eric Abetz and Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells. 

These long-haul ideologues also include Fletcher. He was a staffer to 

Howard-era communications minister Richard Alston, the Victorian senator 

who launched a sustained years-long attack on the ABC from the mid ’90s. 

Alston infamously compiled a dossier claiming 68 instances of anti- 

American bias by the influential current affairs radio program AM during its 

coverage of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. It zeroed in on individual 

words used by reporters. Was “crisis” justified? “Catastrophe”? Was it really 

“tens of thousands” who demonstrated in Gaza? 

Alston’s strategy triggered a complaints process that became a bog for 

reporters and executives and set the template for how to place the ABC 

under siege. 

Fletcher is a party lifer. Now 55, he joined the Young Liberals at 16. He 

trained as a lawyer but has found his true home at the intersection of hardright 

politics and business. 

His instinct, he told the parliament in his first speech, was for “open 

markets, free competition and as little state interference as possible”. 

Seven Network’s commercial director Bruce McWilliam was a referee for 

Fletcher’s preselection when a seat was found for him on Sydney’s north 

shore in 2009. McWilliam is an old mate of Turnbull. Fletcher served as 

parliamentary secretary to Turnbull when he was communications 

minister. Circles within circles.


Fletcher took up office in May last year, three months after Buttrose’s ABC 

appointment. Her appointment had calmed the ABC after it imploded in 

2018. But plenty of unexploded ordnance was carried over, principally its 

digital transformation — a large piece of infrastructure which it needs to 

connect to its audiences, but which the government refuses to fund. 

Former ABC chair and Turnbull tech buddy Justin Milne had pushed the 

case for a far-reaching project called Jetstream. It had an estimated cost of 

$500 million but no plan attached and was dumped at the end of 2018 

along with Milne. 

At the same time another Turnbull appointee, the tech-and-data-driven 

media business investor Peter Tonagh, was at work on another “efficiency” 

review. Tonagh, fresh from running Foxtel, concluded that a whole-of-ABC 

digital transformation was needed. 

Labor’s communications spokeswoman Michelle Rowland told Inq that 

Milne and the ABC board were right that its IT systems needed to be 

“substantially upgraded” but that Fletcher had done little. 

“Nearly 18 months in we’ve got no principles, no roadmap, no timeframe,” 

she says. “The only bit of public policy we’ve seen on the ABC is the 

regional and rural bill still before the parliament. It’s listed every fortnight 

but never comes on for debate.” 

Turmoil is good news for some 

A new direction means — hey presto — new skills. As the ABC told Inq: 

“Continuous training will be necessary in every role as staff are required to 

adapt to new technologies and processes. This, in turn, will place greater 

demand on the need for effective and ongoing change management.” 

Consultants may be in for a bonanza. The BBC spent just on $200 million 

with Siemens consultants before it abandoned its first attempt at digital 

transformation. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation — with a charter 

similar to the ABC’s — has been given additional government funding of 

$150 million a year for the next several years, to make up for previous cuts 

and to implement its transformation.


The problem for the ABC is that the Morrison government will not pay 

for the digital overhaul even though it is as fundamental to 

broadcasting now as transmission towers once were. 

How much money is involved? The ABC won’t say. It also won’t detail what 

needs to be done. But the zero-sum game imposed on the ABC means that 

every dollar spent on digital transformation is a dollar less on ABC 

production. 

Former senior ABC editorial executive Alan Sunderland says digital 

transformation carries the additional risk of commercialising productions. 

“The number of digital platforms the ABC has to reach to get to its 

audience is expanding,” he says. “And this means the ABC is at risk of 

having its content on third-party platforms which the ABC cannot control.” 

Sunderland cited the example of YouTube which might want to place 

advertising around ABC children’s content. Digital platforms might refuse 

to carry ABC content if advertising wasn’t allowed. Alternatively its editorial 

decisions might be influenced by the need to produce income-generating 

content. 

The ABC has tried different survival techniques over the past 25 years. It 

has used Insiders as a vehicle to bring Murdoch media opponents like 

Gerard Henderson and Greg Sheridan into the tent. Q&A serves a similar 

purpose. 

Come election time it measures — to the minute — the broadcast time 

given to the major parties to head off bias accusations. It has hired senior 

political reporters Laura Tingle, Andrew Probyn and David Speers from 

outside the ABC. And it has produced the soft-focus Kitchen Cabinet. 

It has also invited the fringe, anti-regulation ideologues of the IPA on to its 

panel programs, giving them space to pontificate on issues way beyond 

their remit. And it has handed entire radio programs to conservative 

figures Amanda Vanstone and Tom Switzer. 

But there are complaints from inside the ABC of self-censorship by gun-shy 

editorial executives wary of the inevitable government complaint or 

Murdoch attack.


University of Melbourne journalism academic Denis Muller has 

revealed that the ABC asked him to water down his criticism of the 

National Party’s Barnaby Joyce in a piece he was asked to write on a 

$150,000 fee paid for an exclusive interview with Joyce and his partner 

Vikki Campion. Muller told Inq it was time the ABC defended its 

journalism, rather than buckle. 

Appeasement clearly has not worked. Last week the exodus of senior staff 

continued. In this climate, experienced staff are an endangered species — 

not because they rock the boat but because they are a cost burden, with 

superannuation, holiday pay etc. Look out for a more “agile” workforce of 

contract workers and part-timers. 

And Communications Minister Paul Fletcher? What happened to all that 

talk of trust? Fletcher’s office told Inq that the minister “enjoys a good 

working relationship” with Buttrose and ABC managing director David 

Anderson and that he “engages with them regularly.” Neither Buttrose nor 

Anderson were available to speak to Inq. 

The ABC is making the public case that what it does matters because of the 

very real threat to democracy posed by the proliferation of misinformation. 

Tell that to the Morrison government. 

As one senior departee told Inq: the Murdoch agenda isn’t ideological — 

it’s commercial. The worse it gets for the ABC the better it gets for the 

Murdoch media and, presumably, the Morrison government. 

Source: 

https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/09/08/ita-buttrose-abc-new-staff-hires/ 

David Hardaker 


REPORTER @D_HARDAKER 

David has an extensive career as a 

journalist and broadcaster, primarily 

at the ABC where he worked on 

flagship programs such as 

Four Corners, 7.30, Foreign 

Correspondent, AM and PM. 

He spent eight years reporting in the 

Middle East and can speak Arabic.



Foxtel given $10 million federal grant without plan 

for spending it, FOI documents reveal 

by business reporter Daniel Ziffer for ABC News on 13 November 2020 

The ABC has paid Foxtel so it can broadcast international matches 

played by the Matildas. (AAP: James Elsby) 

Foxtel has been given a blank sheet for choosing how to spend a $10 

million Federal Government grant and does not need to submit anything 

about it until next year, documents reveal. 

Key points: 

• The documents come after Sports Minister Richard Colbeck 

personally intervened to block documents about the controversial 

grant being released 

• The $10 million grant is an extension of a $30 million program that 

was announced in a single line in the 2017 Federal Budget 

• A Communications Department spokesperson said Foxtel was only 

provided flexibility on how it presented information it was required to 

report on


The documents, obtained under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, 

show the Federal Communications Department gave Foxtel free rein to 

allocate millions of dollars of taxpayer money granted to broadcast underrepresented 

sports. 

"The Grantee will prepare a 'Re-establishment and Acceleration Plan' for 

2020-21 and provide the proposed … Plan to the Commonwealth," emails 

from inside the department to Communications Department assistant 

secretary Mike Makin reveal. 

"The form and structure of the 'Re-establishment and Acceleration 

Plan' will be a matter for the Grantee." 

Emails suggest what is required, such as the need to list the sports Foxtel 

pays for and plays, but no actual plan has been written down, and Foxtel 

will not need to hand one in until next year. 

"The plan is not due to be submitted until 2021 so does not yet exist," Mr 

Makin wrote in a letter giving access to three email chains. 

Mr Makin was both the sender or recipient of all the emails released. He 

was also the officer authorised to decide what was released or censored 

from inside the department. 

Foxtel denies that variations to the contract, revealed in the FOI 

documents, let it write its own rules. 

"These are contained in the Grant Agreement. We determine the form and 

structure of the report (i.e. there is no template)," Foxtel chief 

communications officer Paul Edwards wrote in response to questions. 

The agreement with the Government insists Foxtel must produce a 

'Strategic Road-Map' each year. 

It has never been published, although the broadcaster said it showed more 

than 4,888 hours of sports during the 2019/20 financial year, beating an 

unknown target by 5 per cent.


"While the form and structure of the Re-establishment and Acceleration 

Plan is a matter for Fox Sports, the minimum inclusions required in the 

report are clearly outlined in the Grant Agreement. All of our strategic 

roadmaps and plans are subject to acceptance by the Commonwealth 

before any Grant monies are released," Mr Edwards added. 

FOI documents previously unearthed by the ABC highlighted the speed 

with which the grant was delivered as departmental staff expedited 

approvals. 

Funding for Foxtel worth $17.5 million was created or brought 

forward after the organisation was initially snubbed when other media 

groups received support packages at the start of the COVID pandemic. 

Sports Minister Richard Colbeck steps in 

The documents come after Minister for Youth and Sport, Richard Colbeck, 

personally intervened to block documents from his office about the 

controversial grant. 

Senator Colbeck is also the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians 

and was under fire this year over the aged care sector's response to the 


The overwhelming majority of the nation's 907 coronavirus fatalities have 

been aged care residents, and a special report of the aged care royal 

commission found the Federal Government's actions were "insufficient" to 

ensure the sector was prepared. 

Despite those pressing concerns, on September 30, Senator Colbeck 

wrote and signed a letter preventing the release of two documents 

relating to the grant. 

"I am authorised ... to make decisions in relation to Freedom of Information 

requests," he wrote. 

"I have decided to redact certain personal and business information from 

the documents." 

The $10 million grant is an extension of a $30 million program that 

has been controversial since it was announced through a single line in 

the 2017 budget.


Fox Sports is only available by paying a subscription to Foxtel, meaning 

taxpayers must pay to watch the sports they are already paying to 

broadcast. 

Taxpayers are also paying Foxtel for sport in a third way. Speaking at 

a Senate committee hearing, ABC managing director David Anderson 

said the public broadcaster was trying to cover more women's sport, 

but that it was "reasonably expensive" to cover whole seasons of 

certain sports. 

Instead, the ABC has paid Foxtel so it can broadcast international 

matches played by the Matildas football team. 

"There is some cost attached," he said. 

Questioned at the same October 21 hearing, a department spokesman was 

unable to say whether the Matildas games were already paid for by the 

$40 million grant from the taxpayer, with Foxtel then being paid again 

by the taxpayer-funded ABC to access and broadcast them. 

Plan for a plan 

Emails from inside the Communications Department show the process for 

allowing Foxtel to make its own decisions about spending taxpayer funds. 

"I can see that you have a meeting with Fox Sports today," an unnamed 

staff member wrote to Mr Makin on August 6. 

"Some of it (such as deliverable dates) will need updating as things have 

progressed since late June." 

Less than a week later, a staff member emailed Mr Makin with some 

suggested dot points to put to the company. 

"If you are happy with this requirement for the (Plan) then I suggest an 

email be sent to Foxtel along the following lines," it read. 

Shortly afterwards, Mr Makin sent almost identical points to Foxtel. 

"Thank you both for meeting with [REDACTED] and I last Thursday to 

discuss finalising the variation to the grant for women's, niche and underrepresented 

sports," he wrote.


After a Federal Government support package snubbed Foxtel and 

rewarded some of its rivals, Communications Department staff helped fast 

track $17.5 million in taxpayer funds for the company, smashing normal 

Federal Cabinet processes for approval. 

Foxtel received an early payment of $7.5 million in Government grants 

for sports coverage, plus an additional $10 million grant. 

The decision was fast-tracked through Cabinet breaking the normal "10- 

Day Rule" intended to give ministers time to assess proposals 

Hundreds of pages of documents from the offices of the Prime Minister, 

Communications Minister and Foxtel — including personal emails, letters 

and cabinet submissions obtained through FOI — reveal the speed with 

which the broadcaster was awarded a $10 million extension to the existing 

$30 million contract. 

Neither payment made to the company, which is majority owned by Rupert 

Murdoch's News Corporation (65 per cent) and part-owned by Telstra (35 

per cent), were ever put out to any form of competitive tender. 

The new documents add to what we know about extensive 

communications between the offices of the Prime Minister and 

Communications Minister. 

A previous application was partly refused by Mr Fletcher's chief of staff 

Ryan Bloxsom because, he wrote, if emails between the offices became 

public it could harm their working relationship "now and into the future". 

Greens say emails show little concern for value 

The Communications Department said the company was not given 

discretion on the details of what it is required to report on, despite the 

emails from one of its most senior members stating that it did. 

A spokesperson for the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional 

Development and Communications said in a statement Foxtel was only 

provided flexibility on how it presented information it was required to 

report on.


"Fox Sports, like any recipient under a Commonwealth grant, are not able 

to 'write its own rules for spending the money', and must comply with 

standard performance milestones and reporting requirements," the 

spokesperson said. 

"The varied agreement clearly sets out the Commonwealth's requirements 

in relation to delivering the extended under-represented sports program ... 

This plan is due to be submitted to the Department in January 2021." 

Greens spokesperson for media and communications Senator Sarah 

Hanson-Young has followed the controversial grant since its inception. 

"It appears that the Government has given Foxtel a blank cheque," she said. 

"First it was $30 million, now it's $40 million, with the extra 

$10 million dressed up as part of the Government's 'COVID measures'. 

A nice deal if you can get it. This is taxpayer's money, and yet these emails 

show that very little concern for how the money would be spent or what 

value the public would get." 

How you know about this 

The documents used in this article were obtained using the FOI process, 

designed to give taxpayers access to the inner workings of government 

departments. 

They were prised from the public service over a period of months and have 

been heavily redacted. 

Some pages are almost entirely completely blanked out. 

Accessing the documents from Senator Colbeck's office involved paying 

$166 to compensate for the time it took staff assess them. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-13/foxtel-given-$10-million-without-plan-tospend-it-foi-reveals/12868704 

-------------------------------- END -----------------------------


Failure: $16m COVIDsafe app 

identified a total of 17 people 

• Technology company DELV was paid to work on 

COVIDSafe and paid more than $3.8 million to help 

develop the government's coronavirus information app 

and around $6 million has been paid for work also 

including the COVIDSafe program. 

• DELV's CEO Masseh Haidary is the husband of Liberal Party 

Canberra candidate Mina Zaki and has in a previous role 

his company hosted MP Angus Taylor in the past at 

business events. 

• So far the cost of COVIDsafe app is almost $1 million for 

each case identified 

✓ $4 million to Develop COVIDsafe app 

✓ $5.2 million Operational Costs 

✓ $7 million on Advertising 

✓ Total Price Tag $16 million


$16 million COVIDsafe app 

which managed to identify a total of 17 people 

Coronavirus: Government's COVIDSafe app could have cost 

'tens of millions' for zero tracing results 

By Jonathan Kearsley and Luke Cooper for Nine News on July 20, 2020 

New questions have been raised about the federal 

government's COVIDSafe mobile app, which is meant to help trace 

contacts of people who have been infected with coronavirus. 

9News can reveal government spending on the app has cost millions more 

than previously thought and one of the companies involved in working on 

it has links to the Liberal Party. 

Technology company DELV was paid to work on COVIDSafe and paid more 

than $3.8 million to help develop the government's coronavirus 

information app and around $6 million has been paid for work also 

including the COVIDSafe program. 

The Australian government's COVIDSafe app seen on an iPhone, in Canberra. 

fedpol Photo: Alex Ellinghausen (Sydney Morning Herald) 

DELV's CEO Masseh Haidary is the husband of Liberal Party Canberra 

candidate Mina Zaki and has in a previous role his company hosted 

MP Angus Taylor in the past at business events.


DELV says it has had a long history of working with governments before Mr 

Haidary was appointed CEO of the company last year. 

A spokesman for Health Minister Greg Hunt, said: "The entire procurement 

process for the both the COVIDSafe app and the Coronavirus information 

app has been undertaken under Australian Government procurement 

rules." 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison addresses the media during a press conference 

on the government's response to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. 

fedpol Photo: Alex Ellinghausen (Sydney Morning Herald) 

The health department said there is no requirement for Mr Haidary or any 

tender applicant to declare any political interests. 

An additional $64 million has been spent on advertising, but the 

government has not confirmed how much of the promotional material 

landed on the app itself. 

"What we thought was a $2 million dud now looks like it's a $70 million 

dud," Labor's Bill Shorten said today. 

While Prime Minister Scott Morrison originally told Australians it would 

offer them protection from COVID-19 cases, the app is yet to find a single 

contact not already picked up by tracers.


9News can reveal government spending on the app has cost millions more than 

previously thought and one of the companies involved in working on it has links to 

the Liberal Party. (Sydney Morning Herald) 

More than 4600 cases have been diagnosed in Victoria since it was 

launched, with the app only being accessed just 325 times for zero results. 

In NSW, 586 cases have been identified but the app was used just 12 times 

and no cases found solely from its operation. 

One of the app's big issues has been the 15 minutes people need to be 

close to each other for COVIDSafe to register a close contact. 

That feature is now the subject of discussions by state governments to see 

if the Coalition can change that aspect of the program. 

Source: 

https://www.9news.com.au/national/coronavirus-covidsafe-app-could-have-cost- 

contact-tracing-millions-in-advertising-government-health-news/bd69cbbe-ad14- 

4547-baf9-eb81aead1198


$16 million COVIDsafe app 

which managed to identify a total of 17 people 

Digital agency boss defends COVIDSafe app 

Daniel McCulloch for Yahoo Finance on 29 October 2020 

The man responsible for building Australia's coronavirus tracing app 

has defended the technology, which has so far cost almost $1 million 

for each case identified 

Seven million people have downloaded and registered for the COVIDSafe app. 


Randall Brugeaud from the Digital Transformation Agency flatly rejected 

suggestions the COVIDSafe app was not working. 

"The app is absolutely working," he told a Senate estimates hearing on 

Thursday. 

"There is no question as to whether the app is capturing close contacts and 

contributing to the public health effort." 

More than seven million Australians have downloaded and registered for 

the app, which cost $4 million to develop. 

Another $5.2 million has been spent on operational costs and almost 

$7 million on advertising, taking the total price tag to roughly $16 

million. 

The app has only helped find 17 contacts not found by manual tracers. 

Mr Brugeaud said the problem was not with the technology.


"The numbers that we get are the numbers that are reported by the states 

and territories," he said. 

"The states and territories are the owners of the health-related information, 

so all of the contact information. The Department of Health federally owns 

the business side of the app." 

Everyone identified through the app has been in NSW. 

Mr Brugeaud said hundreds more cases that would not otherwise have 

been found were uncovered as a result. 

The app has been updated 13 times since it was launched in late April. 

Mr Brugeaud said security was always front of mind. 

"As vulnerabilities emerge we progressively release improvements to the 

app," he said. 

"Now, if new vulnerabilities emerge that are high risk, then we will 

accelerate the implementation of those changes." 

The DTA is not considering integrating QR codes into the app. 

Mr Brugeaud said it would be technically simple but would breach 

legislation controlling use of the app by capturing location information. 

"We are prevented from knowing where people are and having that level 

of granularity," he said. 

Source: 

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/digital-agency-boss-defends-covidsafe-app- 

062739422--spt.html 

-------------------------------- END -----------------------------


Failure-Recycling: Coalition's 

$100m scheme to fund recycled 

products has spent no money 

A Promise ahead of the 2019 election 

$100 million scheme 

to fund the manufacturing of products from 

recycled plastics and paper has not used any of its 

funding, nor supported any initiatives, 

since it was unveiled by the Morrison government


Coalition's $100 million scheme to fund recycled products 

has spent no money 

By Elias Visontay, reporter for The Guardian on 27 October 2020 

Labor and the Greens accuse the Morrison government of failing 

to deliver on its recycling and waste commitments 

Scott Morrison tours the Visy recycling facility in Brisbane. 

The government’s Recycling Investment Fund, unveiled before the 2019 election, 

has not approved any projects yet. Photograph: Darren England/AAP 

A $100 million scheme to fund the manufacturing of products from 

recycled plastics and paper has not used any of its funding, nor 

supported any initiatives, since it was unveiled by the Morrison 

government ahead of the 2019 election. 

Labor has accused the government of failing to deliver on its recycling and 

waste commitments after Senate estimates last week heard leaders in 

charge of the Recycling Investment Fund (Rif) “haven’t entered into any 

transactions at this point”. 

The fund – announced by the prime minister, Scott Morrison, the 

treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, and the then environment minister, Melissa 

Price, in May 2019 – committed $100 million “to support manufacturing of 

lower emissions and energy-efficient recycled content products, such as 

recycled content plastics and paper/pulp”. 

According to its website, the government-owned Clean Energy Finance 

Corporation expected to use the $100 million by providing concessional


loans of about $100 million to “larger-scale commercial and industrial 

projects” that “use clean energy technologies to support the recycling of 

waste plastics, paper, glass and tyres”. 

Applicants for the fund, like all projects the CEFC invests in, need to be 

commercial so they can “deliver a positive return for taxpayers”. 

However, Ian Learmonth, the chief executive of the CEFC, told Senate 

estimates last Tuesday that no recycling projects had been approved for 

loans from the $100 million fund. 

“There has been a very active pipeline of transactions and some active 

negotiations with proponents, but we’ve announced nothing at this point,” 

Learmonth said. “We haven’t entered into any transactions at this point.” 

Learmonth said the CEFC was “very active in the space” and has had “more 

than preliminary” discussions with some potential fund applicants. He said 

he was “optimistic about doing something in the recycling fund” over the 

next 12 months. 

Simon Every, the corporation’s head of government and stakeholder 

relations, also rejected the idea that the $190 million Recycling 

Modernisation Fund, announced by the federal government in July 

this year, was detracting from the Rif because it offered funding as 

opposed to loans. 

Josh Wilson, Labor’s assistant environment spokesman, told Guardian 

Australia “while the government makes regular and carefully packaged 

announcements on waste and recycling, in large part, they are not worth 

the paper they’re printed on”. 

Wilson also noted Senate estimates heard the National Product 

Stewardship Investment Fund – announced alongside the Rif – had made 

no grants yet, meaning “72% of the prime minister’s much-vaunted 

$167 million” of recycling initiatives announced at the election have “made 

no difference to Australia’s serious waste crisis some 18 months later”.


Peter Whish-Wilson, the Greens recycling spokesman, told Guardian 

Australia “given that not a cent has been spent a whole year later, this 

looks to be yet another empty announceable”. 

“It just demonstrates that the government isn’t serious about fixing the 

waste crisis and building a functional circular economy,” he said. 

When Guardian Australia asked the environment minister, Sussan Ley, if 

she was concerned by the output of the Rif, a spokesman did not answer 

directly, instead saying “the Morrison government is driving 

unprecedented investment in waste and recycling and is working closely 

with industry and non-government organisations to drive lasting change”. 

The spokesman also said the $100 million Recycling Investment Fund “has 

a particular focus on large-scale recycling projects which use clean energy 

technologies” and rejected the idea the subsequently announced Recycling 

Modernisation Fund was cannibalising potential applications. 

The government has recently been forced into finding new solutions to 

manage Australia’s waste and recycling, after governments including those 

of Indonesia and Malaysia announced they would return recycling that had 

been “contaminated” with unrelated waste. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-17/murray-darling-missing-water-infloodplains/12887342




Coalition announces $190 million plan to divert 

10 million tonnes of waste from landfill 

by Elias Visontay is a reporter for Guardian Australia on 6 July 2020 

Government hopes to generate $600 million in investment and states 

and territories must match federal contribution to receive funding 

Plastic waste outside an illegal recycling factory in Malaysia. With countries such as 

Malaysia and Indonesia no longer accepting ‘contaminated’ waste, the government 

has been forced to find alternative solutions. Photograph: Lai Seng Sin/Reuters 

The federal government will devote $190 million towards new recycling 

infrastructure, as it looks to divert more than 10 million tonnes of plastic, 

paper and glass waste away from landfill. 

The funding, which will be contingent on state and territory governments 

and industry groups matching the federal contribution, is part of a newly 

launched Recycling Modernisation Fund (RMF) that the Morrison 

government hopes will generate $600 million in investment. 

Both Labor and the Greens have expressed concern at the RMF, arguing 

the funding won’t stop production of problematic materials in the first 

instance and calling for regulatory reform. 

In addition to the $190 million, the federal government will also spend 

$24.6 million on improving waste data to better track recycling targets, as 

well as $35 million towards implementing its commitments under 

the National Waste Policy Action Plan – which include waste export bans, 

plans to increase domestic demand for recycled materials and a national 

resource recovery target of 80% by 2030.


However the first deadline as part of the proposed waste export ban has 

been pushed back, which the government claims is a result of a Covid- 

19 induced legislative backlog. As a result, legislation to enact the bans 

will be introduced sometime later this year, beginning with a ban on 

exporting glass waste from 1 January 2021, which had originally been 

planned to take effect from the second half of 2020. 

The timeframes for other bans – on exporting mixed plastics from 1 July 

2021, tyres from 1 December 2021, single resin and polymer plastics from 1 

July 2022, and paper and cardboard from 1 July 2024 – are unchanged. 

The announcement of the RMF comes after the national plastics summit in 

March when Scott Morrison outlined an overhaul of Commonwealth 

procurement rules to increase demand for recycled products, as part of the 

government’s new recycling policy. 

The government has made reducing plastic waste the focus of its 

environment policy, with Morrison telling a UN climate summit last year his 

government would drastically reduce plastic pollution. 

Monday’s announcement of the RMF comes as government is due to 

release an interim report from the independent review of Australia’s 

national environmental laws, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity 

Conservation Act, led by frm competition watchdog chair, Graeme Samuel. 

The environment minister, Sussan Ley, said the RMF was made contingent 

on state, territory and industry matching the investment because “we need 

manufacturers and industry to take a genuine stewardship role that helps 

create a sustainable circular economy”. 

“As we cease shipping our waste overseas, the waste and recycling 

transformation will reshape our domestic waste industry, driving job 

creation and putting valuable materials back into the economy,” Ley said. 

“Australians need to have faith that the items they place in their kerbside 

recycling bins will be re-used in roads, carpet, building materials and a 

range of other essential items. 

“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to remodel waste 

management, reduce pressure on our environment and create economic 

opportunity,” she said.


The assistant minister for waste reduction and environment, Trevor Evans, 

said “our targeted investment will grow Australia’s circular economy, create 

more jobs and build a stronger onshore recycling industry”. 

Labor’s assistant environment spokesman Josh Wilson criticised the 

government for how long it took to introduce the scheme. 

“Unfortunately today’s announcement is belated action on one part of that 

integrated picture. It does not address the critical area of regulatory reform 

… And there is still no detail on how demand for recycled content will be 

supported through meaningful procurement targets and related 

mechanisms,” he said. 

“We look forward to further detail about the funding and especially the 

timelines,” Wilson said. 

Greens waste and recycling spokesman Peter Whish-Wilson took the 

criticism further, saying the RMF “just won’t work”. 

“All the money in the world isn’t going to fix the waste crisis if we don’t 

improve the way we recycle. This means stopping the problem at its 

source: we need to stop producing so much waste and invest in a ‘circular 

economy’.” 

He criticised the government’s preference for “voluntary schemes”, and 

called for a ban on single-use plastic products. 

“The recycling crisis is a quality crisis - we need to improve the quality of 

the material that is going into the recycling process to begin with,” he said. 

The government has recently been forced into finding new solutions to 

manage Australia’s waste and recycling, after governments including those 

of Indonesia and Malaysia announced they would return recycling that had 

been “contaminated” with unrelated waste. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/06/coalition-announces-190mplan-to-divert-10m-tonnes-of-waste-from-landfill




Australia's recycling crisis: is the government's $190 million on 

new infrastructure worth it? 

by Adam Morton, Environment Editor for The Guardian 

on 26 July 2020 

Environment groups have welcomed the Coalition’s waste measures 

but say the use of recycled content must be made compulsory 

Environment minister Sussan Ley announces a $600m waste industry fund at a 

recycling facility in Canberra earlier this month. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP 

It slipped by reasonably quietly amid the Covid-19 chaos, but earlier this 

month the Coalition government received something it has found hard to 

come by in its nearly 7 years in power – praise on an environmental issue. 

The praise was qualified, and could yet be retracted. It followed the 

environment minister, Sussan Ley, announcing the government 

would spend $190 million on new recycling infrastructure, saying it would 

help divert 10,000 tonnes of plastic, paper and glass waste from landfill. 

The funding is expected to be matched by the states, though the 

breakdown of that is yet to be explained, and by the waste industry, 

forming a $600 million “recycling modernisation fund” to help build 

infrastructure Australia needs to sort rubbish so that it is not contaminated 

and can be turned into useful products.


The government also said it planned to change laws covering “product 

stewardship”, which are meant to ensure manufacturers and retailers take 

responsibility for the products they sell once they become waste. 

It said companies that failed to comply would be “named and shamed” and 

it would become easier for consumers to recycle electronic goods. Grants 

were promised from a $20 million fund to help businesses take greater 

responsibility for products across their lifespan. 

Waste and recycling organisations and environment groups agree these 

were significant steps towards addressing what is widely agreed to be a 

crisis within the industry. They also agree it will fall short of what is 

promised unless the government ensures there is much greater demand 

for recycled material. 

The Boomerang Alliance of 52 environment and community groups wrote 

to Ley and the assistant minister for waste reduction, Trevor Evans, 

welcoming the move to legislate, including a suggestion that new laws 

would introduce potential jail terms for companies that breached the 

government plan. The centre piece of the plan is a staged ban on exporting 

waste glass, plastic tyres and paper. 

But the alliance’s director, Jeff Angel, said the measures needed to go 

further, including powers for the minister to make the use of recycled 

content in packaging compulsory, rather than relying on the goodwill of 

companies. The most recent official data suggests only 16% of plastic 

packaging is recycled, with the rest going to landfill. 

He also called for honesty in labelling “so that packaging products labelled 

as reusable, recyclable or compostable actually are reused, recycled or 

composted – something obviously still not happening”. 

“We look forward to legislation meeting the challenge of stopping waste 

and setting Australia onto the path of much higher levels of recycling,” 

Angel wrote. “Undoubtedly greater employment, new manufacturing 

industry and improved environmental performance of our economy will 

follow.”


Australia caught unprepared 

The seed of the government’s recycling announcement was planted more 

than two years ago, when China introduced what, by Australian standards, 

was an unattainable limit on the level of contaminated material it would 

accept in shipments of foreign plastic waste. 

It threw the global waste and recycling trade into chaos. Australian 

companies redirected recyclable material to south-east Asia, but in 2019 

more countries began turning back containers of recyclable 

rubbish, declaring they would not be dumping grounds. 

Australia was caught unprepared. Compared with other developed 

economies, it generates more waste than average and recycles less. 

Australia had exported about 4.5 million tonnes of waste to Asia each year, 

mostly to Vietnam, Indonesia and China. As waste companies struggled to 

find new buyers, the Victorian operator SKM went into administration and 

warned up to 180,000 tonnes of recyclable material would go to landfill. 

Scott Morrison responded last August with a promise of a ban of his own. 

Speaking after a meeting with state premiers, he said too much rubbish 

was ending up in the oceans and promised Australia would respond by 

stopping the export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres “as soon as 

practicable”. 

The pledge became the centre piece of an address to the UN general 

assembly in New York when, facing criticism over his government’s 

intransigence on the climate crisis, he declared Australia was “acting to 

protect our oceans” and leading on practical research and development 

into recycling. Experts said this was not yet true, but welcomed the intent. 

Responding to the government’s funding announcement, the Australian 

Council of Recycling, which represents about 70 companies, said it was a 

“massive milestone” that would help transform recycling. But its chief, Pete 

Shmigel, says dealing with soft plastics – the type you can crunch up into 

your hand and that are collected at supermarkets – remains a major 

challenge.


He says there are likely solutions for some recyclable material – technology 

could be attached to paper mills to help deal with contamination from 

paper clips, nappies and plastic bottles, for example – but there are few 

plants to deal with soft plastics and little-to-no market for them once 

recovered. He says this could be addressed by requiring the use of recycled 

material not just in packaging, but also road building and major 

construction projects. 

“The truth is we have virtually no market for it. We need to create 

infrastructure to turn the soft plastics to resin and come up with places that 

will use it,” he says. 

“If we did two major road projects in every constituency across the country 

we could double the percentage of soft plastics being recycled and reduce 

oil use. Obviously, that would be a good thing.” 

Make it mandatory 

Shmigel says companies can be encouraged to boost recycling content in a 

number of ways, citing Britain and France’s use of tax credits for those that 

use recycled goods. He suggests a different approach for Australia: a 

declaration that recycled goods would be used to build one multibilliondollar 

piece of infrastructure, such as the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro 

development or the western Sydney airport. 

“They could just say ‘this is where we are going to demonstrate how easy it 

is to use recycled material’,” he says. “If you did that, then other states and 

local governments would have an example and see it wasn’t so hard.” 

The industry argues heading down this path makes sense both 

economically and politically. Shmigel says there are three times as many 

jobs in recycling as in landfill for the same amount of waste, and suggests 

the success of the ABC documentary series War on Waste demonstrated 

people want to do more. “It’s popular. If voting wasn’t compulsory more 

people would recycle than vote,” he says. 

But he says individuals also have a responsibility – that people need to 

move from just thinking about recycling after they use something to 

thinking about whether they are buying recycled goods when they are 

shopping.


Angel says the goal must be a circular economy, a term still little used in 

Australia but common in the European Union, with all parts of the 

community and economy headed in the same direction. He warns against 

this including plans to burn more waste to create energy, a path he says 

creates pollution and greenhouse gas and is little better than sending it to 

landfill. 

He says it requires the government to introduce mandatory procurement 

of recycled goods by its departments and agencies, and notes state and 

federal environment ministers have previously suggested they may make 

action mandatory if the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation, 

representing more than 900 million companies, did not show it could 

meet recycling targets. 

The Morrison government is resisting, preferring – as it does on climate 

change policy – taxpayer-funded incentives over compulsion. It says 

businesses and households will not accept greater regulation, particularly 

during a recession. 

Angel believes this does not bode well. “The problem with the current 

approach is you end up with pilots and case studies, you don’t end up with 

markets,” he says. 

“There is a reason we have container deposit schemes that are mandatory. 

It’s because all the decades of voluntary schemes failed.” 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/26/australias-recycling-crisisis-the-governments-190m-on-new-infrastructure-worth-it 

------------------------------ END --------------------------


Failure-Communities: $600 

million Community Projects = $0 

Spend 

Morrison government is yet to spend more than 

$600 million in cash PROMISED one year ago 

for community projects, just as local councils call 

for urgent funding to boost the economy.


$600 million Community Projects Grants 

promised one year ago = $0 spend 

Federal government still to spend $600 million promised to 

communities 


Morning Herald on May 18, 2020 

3 

The Morrison government is yet to spend more than $600 million in cash 

promised one year ago for community projects, just as local councils call 

for urgent funding to boost the economy. 

The Morrison government still hasn't allocated over $600m of promised funding to 

community projects. CREDIT:ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN 

Local Government NSW president Linda Scott said there was a case for 

spending federal money quickly to mitigate the current crisis. 

"Councils are in pole position to help drive a locally-led recovery from the 

economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, bushfires and drought – but 

to do that they need federal and state support," she said. 

"Every stimulus dollar pushed out through councils boosts local spending, 

keeping local businesses trading, sustaining existing jobs and creating new 

jobs as we emerge from the shutdown phase of the COVID-19 pandemic." 

The federal spending programs were key elements of last year's federal 

budget and election campaign, with Mr Morrison and his ministers 

promising to support local projects from several new funds. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/federal-government-still-to-spend-600mpromised-to-communities-20200518-p54u3q.html 

--------------------------------------- END-----------------------------------


Failure-Community Grants: 

$300M not spent 

One year after the federal election, 

the government allocated $190 million 

from one of its budget programs, 

the Community Development Grants, 

has yet to decide on more than $300 million 

in promised spending in the same program.


$600 million Community Development Grants (CDG) 

= $190 million Spend 

Federal government still to spend $600 million promised 

to communities 



One year after the federal election, the government has allocated 

$190 million from one of its budget programs, the Community 

Development Grants, but has yet to decide on more than $300 million in 

promised spending in the same program. 

The Morrison government still to allocate more than $300 million of promised 

funding from the Community Development Grants Program 


"Since 2013, more than 1300 projects have been funded, or are 

budgeted for, through the CDG program." 

All the programs were meant to run over four years but all included 

allocations for this financial year, raising questions about whether they 

were too slow to get started in the months after Mr Morrison's election 

victory. 

Source: 


---------------------------- END --------------------------


Failure-Energy Efficiency: $61.2m 

Energy Efficient Communities 

program - yet to be allocated


$61.2 million Energy Efficient Communities program 

- yet to be allocated 



A $61.2 million Energy Efficient Communities program is yet to be 

allocated and appears unlikely to accept applications for business projects 

until the middle of this year. See announcement next page. 

The Morrison government still to allocate a $61.2 million 

of promised funding from the Energy Efficient Communities program 


The government's "climate solutions" package, which helped the 

Coalition in the election contest on the environment, included $61.2 

million in grants for the Energy Efficient Communities scheme, but 

none of the money has been allocated. 

Energy Minister Angus Taylor is yet to oversee any grants from the 

program, with the business stream not expected to take applications until 

the middle of this year. 

The community stream, which is limited to two projects for each federal 

electorate, was opened to applicants on April 2, one year after the 

announcement. 

Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/federal-government-still-to-spend-600mpromised-to-communities-20200518-p54u3q.html


$61.2 million Energy Efficient Communities program 

- yet to be allocated 

Morrison pledges $50 million plus an additional $17 million in 

'energy efficiency' grants as part of climate policy pivot 

Katharine Murphy, Political Editor, The Guardian on 28 February 2019 

The Morrison government is promising $50 million in grants for businesses 

and community organisations for energy efficiency projects. 

Photograph: David Crosling/AAP 

Another climate announcement comes as the Coalition attempts to win 

back concerned voters 

The Morrison government will persist with its attempted climate policy 

pivot by promising $50 million in grants for businesses and community 

organisations to embark on energy efficiency projects, and an additional 

$17 million to help building owners benchmark their energy use. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/28/morrison-pledges-50min-energy-efficiency-grants-as-part-of-climate-policy-pivot


Failure-Regions: $206m Building 

Better Regions Fund – No Project, 

$0 spent 

Morrison government in the 2019/2020 budget allocated 

$206 million to the Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF), 

which facilitates regional infrastructure projects and initiatives. 

- yet to be allocated to any projects


$206 million to the Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF) in 

2019/2020 Budget (see below) - yet to be allocated to any 

projects 



The government is yet to decide on a $206 million program for regional 

infrastructure, which was opened to applicants last December but is yet to 

be allocated to any projects. 

The Morrison government still to allocate $206 million 

of promised funding for the Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF) 


Source: 


2019/2020 Budget 

Rail infrastructure to stimulate regional Australia 

Budget allocates $206 million to the Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF), 

which facilitates regional infrastructure projects and initiatives. 

Source: 

https://infrastructuremagazine.com.au/2019/04/03/100-billion-for-infrastructure-in- 

2019-20-budget-where-is-it-going/


Failure-Safe Communities: 

$58.2m Safer Communities 

program – yet to allocate any 

funding 

$58.2 million on the fifth round of its 

Safer Communities program 

in 2019 April Budget 

- yet to allocate any funding


$58.2 million of Morrison government 

Safer Communities program allocated in the 2019 April Budget 

- yet to allocate any funding 

– REFER NEXT PAGE 



In one budget promise, the government said it would spend $58.2 million 

on the fifth round of its Safer Communities program to install security 

equipment such as bollards and CCTV in local areas. 

The promises in the April 2 budget last year, which also included 

safeguards for churches and schools, helped win support from voters 

worried about safety in their local areas. 

While the Department of Home Affairs took applications for the scheme 

last December, it is yet to allocate any funding and said it was "currently 

finalising" the process to decide the successful projects. 

The Morrison government still to allocate $58.2 million 

of promised funding for the Safer Communities Program 


Source: 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/federal-government-still-to-spend-600mpromised-to-communities-20200518-p54u3q.html


$58.2 million of Morrison government 

Safer Communities program allocated in the 2019 April Budget 


Jason Wood MP, Assistant Minister for Customs, 

Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs 

Media release on Thursday, 24 October 2019 

$41.9 million in grants awarded under Safer Communities Fund. 

The Australian Government is awarding up to $41.9 million to 

successful grant applicants under round four of the Safer 

Communities Fund, to protect children facing risks associated with racial 

and religious intolerance. 

This commitment includes an additional $23.1 million announced by 

the Prime Minister immediately following the attack in Christchurch in 

March. 

Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, 

Jason Wood said the Safer Communities Fund is delivering on the 

Government’s priority of keeping Australians safe. 

Source: 

https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/jasonwood/Pages/grants-awarded-safercommunities-fund.aspx


$58.2 million of Morrison government Safer Communities 

program allocated in the 2019 April Budget 


Scott Morrison’s church receives $110,000 government grant 

by Justine Landis-Hanley for Crikey on December 20, 2019 

The money headed for the PM's church will help pay for security 

cameras, video intercoms and a security guard. 

(AAP IMAGE/MICK TSIKAS) 

In March, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced his government had 

allocated $55 million to community grants to upgrade security at places of 

worship around Australia. 

So we noted with interest the recipient of one such grant recently was 

Morrison’s own church, Horizon. 

According to the federal government’s public grant list, Horizon Church 

was awarded $110,000 from the Safer Communities Fund, which is 

intended to help “protect children who are at risk of attack, harassment or 

violence stemming from racial or religious intolerance”. 

Horizon Church’s grant will go towards the installation of 18 fixed security 

cameras, 13 security lights, video intercoms to three designated areas, two 

security / alarm systems, employment of a security guard at the church. 

Source: 

https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/12/20/scott-morrisons-church-receivesgovernment-grant/


Failure-Roads: $3.5b Roads of 

Strategic Importance Initiative = 

$2.2m Spend 

On the 13 October 2018 

The Australian Government announced 

it will invest 

$3.5 billion through its new 

Roads of Strategic Importance (ROSI) initiative 

As at October 2019 - $2.2 million spend


The Australian Government will invest $3.5 billion through its new Roads of 

Strategic Importance (ROSI) initiative, to improve productivity and efficiency 

on Australia’s key freight roads, providing better connections between 

agricultural regions and ports, airports and other transport hubs and better 

access for tourism, mining and other sectors. 

ROSI will deliver works such as road sealing, flood immunity, strengthening and 

widening, pavement rehabilitation, bridge and culvert upgrades and road 

realignments—opening up corridors to provide a more reliable and safe road 

network, improve access for higher capacity vehicles, better connect regional 

communities, and facilitate tourism opportunities. 

Improved access provided through ROSI will deliver substantial social and economic 

benefits, including opportunities for greater regional employment and business 

growth. 

ROSI reserves $1.5 billion for projects in Northern Australia (Northern Australia 

ROSI), acknowledging the importance of this region, building on the benefits 

being delivered through the Australian Government’s Northern Australia Roads 

Program and Northern Australia Beef Roads Program. The projects are to be 

jointly funded, with the Commonwealth to contribute up to 80 per cent and the 

remainder being provided by state and territory governments, local government 

and/or the private sector.


Principles 

The ROSI will be delivered against the following objectives: 

Delivering via a corridor approach to support network improvements, as 

opposed to upgrades to individual elements that do not address capacity issues 

along the selected route. That is, works would involve rolling packages of upgrades 

to raise the standard of the full corridor, as opposed to just upgrading a single 

bridge or other bottleneck. 

Funding for corridors should primarily deliver improvements to freight 

movements, based on a solid evidence base. Funding for projects on the corridor 

should De identified through analysis of data such as the CSIRO’s Transport Network 

Strategic Investment Tool’ (TraNSlTj model, the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport 

and Regional Economics modelling, and strategic network assessments by 

states. 

The corridor should also support regional economic growth by helping support 

the expansion of key local industries and improve connectivity and access, 

including better access to support tourism growth. 

The upgraded corridors will also improve safety for all users through improved road 

conditions. 

The initiative should support partnerships between Commonwealth and state 

governments with local government and industry, including shared funding 

responsibilities, appropriate recognition and improve data sharing. 

Where appropriate, projects should support targeted freight road reforms. This 

could involve trials of incremental heavy vehicle user charging where industry 

have indicated a willingness to contribute an additional charge for 

a higher level of service (e.g. upgrades, improved access) on a corridor, route or 

network, including on upgraded local government roads or greater access to the 

corridor. It should also involve greater consultation with industry on project 

identification, selection and prioritisation. 

Projects should support wider national reforms, such as Indigenous 

employment and supplier-use participation.


Two—stage approach 

To inform the development of the ROSI, the Australian Government is undertaking a 

two-stage process, with Stage One involving a high-level desktop analysis, and Stage 

Two focused on developing the scope of works along the corridors. Both Stage One 

and Two will include targeted stakeholder engagement. 

Stage 1 — Corridor Analysis 

The Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities (the Department) 

is undertaking an analysis of relevant data and evidence to further understand the 

challenges and opportunities across Australia's road network. This includes: 

modelling from the CSIRO’s TraNSIT model to assess freight movements by 

commodity on key arterials, and pinch points within key corridors; and 

analysis on traffic and freight volumes across key corridors. 

The Department is also considering other relevant sources, including: 

Infrastructure Australia’s (IA) Infrastructure Priority List and relevant audits; 

strategic network analysis/assessments undertaken by the jurisdictions and state 

infrastructure plans; and reports or plans by other government bodies. 

Stage 1 — Initial stakeholder engagement — Northern Australia ROSI 

As part of its commitment to developing northern Australia, the Australian 

Government will be consulting with key northern Australia stakeholders via a 

series of roundtable events. This process will build on the engagement 

undertaken for the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program across 2015 and 

2016, and will ensure that the Government’s commitment to develop 

northern Australia is informed by current perspectives and experience. 

A key objective of the roundtables will be to hear from stakeholders on the 

challenges and opportunities regarding freight movements and connectivity 

across northern Australia.


Stakeholders will be invited to share their perspectives and other relevant 

information to inform discussions with the Australian Government. Contributions 

at the roundtable discussions will be considered as part of the Department’s 

advice to the Australian Government in recommending key corridors 

to be funded under the Northern Australia ROSI. 

Stage 2 — Developing the scope of works for ROSI corridors 

Once the Australian Government has identified corridors for the ROSI, the 

Department will work with state and territory governments to identify specific 

packages of work within each corridor to deliver a higher level of service. Through 

this stage, there will also be targeted stakeholder engagement, including with freight 

operators, in determining the final works packages. Agreed projects will be delivered 

as per the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure. 

Initial Corridors 

ROSI will deliver rolling packages of upgrades over a 10-year period to raise the 

standard of the corridor. Initial commitments under ROSI include: 

$400 million for roads in Tasmania, with priority on the Bass Highway; 

$100 million to improve access from regional New South Wales to the Australian 

Capital Territory via the Barton Highway; and 

$220 million for the Bindoon Bypass in Western Australia.


Roads of Strategic Importance 

Labor to grill Coalition on delays and underspending 

on key infrastructure projects 

By Amy Remeikis, Political Reporter for The Guardian Australia 


The government has spent just $2.2 million of a $3.5 billion fund 

designed to tackle ‘immediate priorities’, the opposition says 

Labor’s Catherine King says delays in the ‘roads of strategic importance’ initiative 

are part of a pattern of infrastructure underspend by the Coalition. 


The Morrison government has spent just $2.2 million of a $3.5 billion fund 

designed to tackle “immediate priorities” in regional infrastructure, with 

construction yet to begin on 98% of projects identified under the ‘roads of 

strategic importance’ initiative. 

Announced in the last budget by Michael McCormack, as part of the 

“significant infrastructure transport projects”, the roads of strategic 

importance program identified four “immediate priorities” to help upgrade 

key corridors in regional Australia, for tourism, freight and resource 

transportation. 

But in response to a question on notice from the Labor senator Murray 

Watt, construction has begun on just one project, which was not included 

in the original list of immediate priorities. 

The government listed $1.5 billion for northern Australia, $400 million for 

regional highways in Tasmania, $220 million for a Western Australian 

bypass and $100 million in additional funds for the Barton highway 

between the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales.


Just $2.2 million has been paid out to the Tasmanian government, the 

government has confirmed. 

The shadow infrastructure minister, Catherine King, said the delay was part 

of a pattern of infrastructure underspend established by 

the Coalition government since it came to power six years ago. 

“None of the ROSI ‘immediate priorities’ are underway and not a cent was 

spent on mainland Australian roads in all of 2018-19,” she said in a 

statement. 

“With just $70.8 million allocated from ROSI for all of 2019-20, it just shows 

Scott Morrison’s infrastructure program is all on the never never.” 

“The Queensland and NSW Governments have flagged a number of 

options for infrastructure fast-track – what will it take for Scott Morrison to 

actually get on with it?” 

It’s one of the issues Labor plans on pursuing during Senate budget 

estimates which begin this week. 

Infrastructure Australia recently warned $600 billion in new spending was 

needed over the next 15 years to ensure the nation’s infrastructure kept 

pace with its growth. 

In the last budget, the Morrison government announced $100 billion would 

be spent on infrastructure, a figure McCormack has taken to trumpeting, 

without the caveat the spending is over a decade, with less than half to be 

spent over the next four years. 

Treasurers from across the nation recently met with Josh Frydenberg in a 

bid to have infrastructure spending fast tracked, as the states and 

territories hunt for ways to stimulate their economies. 

Frydenberg has called on the states to bring forward lower tier 

infrastructure projects, in the context of ‘boosting productivity’ in the face 

of a slowing national and world economy. 

Source: 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/oct/21/labor-to-grill-coalitionon-delays-and-underspending-on-key-infrastructure-projects 

https://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/key_projects/initiatives/roads_strategic_imp 

ortance.aspx


-------------------------------- END --------------------------------


Failure-Murray Darling: Murray 

Darling Basin plan 

Promises Not Kept 

Water from Murray-Darling Basin plan not being 

delivered to wetlands, Australian-first report finds 

The Commonwealth Environmental Water Office (CEWO) 

is responsible for that water, 

and agreed the problem was significant.

If you can't convince them, then confuse them …


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

“Australia’s biggest ENVIRonmental problem is reconciling the 

human, economic and ENVIRonmental problems of the 

Murray-Darling Basin.” 

Hon Tony Abbott MP, Leader of the Opposition, 

Address to the Sydney Institute, 14/1/2010 

The Coalition put the Murray-Darling Basin on the path to national 

management in 2007. We started the process of fixing the Murray- 

Darling, we remain committed to that process and, if elected, we will 

finish what we started. 

Despite belatedly adopting national management as their policy, 

Labor has failed to deliver on the plan that John Howard 

announced, funded and legislated in 2007. Their failure to act in a 

timely way has resulted in three largely wasted years for our 

greatest river system. 

The Coalition will get the process of Murray-Darling reform back on 

track. 

The Coalition is committed to achieving sustainability for the rivers 

of the Murray-Darling and is equally committed to continuing food 

and agricultural production in the communities of the Murray- 

Darling. 

The future of the Murray-Darling should not and cannot be a choice 

between the environment or agriculture. We can and must address 

all parts of this equation. 

Australia must, as Tony Abbott put it in his first keynote address as 

Leader of the Opposition, reconcile “the human, economic and 

environmental problems of the Murray-Darling Basin”. 

The Coalition will end the delays, act on the concerns of basin 

communities and end the blatant politicking that has spoiled so 

many previous efforts at water reform. We will deliver real action for 

the Murray-Darling Basin.


The Coalition will deliver effective national management: 

1. Deliver the stalled 2007 ten-point national plan for the Murray- 

Darling Basin 

2. Release the draft Basin Plan within two weeks 

3. Proceed with implementation of the Basin Plan without delay, 

according to the processes outlined in the Water Act 2007 

4. Make the States deliver on their responsibilities 

The Coalition will fix the inefficient infrastructure that wastes so much 

water: 

1. Commence works to reengineer Menindee Lakes within twelve 

months 

2. Publicly release timelines and targets for the delivery of all 

state water savings projects 

3. Re-plumb irrigation infrastructure, committing an additional 

$300 million in on-farm infrastructure 

The Coalition will approach water buybacks strategically: 

1. Undertake water buybacks in a manner consistent with the 

Basin Plan 

2. Release new guidelines for the process of water buybacks 

The Coalition will act on the concerns of basin communities: 

1. Commission an urgent study of the economic and social 

impacts of the draft Basin Plan 

2. Give the Basin Community Committee direct input to the 

Minister and Ministerial Council 

3. Expand the scope and funding of the Strengthening Basin 

Communities program 

4. Honour obligations to compensate irrigators for reductions in 

entitlements 

5. Reduce the red tape imposed on irrigators


The Coalition will provide urgent water for the Coorong: 

1. Prioritise 2010-11 Environmental Water Holdings to raise water 

level in Lake Alexandrina 

2. Purchase additional 150 billion litres of water in 2010-11 for 

Lower Lakes and Coorong 

3. Seek Ministerial Council agreement to spill water from Lake 

Alexandrina into Coorong 

The Coalition will work to secure Australia’s future water security: 

1. Create a $500 million fund to secure future water supplies 

2. Deliver our Water Conservation policy to harness stormwater 

To read more go to 

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3 

p;query=Id:%22library/partypol/79NX6%22


Promises not kept: Water from Murray-Darling Basin plan not 

being delivered to wetlands 

What is the Murray-Darling Basin Plan 

and why are we still talking about it? 

By national rural reporters Anna Vidot and Clint Jasper for ABC News 


The Murray-Darling Basin Authority will announce recommendations 

from its Northern Basin Review. 

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is an historic, bipartisan agreement about 

how to use the water that flows down the nation's longest river system. 

It was signed into law by then-prime minister Julia Gillard on November 22, 

2012, after the Commonwealth reached an accord with each of the Basin 

states: Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the 

Australian Capital Territory. 

But the plan remains highly controversial. 

Some argue it didn't go far enough in favour of the environment and won't 

return the rivers to health. 

Others say it went too far, causing irreparable damage to irrigationdependent 

communities and agricultural production.


What is the Basin Plan and how does it work? 

The Murray-Darling Basin drains one-seventh of the Australian continent, 

and represents one-third of its agricultural production. 

It is home to more than 2 million people and 16 Ramsar-listed wetlands. 

It is more than 2,500 kilometres long, on one of the driest continents in the 

world. 

A map of the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia. ABC News: Ben Spraggon)


Trying to balance all of those sometimes competing priorities makes 

Murray-Darling water sharing one of the most divisive and complicated 

policy issues in the country. 

That was brought into sharp focus during the Millennium drought (which 

ran approximately from 2002-2009), leading to the passage of the Howard 

government's Water Act in 2007. 

That committed $10 billion towards a decade-long effort to reach a 

national agreement on water use in the Murray-Darling, to redress the 

over-allocation of water licenses and to return water to the environment. 

The 2012 Murray-Darling Basin Plan was the result of that long and painful 

process. 

Broadly speaking, it plans to remove 2,750 gigalitres of water from 

irrigated agriculture, and return that to the river system. 

As of the end of June 2017, a little over 2,080 gigalitres had been recovered 

through a mix of government purchases of water licences, and taxpayerfunded 

infrastructure improvements. 

In return for making their farms more water-efficient, farmers surrender the 

water they save to the Commonwealth. 

If it was signed in 2012, why are we still talking about it? 

In order to get all the Basin states to sign up to the Plan, a couple of the 

really hard issues were effectively left unresolved in the document that 

became law in 2012. 

Specifically, the Plan included an 'adjustment mechanism' which could 

be used to change the 2,750 gigalitre water recovery target, but it left 

it to future governments to work out how, or if, that should happen. 

To put it simply: those chickens are now coming home to roost. 

Before the end of 2017, the Commonwealth and Basin state governments 

had three key decisions to make. 

In July 2018, the NSW, Queensland and Federal Governments agreed to 

reduce the water recovery target in the Northern Basin by 70 gigalitres.


The Governments agreed the environmental outcomes would be met 

through other measures, including the management of water flows and 

addressing constraints in the Gwydir. 

The second decision was for the states to finalise a list of major 

infrastructure projects designed to deliver environmental water more 

effectively and efficiently in the southern end of the basin. 

In May 2018, the Government struck a deal with Labor which meant 605 

gigalitres of the environmental water target would be met through 37 

infrastructure projects in Victoria, Queensland and NSW, instead of 

through further water buybacks. 

The third decision, arguably the most sensitive political fight of all, was 

whether the Basin governments decided it would be possible to use the 

'adjustment mechanism' to deliver an additional 450 gigalitres of 

environmental water on top of the Plan's 2,750-gigalitre target. 

The plan says the additional water can only be delivered if it would have a 

'neutral or improved' socio-economic impact on Basin communities. 

In December 2018, the State and Federal Governments agreed on the 

criteria that would allow for the water to be committed to the environment, 

but only under strict circumstances where it could be proved that there was 

no economic harm to those communities. 

The MDBA estimates that 2,118 gigalitres of waters had been recovered by 

November 2018. 

Right, but what does 'neutral or improved' actually mean? 

That is the question. 

There is now a political argument about the definition of 'neutral or 

improved' socio-economic outcomes. 

The Basin Plan says that if a farmer chooses to sell water to the 

Commonwealth, that is a 'neutral or improved' outcome because that 

farmer is being paid a fair price for their water. 

But irrigators and many irrigation-dependent communities say that 

definition falls well short because it doesn't take into account the flow-on 

effect when a farmer sells water.


They argue that, while the farmer makes money, the sale might make it 

harder to deliver water to other irrigators. It might also reduce the whole 

district's capacity to grow things, which in turn might affect employment. If 

jobs disappear and people need to go elsewhere for work, that could hurt 

businesses in town, or the local school might have to close. 

Water Minister Barnaby Joyce is sympathetic to that view, while shadow 

water minister Tony Burke warned that reopening the plan and revisiting 

the definition risks destabilising or even destroying the whole endeavor. 

Farmers and communities have had a win in another area though: the 

council of Commonwealth and state water ministers has signed off on a 

new socio-economic study for the Southern Basin, just like the one the 

MDBA did for the north. 

This time, accounting and consultancy firm EY has been tasked with the 

job. 

When they report back, those findings should add to the political debate 

about whether it is possible to deliver the extra 450 gigalitres for the 

environment. 

Watch this space. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-21/what-is-the-murray-darling-basinplan/8043180




Murray-Darling Basin Plan: Taxpayer-purchased water 

intended for rivers harvested by irrigators 

Four Corners / By Linton Besser, Mary Fallon and Lucy Carter for 

ABC News on 24 July 2017 

Billions of litres of water purchased by taxpayers to save Australia's inland 

rivers are instead being harvested by some irrigators to boost cottongrowing 

operations, in a policy failure that threatens to undermine the 

$13 billion Murray-Darling Basin Plan. 

The pumping of this environmental water means taxpayers have in some 

cases been effectively subsidising already wealthy agricultural interests, 

including those of Webster Limited, a publicly-traded company which 

holds a $300 million water portfolio — the largest Australian-owned 

private holding in the country. 

A Four Corners investigation has found that in the Barwon-Darling system 

— a critical link in the wider Murray-Darling Basin — NSW Government 

water extraction rules have given irrigators more reliable access to water 

than prior to 2012 when the Basin Plan was signed. 

Taxpayers have effectively been subsidising 

already wealthy agricultural interests. (ABC Four Corners)


Long-time farmers' advocate Mal Peters, who chaired a Murray-Darling 

Basin Authority (MDBA) statutory committee examining the Barwon- 

Darling, described the rules as "bloody disgusting". 

"It rendered the whole plan, in my mind, completely null and void because 

the amount of water that could be taken out was huge," he said. 

University of New South Wales scientist Richard Kingsford said the 

revelation "goes against the whole tenet of the [Basin] Plan". 

"Environmental water bought by taxpayers is going through pumps into 

storages to grow cotton, and to me that is the biggest problem that we've 

currently got," he said. 

Between 2012 and June this year, more than 74 billion litres of 

environmental water has flowed into the Barwon-Darling system — 

including when the controversial 2012 extraction rules allowed irrigators to 

pump it. 

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority is explicitly aware of these concerns. 

In July last year, the MDBA board held private discussions on the problem. 

Mr Peters said the revelation went against the philosophy of the Basin Plan. 

(ABC Four Corners) 

Board member George Warne emailed minutes from this discussion to 

other board members, including Phillip Glyde, the MDBA chief executive.


His email, seen by Four Corners, described the policies in the Barwon- 

Darling as an issue which "appears to enable gaming of water extractions ... 

enabling much higher use of water". 

The email also acknowledged "water use behaviors that effectively mine 

the E-flows that make it into the Barwon-Darling". 

These "E-flows" are those that taxpayers had purchased through so-called 

"buybacks" to save the river system. 

Since John Howard announced the Murray-Darling initiative, taxpayers 

have spent more than $3 billion on water buybacks. 

Graziers and townspeople downstream who rely on the river have 

expressed anger and dismay at the extraction rules, claiming they have 

seen the river diminish since the new policies were introduced in 2012. 

One of Webster's directors, Joe Robinson, told Four Corners the company 

was not to blame for pumping environmental flows. 

Under the extraction rules irrigators were given more reliable access to water. 

(ABC Four Corners) 

"I agree that if there's a flow that triggers my pumping and that means it 

does not get to your town, I agree there's a major problem," he said. 

"But why do I have to carry the can for it?" 

Mr Robinson said he had pumped less of the low-flowing water in the 

Barwon-Darling than his license entitled because he was conscious of the 

effect it was having on downstream communities.


"There are some areas where we are probably taking too much water but 

who is responsible for that?" he said. 

"We have bought the property with these license conditions. We have 

modelled the viability of the farm on those conditions." 

The extent to which the new rules have enabled pumping of environmental 

water has even prompted commercial negotiations between Webster and 

the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office (CEWO), Mr Robinson 

confirmed. 

Graziers downstream who rely on the river have expressed anger 

at the extraction rules. (ABC Four Corners) 

"I met with them and said if you want an outcome tell us when you don't 

want us to pump, when the flows need to be protected," he said. 

"The CEWO are looking into and what they are going to do, they will say 

these are the flows to protect and hopefully they will come back with a 

commercial arrangement [such as] don't pump this water and this is how 

we will compensate you." 

If such an arrangement was executed, it could mean taxpayers will have to 

pay a second time for the same water. 

The extraction rule changes for the area have also boosted the value of 

water licences and prompted a market consolidation.


The result has been just two irrigators, Webster and prominent 

cotton farmer Peter Harris, own about 70 per cent of all licenced water in 

Barwon-Darling. 

David Papps, head of the CEWO — a statutory officer who manages the 

government's water portfolio for the purposes of assisting the environment 

— has said the water "has no legal recognition" in the Barwon-Darling. 

In correspondence with the Australian Conservation Foundation, Mr Papps 

wrote: "There is no right to recognise or protect CEW [Commonwealth 

Environmental Water] within the river or to prevent other WALs [Water 

Access Licences] from extracting that water." 

In May this year, he explicitly told the head of the Murray-Darling Basin 

Authority, Phillip Glyde, that the NSW Government had "legally embodied" 

increased access to water and "unsustainable irrigation practices", 

describing its attitude to the Basin Plan as "openly hostile". 

"Let me remind you of the previously strongly-held position put forward by 

senior NSW DPI (Water) officials ... that they would never introduce 

regulatory measures to protect environmental water." 

The extraction rule changes for the area boosted the value of water licences 

and prompted a market consolidation. 

It follows an earlier letter from April 2016, seen by Four Corners, in which 

the CEWO wrote: "Once this situation becomes apparent ... it will inevitably 

undermine public confidence in the effective delivery of environmental 

water [and] the [Basin] Plan itself."


Mr Glyde told Four Corners: "That is a concern that has been expressed 

broadly across the basin in our Northern review. Which is why in our 

recommendations for changing the settings within the basin plan we 

recommended to governments the importance of protecting 

environmental water." 

"There is some concern as a result of rule changes more of the low flows 

have been harvested legally by irrigators so there is a concern that in low 

flow periods the irrigators are getting the benefit of that — over the long 

run, over the long run average that shouldn't matter," he said. 

Mr Glyde — as well as irrigators and the NSW Government — say that 

regardless of the Barwon-Darling extraction rules, water licence-holders 

must abide by an annual cap on extractions. 

But a 2014 internal MDBA memo, signed by its previous chief executive 

and obtained by Four Corners, states that the area has been "problematic 

for Cap compliance since the beginning of Cap accounting in 1997/8". 

Had the river area not been merged with another accounting region "to 

support its performance", the memo says it "would have been in breach for 

continuous [sic] 14 years up to 2010-11". 

The MDBA says the river region has not been in breach of the cap since 

then, but the same memo says a series of changes have been made to the 

NSW model used to assess cap compliance which "have generally created 

a more favourable Cap compliance outcome". 

"There are reasonable doubts over the veracity of the model," the memo 

states. 

Mr Glyde says the MDBA can "walk and chew gum at the same time". 

(ABC Four Corners)


Under the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, the MDBA is required to audit 

the NSW Government's compliance with the Barwon-Darling cap on an 

annual basis. 

Despite publishing such audits for 16 years to 2011, the MDBA has failed to 

do so since then; Mr Glyde told Four Corners he has had other priorities. 

"Certainly, we should have been publishing those reports," he said. 

Asked how the public "can have any faith" in the MDBA ensuring 

compliance with the cap, Mr Glyde said: "That's a good point and I think 

they should question that." 

Last year Mr Warne wrote to the other board members of the failures to 

regulate the cap: "It is currently out of hand (my view), and effectively gives 

users a free kick in terms of access-to and using any water available ... for 

the foreseeable future." 

An MDBA spokeswoman said a series of other reports about the cap would 

be published late in 2017. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-24/murray-darling-basin-water-pumped-byirrigators/8732702




Murray-Darling Basin plan a 'failure', farmers claim 

water backed up in Queensland 

ABC Lateline / by Kerry Brewster on 31 August 2017 

Key points: 

• Murray-Darling Basin plan allows irrigators to catch floodwaters off 

the plains 

• Farmers claim millions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted, with no 

water savings achieved 

• Water being "backed up in Queensland", according to farmer Clay 

Maher 

Farmers on Queensland's McIntyre River say the Federal Government's $13 

billion Murray-Darling Basin plan has failed as it allows cotton irrigators to 

replace water sold back to the Commonwealth with extra floodwaters 

caught off the plains. 

The farmers claim millions of taxpayer dollars invested in local water 

efficiency projects have been wasted, with no actual water savings 

achieved. 

"The water is backed up in Queensland and it's not getting into NSW," 

according to farmer Clay Maher. 

"It should end up at the end of the Murray Darling." 

His neighbour Chris Lamey said extra floodwaters were allowed to be 

caught by irrigators, which subverts the intent of the Murray-Darling Basin 

Plan. 

"I'm blown away they don't even count all this overland floodwater that's 

being pushed into dams," he said. "It's not even on the Murray-Darling 

Basin Authority's (MDBA) radar. They call it 'leakage'." 

Former director of environmental water planning for the MDBA Bill 

Johnson said the national plan to return water to the ailing river system 

had led to perverse outcomes in Queensland.


"In my view it's extremely serious," he said. "It couldn't be more serious. 

The Government has invested about $13 billion aside for this and it seems 

as though it isn't getting good value for money. 

"In some parts I think the outcomes are perverse. The outcomes are 

possibly the opposite of what was intended." 

Earthwork structures raise concern for family 

A year ago, Mr Lamey said, his family's bumper crops were wiped out by 

floodwaters he claims were backed up against a bank on his neighbour's 

property. 

He said his 4,100-acre property was under water for seven weeks. 

But just a few kilometres downstream, neighbour Clay Maher's property — 

separated from the Lameys by a single farming operation — remained dry. 

"When we found out there was no flood downstream, we got in a chopper 

straight away and went to the air to track down what was going wrong," 

Mr Lamey said. 

What they discovered was a series of earthwork structures built across the 

floodplain. The Lameys asked river ecologist Bill Johnson to assess the 

effect of the earthworks on their neighbour's property. 

"It's a levee — it's a raised earthwork across the floodplain, running from 

the McIntyre River to the north, built at right angles to the overland flow," 

he said. "Water is held up on the upstream side of it. It is, in effect, a dam." 

"It looks like … it functions as a surge area that holds water even 

temporarily to allow it to be moved to other storage." 

Norman Farming is a large-scale cotton business stretching 30 kilometres 

north across the floodplain. It owns or operates eight or more properties, 

including the neighbouring property to the Lameys' farm. 

Mr Norman declined an interview request from Lateline. 

In a statement to the program, his lawyer said the bank or levee in 

question was a road, constructed long before he moved onto the property 

and that it had drains to allow floodwaters through. The Lameys argue the 

drains are insufficient and too much floodwater is being blocked.


Farmers say captured floodwaters make water savings redundant 

Water on the Lameys' property. (ABC News: Kerry Brewster) 

As part of the national $13 billion plan to return water to the river system, 

Norman Farming has received at least $7 million, all of which was required 

to be spent on water efficiency projects. 

The estimated water savings from this investment have been transferred 

into water licences, held by the Commonwealth's Environmental Water 

Holder. 

But according to the Lameys, the Commonwealth's effort to save water 

becomes redundant, because it allows irrigators to catch floodwaters off 

the plains. 

Chris Lamey blames the Murray Darling Basin Authority and the 

Queensland Government for ignoring the lost floodwaters. 

"They are obsessed with making this project a success and I believe that 

they think a success means that the money is out of the account and the 

water is in the Commonwealth's account. They are not concerned one little 

bit about what happens thereafter."


Council changes its tune 

Late last year, Goondiwindi Regional Council wrote to the Lameys and Clay 

Maher, informing them it had requested the removal of "illegal" structures 

it had identified on properties operated by Norman Farming. 

Ten months later, Mayor Graeme Scheu told Lateline: "It was acknowledged 

there were non-approved structures there and the correct process to do 

that is to give the applicant the chance to go through and get them 

approved and that's what's happening ... it's very, very ambiguous on 

what's a levee bank and what's a road and all the heights and that type of 

thing." 

The council said it was waiting for expert modelling of the impact of 

earthworks on flood flows, commissioned and paid for by Norman 

Farming. If the modelling justifies any unapproved roads, levees or banks, 

the council said the works would be approved retrospectively. 

"You've got to have a process and that's the state process," Mr Scheu said. 

"It's not up to me to say whether it's right or wrong." 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-31/murray-darling-basin-plan-failurefarmers-claim-water-backed-up/8859412




Conflicts, cost blowouts, time delays in Murray-Darling Basin 

Plan says Productivity Commission 

ABC Rural / By national rural reporters 

Marty McCarthy and Kath Sullivanon for ABC News 


The Productivity Commission is calling for reform of the 

Murray-Darling Basin Plan. (ABC) 

Key points: 

• Productivity Commission says Basin Authority is conflicted, should be 

split 

• Implementation of the Basin Plan could blow out by more than $560 

million 

• 20 per cent of consumptive water has been returned to environment 

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is running late, could cost half a billion 

dollars more and the authority overseeing its implementation is conflicted, 

a major new report has found. 

In its five-year review of the plan, the Productivity Commission has 

recommended basin states take responsibility for implementing the 

controversial $13 billion plan, rather than the Murray-Darling Basin 

Authority (MDBA).


"The significant risks to implementation cannot be managed effectively 

under current institutional and governance arrangements," the Commission 

said. 

"Reform is required.” 

"Basin Governments (not the MDBA) should take responsibility for leading 

implementation." 

The Productivity Commission found that about 20 per cent of consumptive 

water available from the basin a decade ago had now been returned to the 

environment. 

It also criticised the way the rollout had been handled, questioning who 

was in charge. 

"The process has lacked transparency and candour with stakeholders," it 

said. 

"It has been unclear who is responsible and accountable for leading 

implementation." 

The Australian Government still has $4.5 billion to spend on the plan, 

which has mainly been set aside for improving efficiency of water use 

through infrastructure projects along the river. 

However, the Commission said if concerns with implementation were not 

properly addressed, projects would be "likely to fail or be implemented 

poorly". 

It warned costs could blow out by more than $560 million if "major 

shortcomings in the current arrangements are not addressed". 

Conflict of interest at Murray-Darling Basin Authority 

The Productivity Commission said key to a successful implementation of 

the plan was the splitting up of the authority initially tasked with 

implementing and enforcing the plan, the MDBA, to remove any conflict of 

interest. 

"The MDBA has conflicting roles. It supports basin governments (as their 

agent) to implement the plan and is also required to ensure compliance 

with the plan," the Commission said.


"These conflicts will intensify in the next five years. 

"The MDBA should be split into two separate institutions: the Murray- 

Darling Basin Agency and the Basin Plan Regulator." 

Report shows progress says government 

A statement from Water Minister David Littleproud said the Productivity 

Commission reported significant progress had been achieved in the 

implementation of the plan. 

"The assessment finds the arrangements for environmental water are 

working well, that there is evidence of improved ecological outcomes, and 

basin governments have made significant progress implementing key 

elements of the plan," the statement said. 

While South Australian Water Minister David Speirs welcomed the report, 

he said it showed there was more work to be done to implement the plan. 

"The report reiterates that the 450-gigalitres of environmental water flow 

are critical for the health of the Murray-Darling Basin and ensuring the 

River Murray remains sustainable and productive," he said. 

The Productivity Commission's report was handed to the government last 

month, just days after basin governments reached a major agreement. 

Its report therefore does not consider the terms of the deal and it was also 

received by government before major fish kills were recorded in the lower 

Darling River. 

The deaths of hundreds of thousands of fish have prompted the Federal 

Government, Opposition and NSW Government to investigate. 

The South Australian Royal Commission into the Murray-Darling Basin is 

expected to report early next month. 

The MDBA has declined to comment. 

NSW regional Minister Niall Blair and Victorian Water Minister Lisa Neville 

were also contacted for comment. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-25/conflicts-cost-blowouts-time-delaysin-mdbp-says-commission/10749592


7 August 2019 

ACCC water inquiry 

Note 

Joint media release with 

David Littleproud 

Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural 

Disaster and Emergency Management 

The Coalition Government has today released terms of reference for the 

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) inquiry into 

the Murray Darling Basin water market. 

The inquiry, which delivers on a Coalition Government election promise, 

will look at options to improve the transparency and efficiency of the water 

market. 

It will also examine changes in water use, carryover water, trade between 

water valleys and systems and the effect of water speculators on the 

market. 

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said that water was the lifeblood of 

communities in the Murray Darling Basin and it was important that the 

market operated in a transparent and effective manner. 

“As with any market it is important to take a look at how it is performing 

and whether it is operating as intended and to the benefit of communities 

who rely on the Basin.”


Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and 

Emergency Management David Littleproud said the Government had 

listened to the concerns of farmers in delivering on this election 

commitment. 

“I promised this thorough inquiry after hearing from farmers as I travelled 

up and down the Basin,” Minister Littleproud said. 

“Farmers told me they had concerns around changes in water use, trade 

between valleys and the effect speculators have on the water market. 

“It’s important to make sure the market is operating as intended - our 

regional communities depend on it. We need a transparent market in 

which farmers have timely access to accurate information. 

“I invite farmers to participate in this inquiry.” 

The Government has asked for an interim report to be delivered early in 

2020 with a final report by the end of 2020. 

An outline of the terms of reference for the inquiry can be found below. 

Terms of Reference 

The inquiry shall recommend options to enhance these markets, including 

their operation, transparency, regulation, competitiveness and efficiency. 

Matters to be taken into consideration by the inquiry include: 

i. market trends since 2012, including the demand for water, changes in 

the location where water is used, the quantity of water traded, water 

availability, water users and their communities, development of new 

trading products, and the number of participants and sectors 

participating in the water markets; 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

the role of carryover allocation practices on water markets; 

the role and practices of water brokers, water exchanges, investment 

funds and significant traders of water allocations and entitlements; 

the availability to the public of information on water market activities 

and tradeable water right holdings;


v. the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of public information 

released on water market activities and tradeable water right 

holdings, including true trade price reporting and the types of trade 

(for example, immediate purchases, forward contracts, leases); 

vi. 

vii. 

barriers to entry, expansion and exit, including transaction costs; and 

the management of constraints on the storage or delivery of water, 

including adjustments made to give effect to trades and intervalley 

trades. 

This inquiry relates to tradeable water rights, services facilitating the trade 

or transfer of tradeable water rights (including those offered by water 

market intermediaries) and related infrastructure services 

Source: 

https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/josh-frydenberg- 

2018/media-releases/accc-water-inquiry




The mystery of the Murray-Darling’s vanishing flows 

By national science, technology and environment reporter Michael 

Slezak, Mark Doman, Katia Shatoba, Penny Timms and Alex Palmer for 

ABC News on 3 September 2020 

It might be the biggest whodunnit — or what-dunnit — in Australia. 

More than 2 trillion litres of water — enough to fill Sydney Harbour four 

and a half times — has gone missing from our largest and most precious 

river system — the Murray-Darling Basin. 

And it’s happened in what was already one of the driest periods the basin 

has seen. 

According to an investigation by some of Australia’s top water scientists, 

shared exclusively with the ABC, 20 per cent of the water expected to flow 

down the rivers from 2012-2019 was simply not there. That’s despite 

almost $7 billion being spent to protect the health of the system’s rivers 

and ecosystems that rely on them. 

• Was it stolen? 

• Was it lost? 

• Has climate change made it go up in steam? 

• Or was it simply never there in the first place? 

There are clues scattered up and down the rivers but one simple message 

is clear in the scientists’ findings. For the first time, they provide evidence 

that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan — the most expensive environmental 

program in Australia’s history — is delivering much less water than was 

expected. 

And the implications could be huge.


Murray-Darling’s vanishing flows 

• It covers a seventh of the continent, is home to nearly 10 per cent of 

Australia's people, and produces a third of our food. 

• This enormous network of rivers, creeks, wetlands and valleys is 

what's known as the Murray-Darling Basin. 

• To save the struggling river system, by 2019, federal and state 

governments had spent $6.7 billion, recovering 2.1 trillion litres of 

water to put back into the rivers. 

• Now, for the first time, researchers from the Wentworth Group of 

Concerned Scientists have modelled what the river system was 

expected to look like in 2019. The Wentworth Group, established in 

2002, is a group of eminent Australian scientists concerned with 

conservation. 

• But this is Sometimes sites in the river system see more water than 

expected, but most see less. Some much less. And year after year, the 

volumes of missing water add up. 

• This is what 2019 looked like in reality. There was much less water 

than expected. And every year since 2012, a similar pattern has been 

seen. 

• The scientists say the model showing what should be expected can 

struggle to accurately simulate years where flows are extremely low 

and that it performs better over longer periods than it does for a 

single year. 

• So after seven years, a full 20 per cent of the expected water in the 

entire system was not there. That's an average of 320 billion litres 

every year. And a total of more than 2 trillion litres of water. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-03/the-mystery-of-the-murray-darlingsvanishing-flows/12612166?nw=0




Water from Murray-Darling Basin plan not being delivered to 

wetlands, Australian-first report finds 

by National Science, Technology and Environment 

Reporter Michael Slezak for ABC News on 17 November 2020 

The $13 billion Murray-Darling Plan isn't performing as intended. 

(Flickr: Michael Storer) 

Key points: 

• The research is the first peer-reviewed analysis looking into how 

much environmental water has actually reached its intended 

wetlands, compared to what was planned 

• Environmental water is reserved for the environment, rather than for 

use by irrigators 

• The research found less than a quarter of floodplains targeted have 

actually been hit with an effective flood 

• It found the floods were being stopped mainly by towns and private 

farms 

The majority of environmental water redirected from irrigators under the 

$13 billion Murray-Darling Basin Plan isn't being delivered to its intended 

wetland targets, with private land blocking the connections between rivers 

and floodplains, new research shows.


The research, published on Tuesday, found less than a quarter of the nearly 

200,000 hectares of floodplains targeted with environmental water 

controlled by the Federal Government between 2014 and 2019 has actually 

delivered an effective flood, leaving crucial ecosystems heading towards 

collapse. 

Jamie Pittock, an expert in water management from the Australian National 

University, said the study was the first to look at what the Basin Plan 

sought to achieve for the environment and measure its progress, in totality. 

"And sadly, that progress is lacking," Professor Pittock said. 

Overall, only 2 per cent of all the wetlands throughout the Murray-Darling 

Basin that could be inundated with environmental water controlled by the 

Federal Government were actually watered each year, he said. 

"This is a $13 billion reform program, and we think that the Australian 

public would expect a better rate of return than 2 per cent per year," he 

told the ABC. 

The controlled flooding of wetlands is a central objective of the $13 billion 

plan. And restoring wetland ecosystems is a legal requirement under both 

the Australian Water Act and the Ramsar Convention, a near 50-year 

international agreement to conserve natural resources. 

But the new research shows those intentional environmental floods are 

being stopped, mostly by towns and private farms. 

Since agreements haven't been reached with about 3,300 farmers to allow 

the flooding to pass through private property, the environmental water 

isn't able to reach the wetlands. 

"Unless these blockages to using the very limited amount of environmental 

water are removed, then the Basin Plan's environmental objectives will fail," 

Professor Pittock said.


Professor Pittock, the lead author of the research, said without change 

disadvantaged ecosystems would be lost. (ABC Canberra: Michael Black) 

Restoring river system 'connectivity' 

The Commonwealth Environmental Water Office (CEWO) is 

responsible for that water, and agreed the problem was significant. 

A CEWO spokesperson said only small amounts of environmental water 

could be released at a time. It said this was because without agreements 

from landholders, it had to avoid releasing large volumes in case it made 

its way onto private land or blocked low level river crossings. 

David Papps was the head of the CEWO between 2012 and 2018. 

He said the "critical messages" he took from the paper matched up with his 

own experience. 

"The simple truism is that you're limited as an environmental water 

manager by the circumstances that confront you," he said. 

"We have to accept that restoring some semblance of those connectivities 

down the river system and across the floodplain is absolutely 

fundamental." 

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), which is responsible for 

implementing the $13 billion plan, didn't question the findings of the 

paper when approached by the ABC.


It said state government progress to remove those blockages, a process 

called "constraint relaxation", had been "slow". It called for "greater effort" 

over the next four years. 

Promises not kept 

The "constraint relaxation" process was introduced in 2014. 

In some cases, that would involve negotiating the purchase of "flood 

easements" from farmers to allow floods to pass through their lands. 

In other cases, it would involve the building of levees around towns or 

homesteads to protect properties from intentional floods. 

"The land we are talking about is the most flood-prone land in the 

country," Professor Pittock said. 

"It is really low-lying. Naturally, it floods quite often. So in most cases, this 

is paying farmers to do what they already do anyway." 

In return for the promise of "constraint relaxation" by the NSW and 

Victorian governments, the Federal Government put aside almost $1 billion 

to build levees and buy easements. 

State governments were also allowed to recover less water from irrigators 

since the blockages would be removed, and therefore more water would 

be available for environmental flows. 

Instead, most of that money has been sitting idle, and state governments 

may now be required to recover more water from irrigators — up to as 

much as 605 billion litres. 

According to Professor Pittock, the NSW and Victorian state governments 

simply "haven't delivered". 

The Victorian Environment Department did not respond to the ABC's 

request for comment. 

A NSW Environment Department spokesperson said both it and Victoria 

commissioned an independent review of "constraints modelling" in 2019 to 

help it better understand the best delivery pathway and ensure the projects 

had the "best chance of success".


Irrigators want progress too 

NSW Irrigators' Council chief executive Claire Miller said she wanted to see 

progress on removing the blockages. 

Claire Miller said threats needed to be taken off the table. (Supplied) 

Water buybacks from irrigators were reduced on the condition that these 

blockages be removed. 

She said she wanted the threat of re-instating those buybacks taken off the 

table. 

"That's perceived as a threat hanging over these communities," she said. 

"If you don't play ball in an outrageously and unrealistic time frame, we will 

come and buy the water back from you instead." 

Professor Pittock said buybacks must occur if the blockages were not 

removed by 2024. 

"It would be outrageous to let state governments off the hook by forgoing 

the requirement for more buybacks," he said. 

"They agreed to this in 2014 with a reconciliation date of 2024. I would 

have thought that 10 years was plenty of time if only they delivered what 

they promised."


First study of its kind 

The new research, published in Marine and Freshwater Research, is the first 

peer-reviewed analysis across the whole basin that compares actual water 

reaching wetlands and planned water levels. 

Professor Pittock and his co-authors examined commonwealth 

environmental flows in the five years to 2019. 

Without agreements with private landholders, the CEWO could sometimes 

only create very small floods that wouldn't risk running across private 

property. 

As a result, Professor Pittock said each watering event ended up inundating 

only the low-lying parts of the floodplain. But since some types of 

ecosystems — like black box eucalyptus forests — live higher on 

floodplains, some ecosystems were almost never benefiting from the 

environmental water. 

"It's really only the easy-to-water billabongs and low-lying redgum forests 

that are getting watered, whereas other kinds of wetland ecosystems are 

being disadvantaged, like black box floodplain forests," Professor Pittock 

said. 

"The risk is that the disadvantaged ecosystems will be significantly lost 

unless these programmes are improved," he said. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-17/murray-darling-missing-water-infloodplains/12887342 

-------------------------------- END -----------------------------


Failure: The think tank behind 

Australia's changing view of 

China 

• Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) was founded in 

2001 by the Howard government who seeded the funding, 

then provided through the Department of Defence. 

• ASPI now is funded by the Department of Defence, foreign 

governments and military contractors and has been 

accused of fomenting anti-China hysteria, to the alleged 

benefit of its benefactors. 

• The really important agents of influence are organisations 

linked “hip to hip” to the US and its military/industrial 

complex. One of these is the Australian Strategic Policy 

Institute which is an enthusiastic supporter of almost all 

things American. It pretends it is an independent think 

tank. 

• Our defence policy is being increasingly contracted out to 

the US, a “dangerous ally” as Malcolm Fraser warned us.


The think tank behind Australia's changing view of China 

Agents of influence 

— what about the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)? 

by John Menadue | Government | Michael West Media 

on December 6, 2017 

Agents of influence, presumably Chinese, are in the news. But the really 

important agents of influence are organisations linked “hip to hip” to the 

US and its military/industrial complex. One of these is the Australian 

Strategic Policy Institute which is an enthusiastic supporter of almost all 

things American. It pretends it is an independent think tank. John 

Menadue updates his post on this subject from September 6, 2016. 

Agents of Influence via Shutterstock 

Yesterday, Bob Carr commented that ASPI and the US Studies Centre at the 

University of Sydney both express “consistently pro American positions” 

while receiving funding from “US corporations including armaments 

companies”. 

In an earlier blog, (Military/Security takeover of Australia’s foreign policy) I 

described the pervasive influence of the “Australia/US Defence and 

Intelligence Complex” (AUSDIC).


ASPI, based in Canberra, is dependent on Department of Defence and 

defence supplier funding. It is an enthusiastic member of that “complex”. 

On the 15 th anniversary of ASPI, Hugh White, formerly Deputy Secretary, 

Department of Defence, and the Inaugural Executive Director of ASPI, 

wrote: 

“ASPI’s primary purpose wasn’t to contribute to public debate about 

defence policy, but to provide an alternative source of policy ideas for 

government.” 

He went on to say that this purpose, to contribute to policy debate has 

now changed. He added 

“the quality of defence policy [has] slumped and demand from government 

for independent policy advice largely evaporated. ASPI’s focus inevitably 

swung around to contribute to public debate not good policy making.” 

We have seen several recent and unfortunate forays of ASPI into the public 

debate. Its Executive Director, Peter Jennings, recently told us incorrectly, 

that China was responsible for bringing down the Bureau of Statistics 

website at the time of the recent census; that Chilcot was extremely naïve 

about the way countries e.g. UK go to war and that the Australian 

Parliament should not hinder the prerogative of the prime minister and the 

cabinet to take Australia to war e.g. Iraq. 

Only last weekend in the Sun Herald an ASPI “expert on Chinese military 

modernisation” warned us that the H-6K Chinese bombers based in the 

Spratly Islands could threaten Australia and we had to consider stepping 

up our missile defence, with the help of US Patriot missiles. With a 

viewpoint and mind set like that he is incapable of considering whether the 

way we have locked ourselves into the US alliance so fully is in in our best 

interests. His response was that we had to work even more closely with the 

US. That would entrap us even further. 

ASPI’s pro-American and anti-Chinese views reflects the attitude of the 

“Australia/US defence intelligence complex” (AUSDIC). Its views on China 

have been reflected in the sloppy 2016 Defence White Paper and the 

debacle over the French submarine involving the purchase of a large 

conventional submarine at a huge and exorbitant cost and naively 

supposed to operate in the South China Sea to deter China.


With its large fleet of nuclear submarines the Chinese must be smiling at 

our ineptitude and waste! 

Peter Jennings led the External Expert Panel appointed by the government 

in 2014 to advise ministers and the Department of Defence on the 2016 

Defence White Paper. This would have included advice on the submarine 

purchase. 

It never challenged why Australia needed a bigger conventional submarine 

than any other country and why we should undertake offensive operations 

in the South China Sea. ASPI never questioned the decision to buy 

French submarines for $50 billion rather than German ones for 

$20 billion with much larger industry benefits. Indeed, shortly after 

publishing an article passionately justifying the French acquisition. 

Peter Jennings wrote another article saying that what we really needed 

were nuclear submarines with a hint that the French acquisition supported 

that aspiration. 

ASPI has clearly strayed from its original purpose to provide policy advice 

to the government. It has become an active participant in the political 

debate. It’s claim to be “independent and non-partisan” has a hollow ring. 

Consider how “independent” ASPI really is. 

Funding 

• Its 2014-15 annual report, tabled in October 2015, reveals that 

56 per cent of its $5.9 million funding came from the 

Department of Defence. 

• 22 per cent of its funding was from sponsors which include 

corporations heavily involved in supplying military hardware or 

services across the world — Airbus Group, BAE Systems, Boeing, 

Jacobs, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, MBDA, Raytheon, 

SAAB and Thales. 

• 17 per cent of funds were received in “partnerships and projects” 

which included the Australian Army, Australian Defence College, 

Defence Materiel, Department of Defence, Department of 

Immigration and Border Protection.


Governance 

The board includes: 

Stephen Loosley, who is also on the Advisory Board of Thales, which 

describes itself as “part of a leading international electronics and systems 

group which services the defence, aerospace, security and transport 

markets in Australia and throughout the world”. 

Kevin Gillespie, former Chief of the Australian Army. 

Margaret Staib, who served for over three decades in the RAAF. 

Senior Staff 

The executive group comprises: 

Peter Jennings, Executive Director and formerly Deputy Secretary of 

Defence; In 2016 he was awarded the French decoration of Knight in the 

National Order of Legion d’Honneur; 

Anthony Bergin, Deputy Director and formerly Associate Professor of 

Politics at ADFA (UNSW); 

Andrew Davies, Senior Analyst and Director, Research, who spent 12 years 

in the Department of Defence in capability analysis and intelligence. 

The funding, governance and senior staffing of ASPI is heavily dependent 

on the Defence department, its associates and military suppliers. In 

governance and funding it is hardly ‘independent and non-partisan’. 

As taxpayers we have a right to expect that a body like ASPI to be VERY 

independent, irrespective of the source of funds. 

In 1961, President Eisenhower warned Americans about the power of the 

military and industrial complex. Later, that term was extended to include 

the “Congressional complex”. A large number of members of congress in 

the US are heavily dependent on defence manufacturers and military bases 

in their states or electorates. That incestuous complex including “think 

tanks” has enormous influence in the US but also around the world.


The US is scarcely ever at peace. In part that is due to the responsibilities 

that US Presidents feel have been imposed upon them but it is also driven 

by the power of vested defence /military interests throughout the US. War 

is in the American DNA. 

We have the same problem, although on a smaller scale with the same 

close relationships between “think tanks” like ASPI, the Department of 

Defence in Australia, the intelligence community and our defence industry. 

What makes that all the more concerning is that our defence policy is 

being increasingly contracted out to the US, a “dangerous ally” as Malcolm 

Fraser warned us. 

ASPI provides good analysis, but it is very unlikely to come to conclusions 

and recommendations that would embarrass or annoy the Department of 

Defence. defence suppliers, the Australian Government or the US 

government. Culturally, it is conditioned to a view of the world dominated 

by the US. Its mindset makes it difficult for it to adjust to the seismic shift 

in world power with the rise of China. 

Our relationship with the US and China are critical issues. How do we get 

the balance right between the risks and benefits in this dramatic change in 

our region and indeed the world? 

By its performance, it is difficult to see how ASPI is equipped to help us 

develop a new architecture to advance and manage our relations with 

China and the US. 

More importantly ASPI is not in the habit in recent years of speaking truth 

to power. It has seriously departed from the original charter that Hugh 

White explained. 

It acts like a foreign entity. 

Source: 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/agents-influence-australian-strategic-policyinstitute/



John Menadue 

John Laurence Menadue AO is an Australian businessman and public 

commentator, and formerly a senior public servant and diplomat. He is the 

founding chair and board member of the Centre for Policy Development. You 

can follow John on Twitter @johnmenadue.


The think tank behind Australia's changing view of China 

by Myriam Robin, Columnist for The Financial Review on February 15, 

2020 

The Department of Defence-backed Australian Strategic Policy Institute has 

become a flashpoint in the breakdown of consensus in Beijing. 

On Tuesday in the Australian Senate, Labor's Kim Carr rose to his feet, 

thundering about "hawks intent on fighting a new cold war". In his sights 

was the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which he said was taking 

nearly $450,000 from the US State Department (ASPI says the true figure is 

less than half that amount) to track Chinese research collaborations with 

Australian universities, "vilifying and denigrating" Australian researchers 

and their work. 

It's not the most vehement denunciation of ASPI on the public record. Only 

the most recent. 

ASPI executive director Peter Jennings on a panel with 

Foreign Minister Marise Payne and Liberal MP Dave Sharma. Twitter 

Over the past five years, the Canberra-based think tank has come to 

dominate the Australian public‘s understanding of China’s rise. It has 

staunch supporters, many in Parliament, who credit it with raising issues 

such as Chinese military involvement in Australian universities, the spread 

of Uighur detention camps in Xinjiang, and the recent and contested 

defection of a Chinese intelligence agent.


But ASPI, which is funded by the Department of Defence, foreign 

governments and military contractors, has also been accused of fomenting 

anti-China hysteria, to the alleged benefit of its benefactors. 

Former NSW premier Bob Carr has accused it of pumping out a “one-sided, 

pro-American view of the world”. Veteran foreign editor Tony Walker has 

slammed its "dystopian worldview" which "leaves little room for viewing 

China as a potential partner". "It lacks integrity and brings shame to 

Australia," says retired former DFAT chief and ex-Qantas CEO John 

Menadue. “I see it as very much the architect of the China threat theory in 

Australia”, adds ex-ambassador to China turned Beijing-based business 

consultant Geoff Raby. 

The rhetoric is extreme. And says much about how Australia’s consensus on 

China has dissolved. 

Until recently, "both the United States and China have been status quo 

powers", says Allan Gyngell, who was from 2009 to 2013 the directorgeneral 

of the Australian Office of National Assessments, advising the 

prime minister on intelligence issues. Both superpowers are now 

dissatisfied with the prevailing global order. 

There is disagreement on how Australia should react. Some hold that 

Australia should tread a middle path. By instinctively clinging to the US 

alliance, some fear Australia is adopting its tendency to view China as a 

strategic competitor, and failing to consider what may be more in keeping 

with our long-term interests. 

But for many, it is China's shift that has been the most alarming. In 2012, Xi 

Jinping ascended to the leadership of the Communist Party of China. His 

government tightened social control and adopted a more assertive foreign 

policy. In 2014, China stepped up its militarisation of disputed islands in the 

South China Sea. Australia's intelligence agencies now warn of Chinese 

interference in Australian institutions.


The previously easy acceptance, in both business and diplomatic circles, of 

Australia's growing economic engagement with the nation that more than 

any other has ensured our own prosperity has been shattered. 

Into this maelstrom, ASPI is a lightning rod. The way ASPI's executive 

director Peter Jennings sees it, the organisation has "gotten in the way of 

the rivers of gold": the swelling two-way trade of $235 billion a year that 

makes China by far our biggest trading partner. 

ASPI was founded in 2001 in a bid to end the situation in which 

defence was "one of the last areas of policy where there was no 

sustained contest of ideas between the bureaucracy and experts 

outside it", said its inaugural director Hugh White in 2016. The 

Howard government seeded the funding, provided through the 

Department of Defence. 

This is the mainstay of ASPI's budget, and will remain so until at least 2022- 

23, when the current $4 million annual funding agreement expires. 

Defence's role is reflected in ASPI's board, which is chaired by Kenneth 

Gillespie, a former chief of the Australian Army. 

But ASPI has always had a mandate to develop alternative sources of 

funding. These other sources have grown far faster than its funding from 

Defence, meaning in the most recent financial year it accounted for a 

record-low 43 per cent of ASPI's $9 million total budget. 

ASPI's annual reports list alternate funding sources. Sponsors from its most 

recent can be divided into three buckets. 

The first is filled with defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin, BAE, 

Northrop Grumman, Thales and Raytheon. The second, technology 

companies like Microsoft, Oracle Australia, Telstra, and Google. And lastly, 

there are the contributions from foreign governments, many being 

strategic competitors to China, including the Embassy of Japan and the 

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office (that is, Taiwan).


Growing funding 

The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme, set up to monitor 

Chinese government influence in Australia, ironically captures some 

more recent sources of ASPI funding, including NATO, the US State 

Department and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 

This growing funding has allowed the establishment of a range of new 

initiatives, including a growing focus on China through the formation of its 

International Cyber Policy Centre in 2013, which today employs most of its 

China-focused analysts. 

The centre's output is impressive. Its Picking Flowers, Making Honey report 

charted the Chinese military's collaboration with foreign universities 

including many in Australia. Its findings informed an episode of ABC primetime 

investigative powerhouse Four Corners. 

Another investigation, Mapping Xinjiang's 'Re-education' Camps', used 

satellite imagery to show the massive growth of camps used to detain 

Uighurs, and attracted wide coverage. And another, on China's technology 

giants, has been regularly consulted by the Western press to understand 

state censorship and control as exercised on Chinese social networks. 

Another recent analysis, on DFAT's digital capabilities, was notable for its 

key author: now-Liberal member for Wentworth Dave Sharma. More 

recently, ASPI's Alex Joske was a bylined contributor to Nine's coverage of 

alleged Chinese defector Wang Liqiang, whose revelations drew fervent 

attention in the recent Taiwanese election. Joske's role was conducted in 

the course of his employment as a casual researcher by The 

Age newspaper, but dove-tailed and intersected with his work at ASPI. 

ASPI's influence comes partly from this deep engagement with the media. 

Few publishers have the resources and expertise to tackle these issues, 

despite their importance. 

One of our focuses has been to make a more prominent debate 

around national security issues, in the same way we discuss economic 

issues. 

— Peter Jennings, executive director, ASPI


Making the discussion more accessible, says Jennings, is the point. "When 

ASPI was created, frankly, defence was a page 9 story," he says. "There 

wasn't a great deal of in-depth coverage. 

"One of our focuses has been to make a more prominent debate around 

national security issues, in the same way we discuss economic issues." 

He has no interest in running an “ivory tower institution engaged in pure 

academic research. We’re in the business of public policy, and we need to 

be able to bring important issues of public policy to the attention of policy 

makers in ways that are helpful to the country." 

ASPI founder Hugh White, now professor of strategic studies at the 

Australian National University, says this visibility shouldn't be overstated. 

ASPI is "certainly very present in the debate", he says. "But there’s a 

difference between being present and being influential." 

Issues like the ban on Huawei's involvement in Australia's 

telecommunications infrastructure originated within Australia's intelligence 

agencies, White says. And while some backbenchers may be close to ASPI, 

the stances of Prime Minister Scott Morrison or Foreign Minister Marise 

Payne show their supreme caution and discipline in managing the China 

relationship. 

ABC Q&A 

ASPI analysts (such as researcher Vicky Xiuzhong Xu, second from right, on 

the ABC) are often the only Asian faces discussing the growing 

assertiveness of China.


This could be argued to demonstrate ASPI's independence. Its analysts and 

researchers – who are not monolithic in outlook but usually lean on the 

hawkish side of consensus – usually chide the Australian government for 

not being more robust in its responses to China, rather than echo 

ministerial talking points. 

On the issue of ASPI's funding, views diverge. 

It is an unavoidable truth that all think tanks have to be funded from 

somewhere. All funding poses risks, both operational and reputational. 

ASPI, to its credit, has always been relatively transparent on whose support 

it relies, and makes much of its high research standards, designed to avoid 

undue influence. 

When it comes to the Department of Defence, Jennings says the 

organisation is "remarkably arm's-length". 

"We were designed to have a remarkable degree of independence in the 

topics we choose to write on, and in content and editorial judgments of 

what we say." 

This is White's experience too. "When I was running ASPI, it was more or 

less 100 per cent funded by Defence," he says. "And I never had even the 

suggestion that the government or Defence was trying to direct us in what 

we said." 

This was put to a hard test. "Almost the same month ASPI started 

operation, the issue of whether Australia should support the United States 

in invading Iraq came on the agenda. As director, I was critical. I thought 

it'd be a bad idea. 

"John Howard never suggested to me, and neither did anyone else, that 

the position I was taking as director of ASPI was inappropriate. 

"I don’t think there is something inherent in government funding that 

means you can’t be independent. I don’t have a problem with that – it just 

requires careful management and constant vigilance."


On funding from defence contractors, White does beg to differ. A few years 

ago, ASPI was best known for its work on evaluating the military budget, 

which is still a key part of its output. White believed, when he was in 

charge, that this was incompatible with taking cash from the companies 

the military buys things from. 

On the issue of public funding, some point out that smart influence 

operations don't need to direct their agents. They just need to fund the 

work of people who they know will, in most cases, agree with their broad 

aims. 

The Department of Defence benefits in funding and importance from an 

arms race. So does the US military-industrial complex, another plank of 

ASPI's budget. 

"Think of how insidious that is," says Raby, a former ambassador to China. 

"When the US wages a war, the military industrial complex benefits. 

"Public money shouldn't be put into public advocacy anyway," Raby adds. 

"Objective, balanced, nuanced research is acceptable, but not to fund 

advocacy of one country’s position vis-a-vis China." 

Gyngell – who before his work at ONA was the founding executive director 

of the foreign-affairs focused Lowy Institute and retains links to several 

other China policy think tanks – questions if public funding makes claims of 

independence self-defeating. 

"If [ASPI] had no funding from governments it would be a case of the more 

voices the better," he says. "But the sources of funding inevitably give its 

words a certain, and greater, weight. 

"The funding link may not be widely known about in the general public. 

But to those in the academic community, or to people in other 

governments, including China's, the association is well known." 

Quite aside from the question of independence, another plank of criticism 

hints at the existence of a deep-seated cultural appetite in Australia for 

hawkishness on China. Many don't need much nudging to believe the 

worst of China and its people. Concerns about xenophobia appear to 

underlie some of the alarm over public discussion of such issues.


But it is difficult to deride ASPI's work on China as racist or xenophobic. Its 

China analysts have devoted years of their lives to understanding it. And 

around half of its research staff who work on Chinese issues are Chinese- 

Australian or of Chinese heritage. 

While many Chinese-Australians are wary of criticism of China, others who 

share their heritage are alarmed by its authoritarian turn. In public forums, 

ASPI analysts are often the only Asian faces discussing the growing global 

assertiveness of China and how Australia should react. 

"We don't have an editorial line on China," says Jennings. "But we have 

looked at national security risks. There are some areas – Canberra policymaking 

communities, parts of the business world, and universities – where 

that is not the general view." 

This causes disagreements. But Jennings doesn't view that as a bad thing. 

“National security issues, even as little as 10 years ago, were discussed 

inside the beltway, by specialists and inside the public service … I find that 

a much less healthy approach to no-holds-barred debate. 

"Australia is big and mature enough to be able to handle differences of 

opinion. How Australia manages China is going to be the story of our 

generation. It’s a vital discussion, and the more it's in public ... the better.” 

Source: 

https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/the-think-tank-behind-australia-schanging-view-of-china-20200131-p53wgp 


Myriam Robin is a Rear Window columnist based in the Financial Review's 

Melbourne newsroom. 

Connect with Myriam on Twitter. Email Myriam at myriam.robin@afr.com 

-------------------------- END --------------------------


Failure: Defence Department is 

growing more secretive and less 

transparent 

• An auditor-general report on 26 major Defence projects 

finds cost and time blowouts 

• Earlier this year (2019) the Australian National Audit Office 

(ANAO) delivered a scathing assessment of Defence's 

growing levels of secrecy over problems with major 

projects.


Defence Department is growing more secretive 

and less transparent 

Air control system on shame file 

Defence has listed a new Australian traffic control system 

covering military and civilian aviation on its shame file 

SBS on 18 August 2017 

Defence Minister Marise Payne has put a new traffic control system 

on its list of troubled projects. (AAP) 

Parts of a new Australian traffic control system covering military and civilian 

aviation has been added to Defence's shame file of troubled projects. 

Defence Minister Marise Payne and Defence Industry Minister Christopher 

Pyne announced on Friday that the OneSky program would become the 

sixth item on the project of concern list. 

"The project has experienced schedule delays since approval, and initial 

delivery is expected almost two years later than originally planned," 

Senator Payne said. 

"The challenges revolve around issues with ensuring value for money for 

the taxpayer." 

The system will cover 11 per cent of the world's airspace, and integrate 

defence and civilian air traffic for the first time anywhere on the globe.


The project is expected to cost $600 million to set up and $1.5 billion over 

25 years. 

In April an auditor general report into the OneSky project found: 

Thales Australia, which was picked to design and build the system, has 

not demonstrated value for taxpayer money. 

Under the projects of concern process, defence officials work with 

responsible companies to achieve remediation. In a few cases, remediation 

has been deemed impossible and the project has been cancelled. 

Other projects on the list include Collins submarine support, the multi-role 

helicopter and the air warfare destroyer project. 

SOURCE : AAP 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/air-control-system-on-shame-file




Defence department keeping details of its 'projects of concern' 

secret from the public 

by defence correspondent Andrew Greene and freedom of 

information editor Michael McKinnon for ABC News on 18 June 2019 

The $3.5 billion roll out of the MRH90 helicopters is causing some problems. 

(Airbus Australia Pacific, File) 

Key points: 

• The Defence Department is concerned about the roll out of the 

$3.5 billion MRH90 helicopters 

• The Deployable Defence Air Traffic Management and Control System 

is also an official "project of concern" 

• Experts say the Defence Department is growing more secretive and 

less transparent


Details of costly blowouts and delays on troubled military projects are 

being kept hidden from public view by the Defence department. 

For over a decade, Defence has maintained a "projects of concern" list to 

help remediate its worst-performing military acquisitions, but visibility and 

transparency of the regime has gradually reduced over time. 

Using Freedom of Information, the ABC obtained a recent Quarterly 

Performance Report from the Department's Capability and Sustainment 

Group, although much of the detail has been redacted on "national 

security" grounds. 

The protected 86-page document marked "sensitive" confirms two major 

projects remain on the concern list, namely the ADF's MRH90 helicopters 

and the Deployable Defence Air Traffic Management and Control System. 

Australia is spending $3.5 billion on 47 new MRH90s — a multi-role 

helicopter that will eventually replace the ageing Sea King and Black Hawk 

fleets. 

Defence sources acknowledged the MRH90's capability and sustainment 

has improved, but the fleet is currently limited on certain missions because 

it cannot shut down its main engines due to problems with the auxiliary 

power unit on board. 

The second project of concern, the Deployable Defence Air Traffic 

Management and Control System, is being purchased for use in possible 

conflict zones to prevent accidents between aircraft. 

A further 14 purchases are identified on a less critical "projects of interest" 

list, including amphibious ships, new air combat capability and light 

protected mobility vehicles. 

Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) senior fellow Andrew Davies said 

while Defence generally appeared to have the cost of projects under 

control, the department was struggling to deliver capabilities on schedule. 

The military procurement expert also believed the Defence department was 

being unnecessarily secretive about its problems. 

"Defence has been getting more and more secretive, or less transparent, 

year by year for the last decade or so," Dr Davies said.


"The redactions in the report are on the grounds of national security, and 

that might be fair enough for some of the capability issues they're facing 

— you don't want to flag to an adversary that you're having trouble 

getting your equipment to do such and such a task. 

"But things like project schedule and budgets ... it's very hard to see how 

they're really of any national security importance." 

Earlier this year the Australian National Audit Office also delivered a 

scathing assessment of Defence's growing levels of secrecy over 

problems with major projects. 

"Over the last five years, transparency has reduced, the level of formality 

has declined with explicit criteria replaced by unpublished principles, and 

processes have become less rigorous with a greater emphasis on 

maintaining relationships with industry," the ANAO wrote in March. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-18/secrecy-surrounds-defence-mosttroubled-military-projects/11218378




Cost and time blowouts leave Australian Defence projects 

running 57 years late 

by Defence Correspondent Andrew Greene for The ABC 


The cost of Australia's Joint Strike Fighter project has increased by $14 billion. 

(Lockheed Martin) 

Key points: 

• An auditor-general report on 26 major defence projects finds 

cost and time blowouts 

• It found costs have risen $24 billion since the projects were first 

announced 

• Delays on the projects now add up to a total of 57 years 

The cost of Australia's largest defence projects has soared by billions 

of dollars, and they are now facing a cumulative delay of 57 years. 

An auditor-general's report analysing 26 major defence projects has found 

the projects' budgets have risen more than $24 billion since they were first 

announced, and will now cost taxpayers $64 billion.


Among the projects examined by the Australian National Audit Office 

(ANAO) were Joint Strike Fighters, Air Warfare Destroyers, P-8A Poseidons, 

MRH90 helicopters, Offshore Patrol Vessels, Growler aircraft and Collins 

Class submarine reliability and sustainability. 

Together they represent half of the total approved budget for the Defence 

Department's active major and minor capital equipment projects. 

In the past year alone, the cost of the 26 projects rose more than $1 billion, 

according to the ANAO's report. 

"Cost management is an ongoing process in Defence's administration of 

the major projects," the auditor-general found. 

Joint Strike Fighters accounted for most of the increase, with the project's 

cost rising almost $14 billion after the Government ordered another 58 

aircraft. 

Then-defence minister Marise Payne welcomed the first Growler aircraft 

to Australia in 2017. (ABC News: Cameron Best) 

Significant delays have also been recorded, with the ANAO finding the 

total schedule slippage for the selected projects is now at 691 months, or 

57 years. 

That represents a 27 per cent increase since second-pass approval, or 

scoping phase, for the projects, with average delays at 2.7 years.


Defence Minister Linda Reynolds put the increase in cost down to the 

state of the Australian dollar and defended the spending of the 

Morrison Government. 

"The Major Projects Report released by ANAO confirms that within the 

2018-19 review period, Defence's 26 major projects continued to deliver 

strongly against measures of scope and cost. 

"The reported increase in the cost of delivering these projects over the past 

year was purely a consequence of the fluctuating rate of the Australian 

dollar and price indexation during this period." 

Crossbench senator Rex Patrick said Defence often spent hundreds of 

millions of taxpayers' dollars getting a project to second-pass, where it 

could be presented to Cabinet with a known scope, budget, schedule and 

risk profile. 

"The ANAO report, which references cost and schedule overruns to 

second-pass, reveals that Defence is incompetent in its original 

assessments, and that there is a need for the Defence Minister to intervene 

and make changes," he said. 

"It's not just the schedule and cost blowouts in the original project that 

needs to be considered. 

"There's the cost to the men and women in the Defence Force who are 

forced to carry out their tasks with obsolete equipment. 

"There's also the financial cost of Defence of keeping old and tired 

equipment running." 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-17/billion-dollar-cost-blowouts-and-delayshit-defence-projects/11805942




$50 billion future submarine sinking in a sea of delays 

Andrew Tillett, Political Correspondent for The Financial Review 

on January 14, 2020 

The navy's submarine program is officially running nine months late and 

the Defence Department is unable to show that spending of $400 million 

on design work has been "fully effective", the auditor-general has found. 

In a scathing report, Defence officials told auditors that if delays in 

delivering the first submarine, which was not expected to enter service until 

2034 or 2035, blew out to three years, the nation would face a critical 

capability gap with its submarine fleet 

The design of the future submarine is providing headaches for Defence Minister 

Linda Reynolds and Australian Defence Force chief Angus Campbell. 

Alex Ellinghausen 

Auditors also revealed the government's handpicked shipbuilding advisory 

board had urged the Defence Department to consider jettisoning its deal 

with the submarine's French designer, Naval Group, and find a new builder 

because negotiations had turned so toxic. 

But despite the problems, Defence said construction of the submarines was 

still on track to begin in Adelaide in 2023, as well as meeting the delivery 

date.


The Australian National Audit Office report, tabled in Parliament on 

Tuesday, confirms recent media reports of tensions between Naval Group 

and the Commonwealth. Delays and skipped deadlines have bedevilled the 

$50 billion project. 

Two key milestones have been missed. The concept studies review was 

meant to begin in September 2018 but was delayed to late November that 

year. 

The systems requirements review was meant to be completed by March 

2019 but the contract was varied to October 2019. 

However, the review was finished just last month, the audit report says. 

This has meant a third review, the preliminary design review, will miss its 

deadline of March 2020 and is now contracted to finish in January 2021. 

"Defence cannot demonstrate that its expenditure of $396 million on 

design of the Future Submarine has been fully effective in achieving the 

program’s two major design milestones to date," the audit report says. 

'Design maturity' blamed for delay 

Defence told auditors the delays were necessary to allow for "design 

maturity" and minimise risk of issues during construction. 

The audit reveals Naval Group had requested a 15-month delay in 

finalising the design work to September 2023, which Defence rejected in 

September, warning the government had "deepening concern over a 

number of matters in the partnership". 

The missed milestones were just the latest delays. Auditors said the 

strategic partnering agreement between the commonwealth and Naval 

Group, which was meant to govern the project over decades, was signed 

16 months later than planned, in February 2019. 

Australian negotiators told the ANAO the delay was necessary to avoid 

"expediency" and damaging the program long term.


'Prepare a Plan B' 

As negotiations dragged on in late 2018, the government's naval 

shipbuilding advisory board, which is made up of former senior US naval 

officials and industry executives, recommended that Defence begin work 

on a Plan B in the event talks collapsed. 

Even if an agreement was reached, the board recommended the 

government consider if it was in the "national interest" to continue to 

partner with the French. 

This prompted Defence officials to examine the additional service life of the 

Collins class submarines under a planned overhaul and the time this would 

allow to "develop a new acquisition strategy for the future submarine if 

necessary". 

Amid complaints from local defence contractors that they are missing out 

on work under the government's $89 billion naval shipbuilding program, 

Defence officials told auditors there was "extreme risk" attached to the 

ability and willingness of Naval Group to transfer technology, saying there 

were different systems and industrial engineering methodologies between 

France and Australia. 

Defence Minister Linda Reynolds said she welcomed the findings that there 

were appropriate risk management strategies in place to deliver the future 

submarines and the report's confirmation there had been no change to the 

2032 delivery date of the first submarine to the navy for trials. 

She said the program was highly complex and required a long term focus. 

"Whilst the Future Submarine Program is still in the early design phase and 

there have been some delays, it is essential to get the design right," she 

said. 

"Doing so will reduce costly changes and uncertainties while the Attack 

class submarines are built, and will reduce the need for larger construction 

contingencies. 

"Defence has advised that the delays to the design milestones will be 

recovered by the next major milestone in January 2021."


Opposition defence spokesman Richard Marles said the audit was the 

latest example of the government's delays and blow-outs in the project. 

"On all three measures of this program – on time of delivery, on the cost of 

the project, and on the amount of Australian content – the numbers are all 

going the wrong way," he said. 

Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick, who has pursued Defence over 

problems in the submarine project, said the audit was one of the most 

concerning he had seen. 

"Defence's view that they can recover the schedule is naive at best," he 

said. 

"The alarm bells are ringing. If the Minister is not hearing them, they need 

to be turned up." 

Source: 

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/scathing-report-on-50b-submarine-project- 

20200114-p53rdo




Defence Force's MRH-90 Taipan helicopter doors 'not wide 

enough' to allow guns to fire while troops are exiting 

by Defence Correspondent Andrew Greene for ABC News 


Defence officials concede issues prevent soldiers from rappelling 

from the helicopter while the gun is firing. 

(Supplied: Department of Defence/Cpl Sagi Biderman) 

Key points: 

• Defence Chief General Angus Campbell said Taipan was an 

"extraordinary helicopter" but conceded there were problems 

• The Army has been employing "tactical workarounds" to allow the 

aircraft to complete its duties 

• Senate Estimates also heard there has been an issue with the 

helicopter's cargo hook 

Defence has admitted the door on its multi-role Taipan helicopters is too 

narrow to allow its gun to fire while troops are descending from the 

aircraft. 

During a Senate Estimates hearing, officials have confirmed a third round 

of work is being carried out on the MRH-90 Taipan fleet that was bought


from Airbus for $3.8 billion. 

Head of helicopter capability and sustainment for Defence, Shane 

Fairweather, told the committee the problems were due to the width of the 

door, not the gun mount design. 

"The door isn't wide enough to enable the safe exit while firing is taking 

place," he said. 

"The Taipan gun mount minimises the time at which that firing can take 

place because you can deploy it and stow it quickly." 

The Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Rick Burr, said "tactical 

workarounds" were allowing the aircraft to complete its duties. 

"There are some technical issues and safety issues that prevent that from 

occurring but there are tactical workarounds that are in place," General 

Burr said. 

The Army has been employing "tactical workarounds" to allow the Taipans to 

complete their duties. (Supplied: Department of Defence/Cpl Sagi Biderman) 

The inability of the European-designed Taipan to fire its gun while soldiers 

are rappelling means the Army must fly the helicopters in pairs to carry out 

certain missions. 

Senate Estimates was also told the cargo hook on the Navy's MRH-90s had 

been an "ongoing problem", but a solution was expected soon. 

"We're very close to resolution on that … and I accept to be able to certify 

that into operational service very soon," Navy Chief Vice-Admiral Mike 

Noonan said.


Defence Chief General Angus Campbell defended the Airbus-made 

product as an "extraordinary helicopter" but conceded there were 

problems. 

"I would like a perfect helicopter — it would be all things to all people," 

General Campbell said. 

"It requires a careful planning of the employment of our aircraft. We never 

fly an aircraft on its own." 

Australia's acquisition of the MRH-90 for Army and Navy commenced in 

2004 and on Tuesday remains on the Defence Department's "projects of 

concern" list. 

Last year, the ADF grounded its entire fleet of 47 MRH-90 helicopters after 

one of the Taipans made a precautionary landing caused by a tail rotor 

vibration. 

Source: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-27/defence-force-helicopter-cannnot-shootgun-while-troops-exit/12818018 

-------------------------- END --------------------------

Ministers and Senators Behaving Badly Series 4

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?