Tag Archives: ANAO

Bravo! To “Conspiracy Nut” Elizabeth Farrelly

12 Apr

Wonders will never cease. A mainstream journalist with the courage to write a column whose content will inevitably invite her public vilification as a “conspiracy nutter”. As she clearly foresaw … and yet, wrote it anyway:

I’m not given to conspiracy theories, incompetence being so much easier to imagine, but one thing gives credibility to Clive Palmer’s otherwise nutty CIA phantasm about US influence in Australia.

It is Julian Assange, a story that hinges on the uncomfortable relationship between truth and power.

We expect truth-telling from our four-year-olds but not from our politicians. In the case of Assange, truth is actively and repeatedly punished.

This implies that, as you move up through society’s power strata, there’s a point where morality flips.

A sort of moral inversion layer, beneath which the rules apply but above which they’re reversed.

The modern Labor Party seems to illustrate this as well as anyone.

I mention all this not just to illustrate that high-level grubbiness is so normal we almost expect it, but to highlight a more sinister possibility; that we, like the Philippines, are a puppet US state, where truth comes second to power.

This kind of talk I’ve always resisted. Yet it is now undeniable that, at US behest, Julian Assange stands to lose his liberty, indefinitely, for telling the truth. And the very same Labor Party, with its CIA-assisted PM and its concern for truth re-education, lifts not a finger to help him.

It’s quite clear that Assange is not guilty – not of rape, not of treason. As Malcolm Turnbull, responding to Gillard’s “illegal” claim, told a Sydney University law school audience last year, it is prima facie clear that Assange has broken no Australian law.

In words of one syllable, the Australian Federal Police agrees. There has been no breach of our law.


Isn’t truth a wonderful thing, dear reader?

Prioritising the quest for Truth above all else allows one to agree with those who you would, on other subjects, vehemently disagree with.

Like mainstream journalists.

And Malcolm Turnbull.

Elizabeth Farrelly is right.

And she is not the only female journalist who smells conspiracy in our government. And has finally found the courage to publish her observations of what is, in fact, nothing more than an uncomfortable yet blindingly obvious reality.

Here is Their ABC’s Annabel Crabb on the FWA/Craig Thomson protection racket, and the Australia Network/Chris Conroy totalitarian censorship fiasco:

Everyone knows that when faced with a choice between conspiracy and incompetence, the best explanation is usually incompetence, but in this case we are now dealing with some pretty special incompetence.

As of this week, conspiracy is now the more obvious conclusion.

Quite so Annabel.

Quite so.

Oh yes, and about the “conspiracy theory” of covert (and increasingly overt) US “influence” in Australian governance.

Regular readers may recall my irony-laden post This Will End Well in November last year, on the Gillard announcement of a permanently increased US military presence on our sovereign territory.

Today, a former leader of the Australian Army agrees that I was right.

Exactly right:

General Peter Leahy warns of US-China collision

FORMER Australian army chief Peter Leahy has urged Australia to tread warily in expanding its military ties with the US to ensure they do not “lead to increased tension and even conflict” with China.

Warning against becoming “caught” between the US as its security guarantor and China as its economic underwriter, Professor Leahy has welcomed Australia’s decision to play host to US marines, but noted that “too much of a good thing” could put unnecessary pressure on China.

His comments, in an opinion piece in today’s edition of The Australian, came as the China Daily state-owned newspaper hit out at Australia’s expanding links with the US, warning they could spark a collapse of trust and endanger Sino-Australian economic ties.

In a strongly worded editorial, the newspaper yesterday also warned that the Gillard government’s decision last month to ban Chinese communications giant Huawei from bidding for work in the $36 billion National Broadband Network had created the perception in Beijing that Australia wanted to obstruct Chinese companies.

Relations between China and Australia have been under pressure since US President Barack Obama visited Canberra in November to announce plans to station up to 2500 US marines in Darwin within five years. The deployment, which started last week, was part of a US push to shift its defence posture towards Asia in recognition of the growing influence of China and India.

Chinese suspicions were further provoked last month when The Washington Post reported that the US was interested in using the Australia-controlled Cocos Islands as a base for surveillance drones.

Professor Leahy, who led the army between 2002 and 2008 and is now director of the University of Canberra’s National Security Institute, argues against Australia becoming too closely tied to the US. “As a sovereign nation Australia should maintain the ability to say ‘no’ to the US and separate itself from their actions,” he writes, predicting the US marines agreement will lead to US pressure for even closer military ties with Australia, including greater access for American air and naval forces.

“These are momentous decisions with far-reaching consequences. They potentially implicate Australia in a series of actions that could lead to increased tension and even conflict with China.

“War is improbable but not impossible. Australia needs to be careful that it does not make inevitable the future that it should fear the most.”

Yesterday’s China Daily article accused Australia of jumping on “the bandwagon” of a US push to “contain” China, putting at risk the close economic ties developed since diplomatic relations were normalised four decades ago.

“As an old Chinese saying said . . . the person attempting to travel two roads at once will get nowhere,” the article said. “Canberra is in danger of learning the truth of the Chinese saying that he who does not trust enough will not be trusted.

“If Canberra continues to place more importance on its alliance with Washington, the trend of giving China the cold shoulder will eventually hurt the good momentum that the two countries have worked hard to build.”

China is Australia’s largest trading partner, with the emerging giant’s hunger for coal and iron ore the key driver of Australia’s ongoing resources boom.

Truly, we are governed by muppets.

Dangerous muppets.

And the governing muppets are opposed by more muppets who, if given the chance to govern, would, on this particular topic, be even worse.

God help us.

An OSCAR For The Clean Energy Future

11 Feb

How appropriate.

The key, mission-critical system used by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency for reporting and calculation of “emissions” by the “biggest polluters”, is called OSCAR.

And now, with just over 4 months till the carbon ‘tax’ begins, the “science” is in.

OSCAR is trash.

As indeed was the government’s $20 million taxpayer-funded advertising campaign for the carbon “tax”, which according to the Auditor-General:

“.. contained facts which were not properly sourced and seven breaches of financial management regulations.”

Last year, we closely followed the unfolding story … fairytale … of the Green-Labor Clean Energy Future legislation.

Regular readers know that close examination of the legislation, and the government’s ever-changing claims about the number of “biggest polluters”, and the comments from the bankster industry, and the comments from the banksters’ “expert” talking head economists, clearly show what the Clean Energy Future really is.

An unconstitutional, bankster-designed, CO2 derivatives scam.

With a ticking time bomb carefully hidden inside.

They also know that the government released a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS). It tacitly conceded that Government emissions audits are nothing more than a propaganda exercise, to maintain “public confidence” in the scheme. Because without public con-fidence that the scheme is actually monitoring emissions accurately, and that companies are actually complying with the scheme, then the whole charade would collapse –

“If there was a perception of widespread non-compliance, community support for the scheme would be much harder to maintain (in the absence of community acceptance and support, the long term future of the scheme could be called into question).”

Indeed, the Government’s RIS actually admitted that “perceptions” of the scheme’s effectiveness are more important than whether or not it actually is effective:

“In closing, it is important to note that, in considering impacts on the credibility of the scheme, perceptions of non-compliance can be more important than the actual level of non-compliance.”

Last week, the Auditor-General released an “independent performance audit” by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), into the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. The report is titled “Administration of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme”.

It is a fascinating read.

Now for lazy “give me the headline” readers, you can see the lamestream media’s lazy summary in The Age here – Audit Finds Errors on Emissions.

For more intelligent readers, or for those passionately and sincerely deluded folk who are placing their (blind) faith in the Government’s “carbon tax” to save the world from Warmageddon, you may find the following excerpts discomforting.

A forewarning – there are quite a few excerpts here. The Auditor-General’s report is 124 pages long. I’ve stripped out only the most interesting items, and highlighted them in yellow.

Rest assured, it is well worth your time to go through this. Especially if you wish to have a much clearer understanding of just what a total farce … and money-sucking fraud … the Clean Energy Future regime and its government department actually are.

I’ve done the tedious work.

And to make it a little more entertaining for you, I’ve sprinkled comments throughout.


Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

To “encourage” compliance is code for, “Pleeeease go along with our scheme … pretty please?” At least this thinly-veiled begging makes a change from, say, The Goose’s impotent posturing towards the banks.

“Significantly higher” costs for compliance by business, ‘eh?

Hmmmm. How much higher?

Patience, dear reader. Remember, this is just the ‘Summary’ at the beginning. The ugly details come later.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

“Currently, the department does not verify the reported data”.

Ummmm … so it could all be total crap.

Or at the very least, riddled with even more errors than the ANAO audit discovered.

Remember, these (self) reported emissions by the “biggest polluters” are the basic, critical data relied upon by Treasury to “model” the impacts of the carbon “tax”.

How apropos was the title of my July 2011 blog post just days before the announcement of the draft legislation – A Disturbance In The Farce

Click to enlarge


Just how big is a “significant error”?

Naturally, we have to look in the fine print for that:

Click to enlarge

So in the Clean Energy Future, a “biggest polluter” has only made a “significant error” if it is “greater than 40%” of the total annual emissions that qualified you as being a “biggest polluter” in the first place.

Would that we all could cruise through life with such a generous standard for (in)accuracy in our work.

Click to enlarge

She’ll be right mate. We’ll get around to submitting a report of our self-assessed “emissions” … eventually.

Click to enlarge


Hear that sound?

That’s the sound of Treasury’s “modelling” on the impacts of the carbon “tax” losing any remaining vestige of credibility.

It’s also the sound of your wallet getting emptied at an even faster rate than you thought, as corporations pass on “significantly higher” costs than Treasury had “modelled”.

Click to enlarge

Great big new “tax”.

No tangible benefit.

Quelle surprise!

Click to enlarge

Funny how there is such a lack of “progress” under a new global tax regime being instituted by … progressives.

Ok, that’s enough from the “Summary”. Yes, all 31 pages of the “Summary”.

It’s probably more than enough for anyone with an IQ above room temperature to get the picture.

That even according to the Auditor-General, the government’s scheme for monitoring and reporting the emissions of the “biggest polluters” is a farce.

But if you want more … and the really good stuff is yet to come, because as every Yes Minister fan knows, the Summary is for the gormless ministers and the media, and you always hide the stuff you don’t want people to know in the endless pages of tedious detail  … then here’s selected excerpts from the remaining 93 pages of detailed subject areas:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

And thus, dear reader, we have official confirmation – from the Auditor-General, no less – that your humble blogger was right throughout 2011, in his numerous blogs exposing Gillard’s “1,000 biggest … 500 biggest … more in the order of more like 400” “biggest polluters” lies.

Click to enlarge

Meaning … if you believe in the accuracy of the government’s data, which of course, as we have seen, you can’t … almost half of Australia’s total “emissions” won’t be directly covered.

Hmmmm … bushfire season coming up again.

Pushing on a string, anyone?

Click to enlarge


$472 grand to tell us that the emissions reporting regime is a farce?

Great use of taxpayer dollars.

I’d have told you that for one one-hundredth of the price.

Indeed, I have been telling you that … for free.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Translation: The technical requirements being asked of corporations in order to report emissions are too bloody difficult.

Doubtless explaining why so many have either (a) failed to report, (b) reported months late, or (c) screwed up their report.

Click to enlarge

Arguably the most amusing quote in the entire audit.

The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) actually defines “compliance” with the scheme as the ability to “encourage” corporations to comply. Its own definition recognises that the onus for compliance “rests primarily” with the corporations.

Oh yes, dear reader … I have no doubt whatsoever that corporations are very much “encouraged” to comply with the Clean Energy Future regime … particularly when they can see how impotent and farcical the DCCEE and its systems actually are.

Click to enlarge

“because of resource constraints”.

Public ‘service’ (vomit) code for “give us more money”. Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud of this report.

“a fully functional compliance capability is not yet in place”“a critical capability to have in place prior to .. July 2012”

Better get a wriggle on then, fellas. You’ve got about 18 weeks.

Oh that’s right. Silly me.

That’s just the coded threat underlying the appeal for more taxpayer money.

“Quick quick La Gillardine, give us another few billion, or we won’t be ready to ‘encourage’ corporations to ‘comply’ in time.”

Click to enlarge

Just in case you missed our department’s appeal/threat for more funding the first time.

Click to enlarge

Translation: the DCCEE will only tell the responsible Minister what the department heads decide that he “needs to know”.

Don’t believe that’s what they mean?

Click to enlarge

Translation: The DCCEE has not been telling the responsible Minister (Combet) that the department is waaaaaaaaaay behind the eight-ball in implementing the basic (and critical) emissions reporting bureaucracy.

Sir Humphrey Appleby would be so proud of this department.

Click to enlarge

Data integrity is critical.

And yet, how exactly are emissions determined?

Well now, that’s in the fine print, of course:

Click to enlarge

Translation: The corporation tells us how much electricity they used, or generated, and/or how many tonnes of dirt they dug up. And our special black box called OSCAR “automatically calculates” the number of tonnes of “emissions”.

Sounds like a Great Big New FUDGE FACTOR to this humble blogger.

And since the audit also goes on to demonstrate just how appallingly agricultural (pun intended) the OSCAR software system is, one would have to be wilfully ignorant (or a vested interest) to believe that this system will actually generate and report accurate emissions data.

Don’t believe me?

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

The “biggest polluters” own record-keeping is not up to par. Indeed, some corporations admit that they are passing this task off to junior staff or “third party providers” (read: the accountant).

But it gets worse, because …

Click to enlarge

… even the DCCEE doesn’t actually know how poor the “biggest polluters” record-keeping is, because the department’s own auditing program still isn’t finished, and so they didn’t have any documentation to show the Auditor-General, aside from their own “guidelines” handed out to corporations!

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Difficult for the construction sector to get the necessary records to report emissions, you say?

Contractors, you say?

I can smell a RORT-A-THON coming on.

Click to enlarge

Independent third party verification of the “biggest polluters” annual reports?

Never mind. We’ll take your word for it.

Click to enlarge

OSCAR, ‘eh?

Given the quality of data going into, and out of this system, one wonders if some nerdish wag in the DCCEE wasn’t thinking of this Oscar when they chose the name:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Someone left the lid off the trash can.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

And the trash can is full of holes.

So, what do we do when the trash is leaking out of the trash can?

Why but of course … we stuff it back in again:

Click to enlarge

How much trash is leaking out … that we know of so far?

Click to enlarge

Oh, only 22% and 9% of total reported emissions for 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Or, about 77 million and 30 million tonnes of CO2-e.

At $23 tonne, that’s only about $1.7 Billion and $900 million dollars worth of “carbon credits” in error.

And let’s not forget the fine print caveat at 101 , telling us that there may yet be a further rise in resubmissions for those years … so, we can’t even rely on the DCCEE regarding error rates!

Billions of dollars for a massive department of sloth and gross ineptitude … money very well spent.

And speaking of costs, now we get to the Auditor-General’s assessment of costs of compliance with the Clean Energy Future scam:

Click to enlarge

Fair enough.

If the actual compliance costs are not similar to those estimated when the legislation was passed through Parliament, then “Houston, we have a problem.”

And indeed, we most definitely do.

For those readers who have not yet been enlightened to the woeful record of Treasury “modelling” (see Why Would Any Sane Person Believe Treasury’s Carbon Tax Modelling When Its Budget Forecasting Record Is This Bad? ), then now might be a good time to close your eyes:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

And of course, as always, it’s vital to check the fine print:

Click to enlarge

Translation: we did our best to make the cost of compliance for corporations appear as low as possible, by ignoring the “outliers”. But sadly, we couldn’t fudge the headline “result” any more than this.

And the reason why the costs for corporations is so high, is because complying with the reporting requirements is a major pain in the arse:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Thank you, Mr Auditor-General.

That’s another $472K of borrowed money well spent by the government.

To check up on the (lack of) progress of … the government.

I wonder just how much more money the DCCEE will insist that they “need”, in order to get their “self-assessment” emissions reporting system ready by July 1st?

And I wonder how long it will take the government’s propaganda unit to prepare their next “education” campaign, to ensure that those oh so critical “perceptions of compliance” in the community are favourable?

After all, if we the people begin to have doubts that “big polluters” are fully complying with the scheme, then the “long term future of the scheme could be called into question”.

Wouldn’t that be terrible.

As the inimitable Senator Joyce said recently:

“The carbon tax is the biggest scam since … a pyramid scheme that if I mention its name I’ll get a suit”

Barnaby is right.


%d bloggers like this: