Friday, 9 June 2017

The American Resistance has many faces and here are just seventeen of them (8)


According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):

In April 2017…. President Trump signed a law overturning strong, commonsense privacy rules that gave consumers control over what internet service providers (ISPs) could do with their data. The rules that were overturned would have prevented ISPs from sharing our browsing history with advertisers, forced ISPs to be clear about what information they’re collecting, and required ISPs to take reasonable steps to protect our data from hackers.

The response from many states was almost instantaneous. State legislators around the nation are now considering laws to restore the privacy protections that Congress and President Trump eviscerated……..

ALASKA
States where legislation has been introduced
Alaska’s HB 232, and the similar HB 230, prevents ISPs that do business within the state from collecting the personal information from customers without express, written consent. It also prevents ISPs from conditioning service on a customer giving them consent to collect personal information.

HAWAII
States where legislation has been introduced
A proposed version of Hawaii’s SB 1201 prevents ISPs that do business within the state from collecting the personal information from customers without express, written consent. It also prevents ISPs from conditioning service on a customer given them consent to collect personal information. However, the current version of the legislation does not include any privacy language.

KANSAS
States where legislation has been introduced
Kansas’s HB 2423 prevents ISPs that do business within the state from collecting or otherwise storing the personal information from a resident of Kansas without express, written consent. It also prevents ISPs from refusing to provide their service to a resident of Kansas who has not given approval for the collection, storage or sale of their personal information.

MAINE
States where legislation has been introduced
Maine’s LD 1610 prohibits an ISP from using, disclosing, selling, or permitting access to a customer’s personal information without express, affirmative consent (absent certain emergency and other exceptions). The bill defines personal information as including web browsing history, app usage, and precise geolocation information, among other sensitive types of data. It prohibits conditioning the sale of a service, or changing a penalty for that service, if a customer does not provide consent. The bill also requires ISPs to take reasonable measures to protect customer’s personal information against unauthorized use, disclosure or access.

MARYLAND
States where legislation has been introduced
A bill was introduced just six days before the end of the legislative session and failed to pass through Maryland’s state legislature, SB 1200, due to the lack of time to consider the issue. It would have prohibited ISPs from selling or transferring a customer’s personally identifying information—which includes browsing history and IP address—for marketing purposes without affirmative consent from the customer (absent certain legal exceptions). It would have prevented ISPs from showing ads to customers from the ISP based on the customer’s browsing history, without affirmative permission. The bill would have prevented ISPs from conditioning service on a customer giving them consent to collect personal information. And the bill would have required the state’s Joint Committee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Biotechnology to monitor enforcement of the act and provide recommendations on future changes needed to the law.

MASSACHUSETTS
States where legislation has been introduced
There are several internet privacy bills pending in Massachusetts. HB 3698 prohibits an ISP from collecting, using, disclosing, or permitting access to a customer’s sensitive propriety information without opt-in consent (absent certain emergency and other circumstances). Sensitive proprietary information includes financial and health information, information about children, precise geolocation, browsing history, and app usage, among others. The bill also requires that ISPs disclose, at the point of sale or during significant changes to their practices, the types of information the ISP wishes to collect, the purposes for which it would use the information, and the types of third-parties who would receive the information when asking the customer for opt-in consent.
S 2062 would prohibit ISPs from collecting, using, disclosing or permitting third-party access to a customer’s proprietary information, which includes web browsing history and app usage, without affirmative consent (absent certain emergency and other exceptions). It also requires the ISP to ask for opt-in approval when material changes are made to the company’s privacy policy, and it requires that customers be given a conspicuous notice of what information is collected, the purpose for which it would be disclosed, and the type of third-party it would be disclosed to. It also prohibits conditioning the sale of a service, or changing a penalty for that service, if a customer does not provide consent.

MINNESOTA
States where legislation has been introduced
A number of similar broadband privacy amendments were attempted in Minnesota. HF 2209 has a provision that prevents ISPs that do business within the state from collecting the personal information from customers without express, written consent. HF 2579HF 2606, and HF 2309 have the same language but also prohibit conditioning the sale of a service on a customer given them consent to collect personal information.

NEBRASKA
States where legislation has been introduced
LR 136, designates the Transportation and Telecommunications Committee to conduct an interim study of the effects of the overturning of the FCC’s broadband privacy rule. If the study concludes that repeal of the rule does impact the privacy of Nebraskans, it may consider state legislative and administration options to restore privacy protections to consumers. The bill was introduced with bi-partisan support.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
States where legislation has been introduced
An amendment to HB 305, which was not adopted, prohibited ISPs from using, disclosing, selling or permitting access to a customer’s personal information without affirmative consent (absent certain emergency and other exceptions). The amendment defined personal information as the content of communications, demographic information, browsing history, financial and health information, information pertaining to children, app usage, and precise geolocation, among others. The amendment also required ISPs to take reasonable steps to protect customer personal information from unauthorized use, disclosure, or access.

NEW JERSEY
States where legislation has been introduced
SB 3156 requires ISPs to keep their customer’s personally identifiable information—which includes browsing history and precise geolocation—confidential unless the customers provide affirmative consent. It also provides that ISP give written notice of this requirement to each customer. The provisions of the bill do not apply to investigations undertaken pursuant to the “New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. Importantly, an ISP cannot refuse to offer internet service to customers simply because the customer does not consent to disclosure of personal information.
AB 3027 instructs the Board of Public Utilities, in consultation with the Division of Consumer Affairs and the Department of Law and Public Safety, to undertake a public awareness campaign to promote consumer understanding of ISP’s information disclosure practices. The campaign would include information about state and federal privacy laws, the circumstances under which ISPs can disclose customer information, and guidance for how consumers can access and understand the privacy policies of ISPs. The bill does not specifically address how the campaign will be clear and accessible to the public.

NEW YORK
States where legislation has been introduced
New York has the most currently pending bills of any state. A 7191 and S5603 prohibit any ISP that do business within the state from collecting or disclosing a customer’s personal information—which includes browsing history and the contents of data-storage devices—without affirmative consent . However, the bills have a number of exceptions for the consent requirement, including provisions that would allow law enforcement to access customer data without a warrant. The bills also require ISPs to take reasonable data security steps and provide a cause of action for ISP violations of its provisions.
A 7236 and S 5576 require ISPs to obtain affirmative consent from a customer prior to using, sharing or selling that customer’s sensitive information, which includes browsing history, financial and medical data, biographical data, the content of communications, and internet usage. Non-sensitive data, which includes aggregate data or subscription data, does not require consent for disclosure. The bills also require ISPs to provide customers with a copy of a privacy policy that includes: data collection and use practices; the ISP’s relationships with third-parties, the purposes for which the ISP collects data; and information for how consumers can exercise control over their privacy. Any ISP that violates the provisions would be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fines.
A 7495 and S 5516 require ISPs to keep confidential, unless given affirmatives consent, customer information including biographical information, browsing history, financial and health information, and information about political affiliation, among others. The ISP is also required to provide written notice of the requirements of the bill to each customer.
S 3367 requires ISPs to keep all customer information confidential unless affirmative consent is provided. The bill also creates a find of $500 per offense for any ISP found to be in violation.

OREGON
States where legislation has been introduced
HB 2090, which has been passed by the Oregon legislature, makes it a violation of that state’s consumer protections law for a company to engage in practices that are inconsistent with its stated privacy policy.
HB 2813 prohibits an ISP from disclosing, selling, or permitting access to a customer’s personal information without affirmative consent (absent certain emergency or other exceptions). The bill defines personal information to include demographic information, browsing history, app usage, the content of communications, information about finances, health or children, and precise geolocation, among others. The bill also prohibits an ISP from conditioning service on or charging a higher rate to customers that do not provide consent for their information to be used. The bill requires ISPs to take reasonable measures to protect customer personal information from unauthorized use, disclosure, or access. And the bill gives a private right of action against an ISP that discloses or sell their information in violation of the bill’s provisions.

RHODE ISLAND
States where legislation has been introduced
HB 6086 prevents ISPs that do business within the state from collecting the personal information from customers without express, written consent. It also prevents ISPs from conditioning service on a customer given them consent to collect personal information.

SOUTH CAROLINA
States where legislation has been introduced
HB 4154 prevents ISPs that do business within the state from collecting the personal information from customers without express, written consent. It also prevents ISPs from conditioning service on a customer given them consent to collect personal information.

WASHINGTON
States where legislation has been introduced
HB 2200, which has already passed the House twice, prohibits an ISP from selling or transferring a customer’s proprietary information, which includes communications content, browsing history, precise geolocation, and financial and health information, among others, without opt-in consent. The bill also prohibits an ISP conditioning service on a customer’s consent to use their proprietary information, and further must disclose the terms and conditions of any financial incentive provided to a customer that consents to having their information used by the ISP.
SB 5919 prevents ISPs that do business within the state from collecting the personal information from customers without express, written consent. It also prevents ISPs from conditioning service on a customer given them consent to collect personal information.

VERMONT
States where legislation has been introduced
HB 535 directs the Attorney General, in consultation with the Commissioner of Public Services to adopt privacy and data security rules for ISPs. SB 147 uses similar language, but also requires that the rules adopted include disclosure requirements for ISP privacy policies, opt-in or opt-out procedures for obtaining customer approval to use and share sensitive or non-sensitive customer propriety information, and data security and breach notification requirements.
SB 72 directs the Attorney General, in consultation with the Commissioner for Public Service and industry and consumer stakeholders, to submit a recommendation or draft legislation regarding whether and to what extent the state should adopt privacy and data security rules for ISPs.

WISCONSIN
States where legislation has been introduced
SB 233 prohibits an ISP from using, disclosing or permitting access to a customer’s proprietary information without affirmative consent (absent certain emergency and other exceptions). The bill defines proprietary information as the content of communications or information that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location, or amount of use of an ISP’s service. The bill also requires that ISP provide notice to consumers about how they collect and use their information and it requires reasonable data security practices and notification of data breaches.

Thursday, 8 June 2017

The most mocked man in the world


It probably started in earnest once the result of U.S. presidential election was declared and reached peak mock by May 2017 during Donald Trump's first overseas foray as *ahem* 'Leader of the Free World'.

Now the man who rode into the White House on the back of alternative facts lies and "fake news" is having the tables turned on him and he is being faked in return.

Here are a few fake @realDonaldTrump tweets which started life on American television during The Late Show - after Trump's follow up to his own covfefe tweet when he ran with "Who can figure out the true meaning of "covfefe" ??? Enjoy!"




So you want to drug test welfare recipients, Mr. Porter?




A handy little DSS fact sheet informs us that drug testing at three trial sites will run for two years and that; The tests will detect use of drugs including ecstasy, marijuana and methamphetamines, including ice. However, the minister and his department remain silent as to the cost of this program.
                                                                                                                                                
We-ell…… I just don’t find any of these statements a convincing argument for drug testing a select number of Centrelink recipients on unemployment benefits commencing 1 January 2018, in the hope that just 8.48 per cent of them will initially test positive.

After all the workforce generally seems likely to have the same addictive issues and no-one is talking of drug testing them before distributing wages.

For example:

In 2013, just over 40% of Australians either smoked daily, drank alcohol in ways that put them at risk of harm or used an illicit drug in the previous 12 months; 3.1% engaged in all 3 of these behaviours. [National Drug Strategy Household Survey Detailed Report 2013]

Over 48,000 Australians were on a course of pharmacotherapy treatment for their opioid dependence on a snapshot day in June 2015.

Wastewater analysis conducted in the latter half of 2016 shows that alcohol and tobacco consumption was the highest of all substances tested in all states and territories.

Declines were seen in recent use of some illegal drugs in 2016 including meth/amphetamines (from 2.1% to 1.4%), hallucinogens (1.3% to 1.0%), and synthetic cannabinoids (1.2% to 0.3%).
About 1 in 20 Australians had misused pharmaceuticals in 2016 (4.8%).

While the number of politicians over the years who have allegedly been drunk in charge of a parliamentary vote is notable – everyone from prime ministers and cabinet ministers right down to lowly backbenches if a recent Google search is a reliable indicator.

Wednesday, 7 June 2017

Is the National Vocational Education and Training System an abject failure?


In 2011 the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act came into being. It is administered by the Dept. of  Education and Training whose current minister is the Liberal Senator for South Australia, Simon Birmingham.


It wasn't too long before government-owned Technical and Further Education (TAFE) colleges/institutes across Australia began to complain they were being starved of funding and courses in order to feed this new education strategy and private ‘colleges’ began to multiply swiftly.

Every so often one of these dodgy private colleges hits the headlines and commentators tut-tut furiously and futilely.

However, most private VET service providers don’t rate much of a mention in mainstream media so the scale of this system failure is not readily apparent, except perhaps to the many thousands of fee-paying students affected.

This is a short and incomplete list of some of the more recent private-sector failures to provide quality further education and vocational training:

ASA (Australian Sports Academy) Pty Ltd, terminated for providing incorrect information in the application.
Australian Vocational Training Academy Pty Ltd, terminated for: failure to provide compliant Training and Assessment Strategies, non-compliance with record keeping requirements; and failure to provide records and evidence to the Department upon request.
Careers Australia Education Institute Pty Ltd, terminated for: failure to properly train and assess students in accordance with training package requirements, non-compliance with record keeping and failure to provide records and evidence upon request.
Careers Australia Institute of Training Pty Ltd, terminated for: failure to properly train and assess students in accordance with training package requirements, non-compliance with record keeping and failure to provide records and evidence upon request. Careers Australia group now in voluntary administration
Industry Education and Training Services Pty Ltd, terminated for: providing incorrect information in the application.
Seluna Pty Ltd, terminated for: failure to comply with training and assessment requirements of the VET Quality Framework, and submitting training activity and receiving subsidies for learners where there was no evidence of commencement.
Western Institute of Technology Pty Ltd, terminated for: providing incorrect information in the application.
Wise Education Group Pty Ltd, terminated for: failure to meet Standards for RTOs 2015 and non-compliance with record keeping requirements.
Group314 Pty Ltd, terminated for: Termination of S and S due to previous termination of APL; and,
Donna Mere Morrell-Pullin, terminated for: providing incorrect information in the application. [my red annotation]

Conwal and Associates Pty Ltd, non-compliant with the requirements of the VET Quality Framework, registration cancelled
Online Courses Australia Pty Ltd, non-compliant with the requirements of the VET Quality Framework. registration cancelled
Australian Vocational Learning Institute, non-compliant with the requirements of the VET Quality Framework. registration cancelled
 Clover Educations trading as Cool Body Institute of Massage, not operated consistently with the applicable requirements of the VET Quality Framework, registration cancelled
AITE Pty Ltd Australian Institute of Technical Education, not operated consistently with the applicable requirements of the VET Quality Framework, registration cancelled
Get Qualified Australia-Adelaide Pty Ltd trading as Get Qualified Australia Trades Academy and Get Qualified Trades Academy, not operated consistently with the applicable requirements of the VET Quality Framework, registration cancelled
Get Qualified Australia-Canberra Pty Ltd trading as Get Qualified Australia College, not operated consistently with the applicable requirements of the VET Quality Framework, registration cancelled
Get Qualified Australia-Brisbane Pty Ltd trading as Get Qualified Australia Institute, not operated consistently with the applicable requirements of the VET Quality Framework, registration cancelled
CTM Training Solutions Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled
Green Pty Ltd trading as Green Training, VET services registration cancelled
Switch On Learning Pty Ltd trading as Australian Institute of Technology & Trade, VET services registration cancelled
Australian Tertiary Academy Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled
Equalis Pty Ltd trading as Equalis, VET services registration cancelled
Amana International Training Academy Pty Ltd trading as Zenith Education & Training, VET services registration cancelled
ASCET Institute of Technology, critically and systematically non-compliant with the requirements of the vocational education and training (VET) quality framework, registration cancelled
5 Star Training Institute Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled
AJK Image Pty Ltd as trustee for The Nicole Kratzmann Family Trust trading as AKISS (Advanced Knowledge in Skin Science), VET services registration cancelled
Australia-Wide Business Training Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled
Childs Training Pty Ltd as the trustee for the Childs Family Trust trading as Quality Unlimited, VET services registration cancelled
Clear Fountain Pty Ltd trading as NITE School and Nationwide Instructors, Trainers and Educators, VET services registration cancelled
DJ Howle Pty Ltd trading as Onsite Training Services, VET services registration cancelled
Entertrain Institute of Technology Pty Ltd trading as Entertain Interactive Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled
Excellent Training Institute Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled
June Dally-Watkins Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled
Master Group (Aust.) Pty Ltd trading as Master Group, VET services registration cancelled
Optimal Progression Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled
Todd Rutherford trading as Drilling Skills Australia, VET services registration cancelled
Aus-Com Training Services Pty Ltd trading as Aus-Com Training Services, VET services registration cancelled
Ausietech Investments Pty Ltd trading as Australian College of Management & Technology)
Professional Training College Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled
Nailtech Training Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled
Project Management Partners Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled
[See latest regulatory decisions of Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA)

Gurkhas Institute of Technology Pty Ltd, registration cancelled
DIY Training Services Pty Ltd, registration cancelled
Get Qualified Australia-Adelaide Pty Ltd trading as Get Qualified Australia Trades Academy and Get Qualified Trades Academy, registration cancelled
Sage Academy Training Pty Ltd, registration cancelled
Premier Training Institute Pty Ltd, registration cancelled
Safety and First Aid Education Pty Ltd, registration cancelled

Full list of Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) decisions.

And Australia wonders why it has a skills shortage?


In North-East NSW 'a "reduced survey effort" and the dropping of a longstanding rule applying 20 metre buffers to "high-use" areas' is being proposed. How much more can a koala bear?


PHOTO: Australia Zoo in The Age

The Forestry Corporation of NSW (originally the Forestry Commission formed by an act of the NSW Parliament) is the largest manager of commercial native and plantation forests in New South Wales.

Not content with revenue of $339 million and underlying profit after tax of $36 million in 2015-16 (latest annual report) it wants to increase its harvesting range and is coming after quality koala habitat on the NSW North Coast.

ABC News, 3 June 2017:

Many of Australia's most iconic marsupials will lose protection from logging bulldozers, under a radical overhaul proposed in secret Forestry Corporation documents.

The documents, obtained by the ABC, propose the elimination of long-standing threatened species protections, such as site-survey rules, in many NSW state forests.

Intense clearing in northern regions, and increased access to protected stream-banks across the state are other major changes.

Environmentalists say if current rules are trashed, protected marsupials including koalas, wombats, quolls, and gliders will be stealthily eliminated.

"If you don't look, you don't find and if you don't find you don't protect," said conservationist Dailan Pugh, from the North-East Forest Alliance.

The conditions are part of new forestry agreements — known as Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals (IOFA) — and cover four major operational areas across the state. Final details are expected to be announced later this year.

Wombats, quolls, koalas face loss of exclusion zones


Many iconic marsupials face additional changes in the draft proposals.

The highly endangered spotted-tail quoll faces a 70 per cent reduction of no-logging zones around breeding dens — reduced from 12 hectares to 3.5 hectares.

Wombats, another protected species, are geographically protected by a line north of the Oxley Highway, requiring a 20 metre logging exclusion zone around burrows.

But Forestry Corporation negotiators want to redraw that protective line further north to Waterfall Way — eliminating the 20 metre exclusion in a vast logging zone between Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie.

Mr Pugh said that would lead to "more wombats being buried alive, as their burrows are collapsed by machinery and falling trees".

He said environmental regulators, such as the EPA, should address declining wombat numbers by expanding current protections state-wide.

For koalas in north-east NSW, Forestry Corporation proposes a "reduced survey effort" and the dropping of a longstanding rule applying 20 metre buffers to "high-use" areas.

It says future protections are "to be developed" utilising new models to retain habitat.

Cost savings if animal surveys dropped

Currently, prior to harvest, logging companies must survey for 87 vulnerable animals, many already facing threat of extinction.

Where an animal habitat is found, operators then implement site protections such as exclusion zones before logging is approved……


The author cites "significant cost saving" as a benefit of making the change.

But former Forestry scientist Robert Kooyman worried relaxing the rules around surveys would harm up to 49 animal species.

"Forest management requires that you know what it is you are managing," he said.

"While historic records provide an indication of habitat use, they are inevitably incomplete, do not reflect the dynamics of forests, and many animal species are highly mobile within their range and habitats, and follow resources."……

Tuesday, 6 June 2017

The Liberal Party's rednecks predictably make hay with Trump's anti-science rampage


This was what was displayed on the Prime Minister of Canada’s official website immediately after US President Donald Trump had announced his government’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

Ottawa, Ontario
June 1, 2017
The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement in response to the United States’ decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement:
“We are deeply disappointed that the United States federal government has decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Canada is unwavering in our commitment to fight climate change and support clean economic growth. Canadians know we need to take decisive and collective action to tackle the many harsh realities of our changing climate.
“While the U.S. decision is disheartening, we remain inspired by the growing momentum around the world to combat climate change and transition to clean growth economies. We are proud that Canada stands united with all the other parties that support the Agreement. We will continue to work with our domestic and international partners to drive progress on one of the greatest challenges we face as a world.
“This is not only about the huge economic opportunities of clean growth and the need to address the pressing threats of climate change. This is about an ambitious and unshakeable desire to leave a cleaner, healthier and more sustainable planet for our kids and for generations to come.
“We are all custodians of this world, and that is why Canada will continue to work with the U.S. at the state level, and with other U.S. stakeholders, to address climate change and promote clean growth. We will also continue to reach out to the U.S. federal government to discuss this matter of critical importance for all humankind, and to identify areas of shared interest for collaboration, including on emissions reductions.”

This is what the Prime Minister of Australia’s official website looked like on the morning of 2 June 2017:
Not one word from Malcolm Bligh Turnbull as he cowered behind closed doors wary of offending both the climate change deniers in his own party and the US president – he left any initial  remarks to the Minister for Environment and Energy.

It wasn’t until later on 2 June that a lukewarm statement was delivered during a doorstop interview in Singapore aimed not at Trump but at his own political opponents at home :

Well the President's announcement is not a surprise. It was a very core campaign commitment of his - It is disappointing. We would prefer the United States to remain part of the agreement. We are committed to the Paris agreement. We are on track to meet our 2030 targets of a reduction in emissions by 26 to 28 per cent from 2005 levels. And, I should say we are doing well. Our emissions, whether measures against by head of population or by, against GDP are the lowest they've been for 27 years.
The important thing is to ensure that we maintain energy supplies that are affordable, that are reliable, secure and that we meet our emissions targets and we are on track to do just that. That's our commitment, our energy policy is grounded in economics and engineering. Not in ideology like the Labor Party’s.

That pause between Trump’s announcement and Turnbull’s response allowed the Liberal Party’s merry band of luddites enough airtime to show support for Trump’s position.

This group contained Senator for Tasmania Eric Abetz, Senator for Queensland Ian Macdonald, MP for Dawson (Qld) George Christensen and MP for Hughes (NSW) Craig Kelly

Which was probably what the hypocritical, pro-coal Member for Wentworth intended to happen all along

Something people in the electorates of these parliamentarians should perhaps keep in mind when they go to vote at the next federal election.

The Fools on the Hill still vainly searching for viable large scale 'clean coal' technology


The Sydney Morning Herald reported on 30 May 2017:

Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said the Clean Energy Finance Corporation [CEFC] would have its mandate expanded so it could back fossil fuel power plants that include the technology, sometimes described as "clean coal".

The technology, which involves capturing the emissions at the source and burying them underground, was explicitly banned when the CEFC was set up under a Labor-Greens agreement in 2011.

Unfortunately for the foolish, ideology-driven Liberal MP for Kooyong & Minister for Environment and Energy and his equally foolish Prime Minister The Australia Institute released this statement on the same day:

“The Australian Government has put $1.3 billion of taxpayers’ money towards Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) initiatives since 2003, with zero large scale operational projects to show for it. A new report from The Australia Institute’s, Money for nothing, has found that despite years of generous taxpayer funding, there are no large-scale CCS projects operating in Australia and no planned coal CCS projects at any stage of development. Several proposed coal plants with CCS received federal grants, but all have since been cancelled or liquidated.” 

Opening paragraphs of The Australia Institute’s discussion paper Money for nothing by Bill Browne and Tom Swann, May 2017:

In 2007, then-Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced a $100 million grant for a proposed coal plant at Loy Yang “suitable for” CCS. Turnbull said “Projects like this one … will play an integral role in helping to reduce emissions in Australia”.  Five years later, the grant was withdrawn. The operator has been liquidated.
In February 2017, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull put CCS back on the agenda. He argued as the world’s largest coal exporter, Australia has a “vested interest” in promoting clean coal, and lamented that despite substantial public investment over the years “we do not have one modern high-efficiency low-emissions coal-fired power station, let alone one with carbon capture and storage”.
 In 2009, the head of the Australian Coal Association promised that that we will “have commercial scale demonstration plants with carbon capture and storage in operation in Australia by 2015”.  In 2017 the chief national coal lobbyist said it is “pretty early days” with regards to CCS, which is “an evolving technology”.
 Despite the poor track record of coal with CCS, the Turnbull government is now proposing to fund it through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which has previously focused on commercial or near-commercial projects, mostly renewables.
In light of Turnbull’s proposal, this report outlines previous funding to CCS and how little Australia has to show for it.
Since 2003, successive Australian governments have backed their promises that CCS will preserve the coal industry with promises of public money. Over $3.5 billion has been committed towards a wide range of CCS-related projects, initiatives and programs. Over $1.3 billion was identified as actually distributed.
The government found it difficult to find projects to fund, and funded projects often failed. While funding was sometimes ‘clawed back’, other times this was not possible. ZeroGen, a proposed coal plant with CCS, went into administration despite at least $187 million in subsidies. The 99% Australia-funded Global CCS Institute backed more overseas projects than Australian ones and had extravagant operational spending.
The coal industry also announced a $1 billion CCS industry fund, which they said would match federal government spending. The fund has collected and committed only $300 million (mostly for CCS projects), and some of this fund has been spent on election campaign promotion of “clean coal”. Contributions to the fund were deducted against royalties in some states, meaning the fund was subsidised by the taxpayer.