WHO Announces Failure of Pandemic Agreement

WHO Director, General Tedros Ghebreyesus, has conceded the failure of the WHO Pandemic Treaty at the start of the World Health Assembly 77.

This is a great day for those of us who have stood against a global health dictatorship, including myself and One Nation Australia.

Ghebreyesus was a terrorist with the Tigre Liberation Army. While at the helm of WHO, he has actively covered up the rape and sexual exploitation of women in the Congo by WHO personnel, as found by his own investigative commission.

The world has decided that this man and the degenerates at the WHO should not be trusted to lead the next pandemic response. Perhaps by sacking this man and re-empowering the old guard at WHO—doctors who genuinely want to heal and do good—trust in the organisation could be restored.

Additionally, removing the influence of predatory billionaire Bill Gates and his foundation, as well as globalist front groups like CEPI, would also help WHO regain their damaged reputation.

Nations don’t need a Pandemic Treaty to review their COVID performance; they just need the will and courage to scrutinise every aspect and uncover the truth behind the advocacy and fake science. Instead, governments worldwide, including Australia, are avoiding these issues, fearing the loss of sponsorship and protection provided by the crony capitalist world order.

Years ago, I promised to hound down those responsible for the death and destruction caused by corporate cronyism in Australia, and I will continue to do so.

Today is a good day for the resistance. Let this encourage all of us to renew our efforts to bring the guilty to justice and eliminate cronyism from our governance.

UPDATE: 29-May-2025

WHO Will Not Be Deterred By Public Opinion

/22 Comments/by

Dutton’s Immigration Cut is Smoke and Mirrors

Peter Dutton’s immigration proposal still involves importing more people into the country in the middle of a housing crisis.

A cut isn’t enough, we need to start deporting temporary visa holders now.

Transcript

Liberals promise a huge cut to immigration. That’s the news headline – but is it actually huge? And is it even a cut? Not really – the devil is in the detail.

Peter Dutton has promised a small, temporary change to the permanent migration number. It’s important to remember there are two types of immigration, permanent and temporary. Dutton hasn’t made any promises about temporary migration and that’s our biggest problem. He’s proposed to make permanent migration 140,000 a year for two years. That’s still 140,000 additional people a year coming here permanently.

Considering permanent migration used to be 80,000 a year, it’s still too high. Temporary migration is another kettle of fish that even Dutton won’t touch. Temporary migration are the temporary visa holders in the country.

Prior to COVID there was about 2.3 million temporary visa holders in the country. As of February this year, that number has exploded to 2.8 million.

Government keeps saying we’re “just catching up” on migration, but that is obviously a lie. All of those extra people in the country are fighting Australians for a roof over their head.

Peter Dutton’s proposal won’t even get us close to normal, he’s still talking about accepting more! If we want cheaper houses, cheaper rent and less Australians sleeping in tents, we need about half a million temporary visa holders to leave the country, not the increase Peter Dutton is talking about.

There’s only one party who’s talking about a real cut to immigration, to make sure Australians have a roof over their head —– that’s One Nation. 

/7 Comments/by

BOM’s Climate Forecast Failure

,

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has consistently issued weather forecasts that align with their promotion of the climate change scam, which appears independent of likely weather outcomes.

In 2023, BOM came unstuck when they spent the year forecasting a hotter and drier summer, prompting farmers to reduce their cattle numbers and alter planting schedules. What actually occurred was a wet and cool summer. This inaccurate forecast by the BOM resulted in significant financial losses for farmers and graziers, and rural provider Elders saw a $300 million drop in their share price when earnings were announced last month.

Despite this, BOM and other media outlets claim that their forecasts were accurate and that Elders’ earnings reflected other issues as well.

Supporting Research

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/outlooks/archive.shtml

EYCI Report | Meat & Livestock Australia (mla.com.au)

Archive – Climate outlook maps (bom.gov.au)

Read the Transcript HERE

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you to the bureau for appearing today. I’ve handed out some documents for circulation. They’re copies of BOM forecasts versus actual. I think you’ll be familiar with them, for sure. That’s a contradiction in terms, ‘think’ and ‘for sure’. Anyway, I’m sure you’ll be familiar with them.

On 19 September 2023 the Bureau of Meteorology’s weather forecast read, ‘Warmer and dryer conditions would be more likely over spring and summer,’ linking the Indian Ocean Dipole with El Nino using the words, ‘The last time this occurred was 2015,’ which was a very dry year, especially in Queensland. The bush listened to that, and a lot of other people did too—investors as well.

On 30 November the Bureau of Meteorology predicted ‘a high chance of warmer than usual days and nights across Australia, below average rainfall likely for much of the tropics’. The actual weather: northern Queensland was flooded in December—big floods—by Tropical Cyclone Jasper; inland Queensland was flooded in January by Tropical Cyclone Kirrily; South-East Queensland was flooded in December and January.

I’ve circulated your entire forecast for 2023 split into five periods. Each period forecast, except one, was for drier weather than occurred. One was about right. None predicted more rain than occurred, much less than I would have hoped. My question is simple: is your weather model fundamentally flawed?

Dr Johnson: No, Senator, it’s not.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s costing nearly $1 billion to upgrade your computer system, the ROBUST Program as it’s called. Is that still the cost, and can you provide an itemisation? It appears a ridiculous amount of money.

Dr Johnson: Firstly, as I’ve answered to senators in this chamber over many years, the costs associated with the ROBUST Program are cabinet in confidence; they’re not for publication. As I also answered—I think it was at the previous hearing or perhaps the one before—in response to a question from Senator Pocock, the upgrade of the Australis computer system is not part of the ROBUST Program; it is a separate program of work.

Senator ROBERTS:Could you explain the Australis versus the ROBUST, and which one is—

Dr Johnson: ROBUST is a complex program to upgrade the bureau’s ICT and observing systems, fundamental ICT—

Senator ROBERTS:What’s ICT?

Dr Johnson: Information and communications technology.

Senator ROBERTS:Thank you.

Dr Johnson: It upgrades our underlying information and communications technology infrastructure, our observing networks—all sorts of things.

Senator ROBERTS:And recording devices?

Dr Johnson: I’ll get to that in a second. That includes radars, automatic weather stations, automatic balloon launchers—all sorts of things that observe the environment—as well as our underpinning technology infrastructure.

The ROBUST Program, again, has three dimensions. It has a security dimension—in other words, investment to improve the security of the bureau’s systems from threats from our country’s adversaries. There’s stability. Prior to the investment in ROBUST, many of the bureau’s systems were very old, many decades old, and we were experiencing challenges in keeping them stable and operational. And then there’s resilience so that, in the event of an outage, the capacity of the bureau to respond and have our systems back online is improved. So there are three dimensions to ROBUST: security, stability and resilience.

There is a supercomputer dimension to ROBUST, which is a second supercomputer, a disaster recovery machine. Prior to ROBUST, our disaster recovery functions were executed within a single machine in a single place. The arrangements going forward will be different. I’d rather not disclose those in detail, for security reasons, but the ROBUST program funded a second supercomputer for disaster recovery purposes. That is a different machine to the Australis machine, which has often been asked about in Senator Pocock’s questions. That was a separate program to Robust, Senator. You’re conflating two bits of technology uplift in two separate programs.

Senator ROBERTS:The total cost is a billion dollars for both?

Dr Johnson: No. As I said, I’m not going to speak about the cost of ROBUST. The cost of the Australis upgrade is roughly, I think, $44 million—something of that order.

Senator ROBERTS:Dr Johnson, you’re required to produce any information or documents that are requested to this committee. There’s no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this Senate committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence. You’re protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that’s also a contempt. If you wish to raise an immunity claim, there are proper processes around that, and it is up to the Senate whether to accept that, not you or the minister. Can you please take on notice to produce that document to the committee and the cost—

Dr Johnson: Which document are you referring to, Senator?

Senator ROBERTS: The cost.

Dr Johnson: Of ROBUST?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Dr Johnson: The decision around the cost of ROBUST—

Senator McAllister: Just take it on notice.

Dr Johnson: We’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS:Thank you, Minister. David Burton of Inigo Jones, long-term weather forecaster, uses sunspots and planetary cycles to correctly forecast weather decades in advance. He’s got a track record because he’s got investors who invest as a result of his successful forecast. He posted 12 months ago that the good rains would start after 20 November 2023. There was no El Nino, and cyclones were likely. David Burton has no computer models and uses a $20 calculator because he understands the cycles. He got the weather right; you got it wrong. Hayden Walker, another long-term weather forecaster, correctly forecasted severe storms in the areas where they did occur. Will you talk to these private forecasters to work out why their systems are right and yours was wrong? Theirs are actually history. Yours are models—aren’t they?

Dr Johnson: I reject the whole premise of your questions. Our forecasts, as I’ve indicated at the previous hearing on this subject, were remarkably accurate. I’m happy to go through them again. What we said is on the Hansard in terms of the seasonal outlook. We were very clear, as the year progressed, that we were moving out of a dry warming trend into a moistening trend. We were also very clear in our messaging that, irrespective of the ENSO status and the seasonal forecast, we know that in northern Australia, in particular, there is always the risk of severe weather—cyclones and floods—under any climatic situation. I don’t agree with the premise of your question.

Senator ROBERTS: This is not just northern Queensland, where we know that it’s prone to storms, but western Queensland and southern Queensland. We know that your bureau declares El Nino and positive Indian Ocean Dipole events. David Burton said there was no El Nino and cyclones were likely. David Burton quite often gets it right. He’s paid a considerable amount of money because David Burton’s, Hayden Walker’s and, prior to them, Inigo Jones’ and various other people’s methods have been in use for decades. Farmers, investors and businesses pay for their forecast. They have to go out into the market and sell.

Dr Johnson: I understand that, and millions of Australians rely on our forecasts every day, including farmers and folks in the business community. I just reaffirm to you, as I did at the previous estimates, just how remarkably accurate our forecasts were over the period. I’ve certainly said in previous hearings and in other forums that we acknowledge that some of the messaging that we gave during the previous spring and summer didn’t get through in a manner that we would like.

That’s not to blame the recipients of that messaging. It’s just a fact. People heard a message around an ENSO status and thought, ‘That’s it; it’s going to be hot and dry.’ We update our forecasts every week, and we regularly updated our outlooks, and those outlooks proved to be very accurate.

We also affirmed, in all those messages that, particularly during the summer and irrespective of the ENSO status, the risk in this country of thunderstorms, floods and tropical cyclones remains. In fact, at the national severe weather forum here in Canberra, I made that very clear in my own presentation: one thing that this country has taught us is that severe weather can occur at any time. We’re very clear in our messaging around that. I’m only going to comment on our forecasts and warnings. Others are welcome to comment on those made other parties, but I stand by the quality of our forecast. I did so at the previous hearing, and I’ll continue to do so.

Senator ROBERTS:Well I do agree with you—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to have to rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS:I note that your own forecast—

Dr Johnson: I’d like to have a look at this—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s produced by you.

Dr Johnson: I know, but a very quick and cursory—and maybe it’s not helpful, Chair—is that you’re comparing two different measures of data there. One’s talking about chance of exceedance and another one talks about actuals. The two are fundamentally different concepts. Just because you have a map of Australia with colours doesn’t mean to say that the two datasets are comparable. Let me have a look at it. If you have a specific question, I’d be happy to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS:Your faulty forecast caused farmers to offload cattle. The benchmark Eastern States Young Cattle Indicator sat as high as 1,192 cents per kilogram of carcass weight in 2022, but by late 2023—after your forecast hit the streets—it had tumbled all the way to 349 cents per kilogram. That’s less than a third. Do you accept responsibility for that loss to the Australian capital market as graziers sold stock because they feared overstocking in the looming dry?

Dr Johnson: Let’s just get the data right here. The Eastern States Young Cattle Indicator was about 1,200 cents per kilogram in January 22, and less than 400 cents by October 23. We released our El Nino declaration on 18 September, so by 18 September that particular measure of cattle prices had dropped somewhere by around 80 per cent. To somehow draw a conclusion that because we issued that declaration on 18 September that resulted in a run on the cattle markets, is just not supported by the data.

As I said at my previous hearings on this matter—in response to, I think, a question from Senator Davey—there are a whole range of factors influencing the decisions of primary producers. I’ve talked to a lot of primary producers and absolutely our advice and our outlooks contribute to their decision-making. But to a person to a farm business that I’ve spoken to there are a whole range of other things that they take into account in making a decision to sell their cattle. So this notion that the bureau declaring an El Nino at 18 September can explain an 80 per cent drop of the cattle prices from January 22 to October 23 is just a nonsense, frankly.

Senator ROBERTS:Thank you, Chair, can we come back?

— *** —

Senator ROBERTS:Dr Johnson, could you please repeat your dates and cattle prices? Eastern Young Cattle Indicator—

Dr Johnson: I’ll try if I can. Let me just find the brief that I have and the advice I have received. I’ve been advised of Rural Bank data that shows the Easten Young Cattle Indicator declined from approximately 1,200c a kilogram in January 2022 to less than 400c a kilogram by October 2023. As I said, we declared an El Nino on 18 September. So, just to reaffirm by that calculation, I’m advised that the cattle price had completed more than 80 per cent of its downward run by the time we declared that El Nino in September.

Senator ROBERTS:Great. Thank you very much.

Dr Johnson: That’s the advice I have.

Senator ROBERTS: The Financial Review blames the Bureau of Meteorology: ‘How the BOM’s big dry weather forecast cost millions’ and ‘Bureau of Meteorology’s botched weather call crushes Elders’ earnings’. There’s ‘BOM mistakes hit farmers but slash inflation’, and then we’ve got others there. Your botched prediction cost more than just farmers; it cost mum-and-dad investors in Elders millions, with the share price dropping 25 per cent. Do you accept that this was the fault of your forecast?

Dr Johnson: Again, I’ve already answered this question. We absolutely stand by our forecast. Our forecasts are remarkably accurate. As I’ve said at previous estimates hearings, commentary in the media, frankly, has been largely ill-informed and inaccurate, and we’ve sought to correct the record where we can. Take, for example, the Australian Financial Review article which asserted that our El Nino declaration had been linked to Elders’ earning advice. I’ve had a look at the Elders’ advice, and it was not stated or even implied in their earnings outlook. I don’t care what the Australian Financial Review reported. My reading of what Elders actually said was that it didn’t state or even imply that the bureau’s El Nino declaration affected earnings for the period 1 October to 30 September. There are lots of things written in the media. Again, we talked about this last time. If you actually have a look at the facts of what we said and when we said it, our forecasts were remarkably accurate given how complex it is and the sheer area that we’re seeking to provide forecasts for. The forecasts are not perfect; they will always contain uncertainty.

Also, the long-range forecasts can’t explicitly predict the emergence of cyclones—individual, specific events. There will be times when you’ll have an anomalous specific event, and hence why, in our public commentary, we seek to affirm to the public and to industry that there’s always the risk of severe weather in this country and there is always the risk of cyclones in the tropics and subtropics in this country. It is a forecast. It is an estimate of a point in time in the future based on the data at a particular point in time. We update it every week. I strongly encourage those who follow our services—and many millions of people do—to continue to check those updates. The situation changes all the time. We continued to update a point-in-time statement back in September as more information came to hand.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we are going to wrap up, so can you please make this your last question.

Senator ROBERTS: There are lots of people who are saying that the Bureau of Meteorology colours its diagrams to make it look hot and dry but we actually see—and this is rainfall over 124 years—no pattern or trend, no declining trend or increasing trend, just natural variation. And that’s from the BOM. Why the doom and gloom? Why depress expectations for rural output, which also depresses investment, training and employment in the bush, reduces the standard of living and increases the cost of living?

Dr Johnson: I’m not sure I understand your question, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS:Why are you so negative and preaching fear and doom when there’s nothing to suggest that, and why do you use colours to exaggerate it?

Dr Johnson: I don’t agree with your statement that we are preaching doom and gloom. We’re simply reporting the observations we’re making of the environment around us, and we’re reporting, to the best of our ability, what our guidance is for the time ahead. We do that objectively, using world-class, internationally peer reviewed, highly regarded scientific methods, and we’ll continue to do so. I think we’re entirely objective in our pronunciations and our public statements.

/4 Comments/by

Snowy Hydro is an Endless Money Pit!

The Snowy Hydro is a $12 billion pumped hydro project that connects two existing dams in the Snowy with a tunnel, to allow excess power generated by industrial wind and solar sources during the day to be used for pumping water up the hill into the top dam, where it can be released to provide hydro power for the evening and morning peak periods. This sounds like a reasonable idea except, the cost started at $2 billion when announced by Liberal PM Malcolm Turnbull in 2018.  It’s now $12 billion and that’s not including the cost of the transmission lines to take the power into the national grid, which is $14 billion at the least. I expect the final cost will more likely be $20 billion.

Additionally, the project itself and the transmission lines are being built through undisturbed National Park, which will be permanently scarred.

This project will generate 350,000 MW/h of power per annum, providing revenue of $30 million a year at current rates, which suggests they expect electricity to become much more expensive. This means the project will not recover it’s capital cost and is likely to run at a loss every day it operates. The same machinery that is used to pump water up hill and the same “headrace” tunnel used for that purpose, is the same tunnel that brings the water down and generates electricity. This means the facility can’t pump water up and generate electricity at the same time.

So, while it’s true that the generator has a capacity of 2,200 MW, it doesn’t maintain this output all day. As Snowy Hydro admitted during my questioning, they aren’t actually generating new power; they’re simply time shifting existing power. This project has encountered delays due to drilling mistakes and now faces serious obstacles to completion.

Why are we throwing good money after bad on this boondoggle? The reason is that without pumped hydro acting as a “big battery” to transfer expensive, unreliable wind and solar power from the day (when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing) to the night and early morning when it isn’t, the grid will never survive. Evening and morning peak hours will be in darkness – every day. In renewable energy terms, pumped hydro “firms” wind and solar. They have to build Snowy, regardless of the cost.

/2 Comments/by

Questions Raised Over $430K Government Job

,

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

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

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

/5 Comments/by

WHO Will Not Be Deterred By Public Opinion

On the first day of the World Health Assembly 77 in Geneva (WHA77), WHO member states have decided “behind the scenes” that the Pandemic Treaty should not pass.  Feedback suggests the sticking points were cost and loss of sovereignty. 

WHO Director-General, Tedros Ghebreyesus, made the announcement on Monday, which was widely reported.   The official Minute of that resolution can be viewed here.

Undeterred, WHO operatives continue their efforts, despite facing clear repudiation received over the past three years, as they have pushed this nefarious agenda, supported by their lieutenants in the United States, Australia, Canada, and (formerly) the UK.

I am confident that the Pandemic Treaty will not come to a vote in the WHA77. This does not mean it is defeated forever; the WHO will persist in their attempts to expand their power unless we stop them.

There have always been two measures coming up for a vote. The first was the Pandemic Treaty, with the second being changes to the WHO operating manual, the International Health Regulations (IHR). These changes are ‘out of time’ according to the WHO’s own constitution. I spoke about this three weeks ago. Watch the video here.

Despite this, the IHR changes are likely to pass. It is important to note that the proposed IHR changes do not take away national sovereignty. The WHO Constitution establishes that the WHO acts as an advisory body and these IHR changes acknowledge that. Read the document here.

Without a doubt, the WHO has responded to the opposition against their attempt to transform into World Health Police. Unfortunately, Australia’s own Health Minister is in Geneva right now campaigning for mandatory regulations. This will surrender Australian sovereignty to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats that work for the predatory billionaires who fund and own the WHO. Shame on him! 

One Nation opposes any changes to the IHRs that in any way takes away Australian sovereignty. I will read the final version with great interest. At this stage the proposal is a win for democracy and national sovereignty. 

Regardless of what happens in Geneva, citizens around the world must continue to resist the predatory billionaires and their lackeys in government, both globally and locally.

Look out for my article in the Spectator on Saturday for a wrap up of the final outcome. 

Official Minute of Resolution

https://www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2024-who-member-states-agree-way-forward-to-conclude-pandemic-agreement

My Speech from 3 Weeks Ago

International Health Regulations (IHR)

A77_9-enDownload
/by

Free Speech Defends Every Other Human Right

,

Thousands of Australians came out to protest this Labor government’s digital identity bill and the evil agenda behind it. The Online Safety Act, the Identity Verification Services Act, the Digital ID Bill and the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill are designed to identify, apprehend, punish and imprison anyone who resists this slide back into feudalism and serfdom.

Everyday Australians recognise that this bill threatens their freedom, privacy and our way of life. If this entire serfdom agenda was presented to the Australian people in an election and they were asked – “Is this the future you want?” What do you think their answer would be?

Transcript

Last weekend across every capital city, as well as in Cairns and Mackay in my home state of Queensland, thousands of Australians came out to protest this Labor government’s digital identity bill and the evil agenda behind it. Everyday Australians recognise that this bill is an attack on their freedom, privacy and way of life. The Brisbane rally in King George Square, in the heart of the Greens electorate of Brisbane, drew more than a thousand everyday Australians. The crowd displayed a level of awareness of national and international issues that must be making those who mock One Nation nervous. The public are waking up to the plan that successive Liberal and Labor governments have had and are implementing to use Australia as a crash test dummy for the crony Communist seizure of the wealth and human rights of everyday Australians, the purpose of which is to transfer even more wealth into the hands of the world’s predatory billionaires by using the Online Safety Act, the Identity Verification Services Act, the Digital ID Bill and the misinformation and disinformation bill to identify, apprehend, punish and imprison anyone who resists this slide back into feudalism and serfdom. 

Free speech defends every other human right. The witnesses to the Digital ID Bill inquiry, including the Human Rights Commission, drew attention to the lack of privacy and human rights protections in the bill. The committee ignored the evidence before them and returned a glowing recommendation to pass the bill in a report likely authored in the bowels of Geneva or New York, with almost identical legislation appearing in other Western wealthy nations at the same time. Then the bill passed through the Senate, with the debate guillotined—not one word of debate to air Australia’s views on this hideous, far-reaching bill. One Nation has a petition to immediately repeal this evil bill. So far 70,000 Australians have signed it.  

The Albanese government now need to do something now that they have so far refused to do—listen to the public, to the people. Repeal the Digital ID Bill or take the whole serfdom agenda to an election and ask the Australian people: is this the future you want? 

/by

One Nation Priorities

,

Here are some bold ideas you won’t hear from anyone but One Nation.

1. Ensure cheap power by turning on coal-fired stations, building more, and ending solar and wind subsidies.

2. Stop inflation by halting excessive money printing.  

3. Guarantee cheaper housing and rents, prioritising young Australians.

4. Secure cheaper groceries by supporting farmers and building dams.

And lastly, use our natural resources for Australians first.

One Nation is committed to putting Australians first and freeing them from unnecessary restrictions.

Transcript

Here are things you won’t hear from anyone in the budget, except for One Nation because we’ve got the guts to say what you’re thinking. 

Firstly, guarantee cheap power—turn the coal fired power stations back on, build more coal fired power stations, and remove solar and wind subsidies. It’s the only thing that can save us right now. Secondly, stop inflation. Stop quantitative easing—printing excess money. A trillion dollars was concocted during the COVID response, which is a major cause of the inflation we’re still fighting today. Thirdly, we’ll guarantee cheaper houses, cheaper rents and get young people into their first home. Don’t just cut net overseas migration: start deporting. Prior to COVID, there were 1.9 million visa holders who needed housing and who were fighting Australians for a roof over their heads. That has increased to 2.3 million today, plus 400,000 tourists and others. Ten per cent of our population is on visas and needs extra housing. We will ban foreigners from buying Australian property. They’re currently snapping up nearly one in 10 new Aussie homes. 

Fourthly, get cheaper groceries—build dams and help farmers produce tonnes of fresh, healthy produce for Australians. Give farmers water and the right to use their land, and we’ll never have to worry about grocery bills again. Fifth, use all of our natural resources we have right here for Australians first. There’s no need to become a green superpower, and we never will. We’re already an oil, gas, coal and uranium superpower. The government won’t do this because some foreign, unelected organisation in Zurich or New York will claim that we’re not complying with our international obligations. 

Governments on both sides have forgotten that their first obligation is to Australians and no-one else. One Nation knows this. We’ll put our trust in Australia’s people and release them from the nanny state that tells them everything they can and can’t do, which will enable people to abound and flourish. That’s our promise of what would be a One Nation budget. We will always remind members of parliament to put Australians first. 

/by

CASA Relied on Chief Medical Officer’s Advice Only

,

At the last estimates in May, I asked CASA which experts they had consulted for their advice. After some delay, CASA admitted they had relied solely on information from the Chief Medical Officer, without conducting any independent research. They stated their sources were limited to the TGA and FDA and that the only data used came from Pfizer, which has since admitted to numerous fatalities.

Ms. Spence said she was aware AstraZeneca had been withdrawn and that Novavax had also been withdrawn. However, she noted that there had been no reported adverse events in the cockpit.

I raised concerns about CASA’s varying health test requirements for pilots of large commercial aircraft versus small private planes and pointed out that these differing standards posed a risk in shared airspace.

Transcripts

ACTING CHAIR: Thank you to your legal officer. Senator Roberts?  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Marcelja could not tell me the specific names of the experts upon which CASA relied for turning a blind eye to Qantas and Virgin on mandates, which weren’t government mandates. Dr Manderson, can you tell me specifically which medical experts you relied upon for allowing Qantas and Virgin to mandate the vaccines? Who gave you the advice? Dr Manderson: The chief health officer of Australia at the time would be one important name.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you actually get his advice?  

Ms Spence: I think we have gone through this previously. I appreciate—  

Senator ROBERTS: That was with Mr Marcelja—  

Ms Spence: But I think what we—  

Senator ROBERTS: and he wouldn’t tell me the names of the chief medical officer—  

Ms Spence: Sorry, Senator. Do you want me to finish?  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you want me to allow you to keep interrupting?  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, come on. You know that’s against standing orders.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s been a lot of protection of—  

ACTING CHAIR: No. Allow Ms Spence to conclude her answer to your first question.  

Senator ROBERTS: She’s not answering my question; Dr Manderson is.  

ACTING CHAIR: I thought I heard Ms Spence, but—  

Senator ROBERTS: She interrupted.  

ACTING CHAIR: I’ll allow CASA to answer your question. CASA?  

Ms Spence: All I was going to say is that we’ve tried to explain before that we don’t get individual advice on specific issues; we rely on the advice of the health experts, and, in this case—as Dr Manderson has said—the chief health officer of Australia was basically a key source. But the TGA was also providing advice. I think we have actually put that in response to questions or in some of the Hansard previously.  

Senator ROBERTS: The reason I’m frying up is that Mr Marcelja said that it was the experts, and he wouldn’t name them, and the experts wouldn’t name them. And then we went to international experts, to I gave up. Your answer is the Chief Medical Officer—not the chief health officer. I presume you’re talking about the federal Chief Medical Officer.  

Ms Spence: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s important. The Chief Health Officer is—  

Mr Marcelja: Senator, perhaps you could refer me to your question specifically so that I’ve got in front of me what you’re talking about. What date was that? I’ve got the Hansard in front of me. 

Senator ROBERTS: I can’t remember the date.  

Mr Marcelja: You can’t remember it. My recollection of the conversation was that you were asking me on what basis we were taking the actions we were taking, and I told you that we were taking no actions to intervene in the Australian government’s response. The advice, as Dr Manderson pointed out, about Australia’s response was not being led by us; it was being led by health authorities. So we did not intervene and override the advice of Australia’s Chief Medical Officer or other health experts.  

Senator ROBERTS: You have told me that the buck ends here for aviation safety. You did not do any testing at high-altitude pressures, correct?  

Ms Spence: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: You just assumed Pfizer, the Chief Medical Officer and the TGA knew that the pressure would be okay at high altitude?  

Mr Marcelja: As I tried to explain a moment ago, what we’re interested in from a vaccination or medication perspective is: is it likely that you will get into a cockpit, have a sudden, incapacitating event and be unable to fly the plane? That’s our primary concern. For all vaccinations, including the vaccinations that were being—  

Senator ROBERTS: In the cockpit at altitude.  

Mr Marcelja: at altitude—our primary concern was whether that medication, the vaccination, would cause that event to happen. There is no evidence in Australia or anywhere around the world. We’ve checked with our regulatory authorities and colleagues in the US and Europe. There is no evidence of that event occurring anywhere in the world over the last several years. I think we were on pretty sound footing not to intervene and prevent a particular cohort of the population from being vaccinated when that’s not our role.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me ask you a few more questions around that. I want you to remember at all times in your answers to me that, when it comes to safety, the buck stops with you, CASA. There is no high-altitude testing done that you’re aware of. Are you aware that the TGA, when I asked them what tests they did in Australia on the vaccines, said they did no tests and relied on the FDA? Are you aware of that?  

Mr Marcelja: I reiterate what I said. They are not matters for us. We look at it from an aviation safety lens. Dr Manderson has been involved in international panels looking at aviation safety on a number of different topics. I’m sure she can step you through that. There is no evidence whatsoever over several years now of there being an aviation safety risk. That’s our concern. Whether the vaccine has other effects or issues—  

Senator ROBERTS: You relied upon the TGA. That was one of the people you relied on.  

Ms Spence: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The TGA admits it did no testing and that it relied upon the FDA. The FDA, prior to the TGA’s announcement, admitted that it did no testing and relied on—wait for it—Pfizer.  

Mr Marcelja: Are you suggesting—  

Senator ROBERTS: Now we find out Pfizer in their trials had hundreds of fatalities.  

Ms Spence: I don’t know how many times we can say this, but we treated the COVID vaccinations the same way we treat all vaccinations, and we don’t do individual, independent testing. But—  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue, then. Are you aware of AstraZeneca being withdrawn?  

Ms Spence: Yes, but I think—  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware—  

Ms Spence: Senator, sorry. I don’t think it’s quite as clear cut as saying it’s been withdrawn. They’re no longer using it. It wasn’t around inefficacy at the time, but now they’re no longer producing it. Yes, we are aware.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do blood clots say anything to you. What about Novavax? We understand that has been withdrawn just recently.  

Ms Spence: I wasn’t aware of that one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Excess deaths, 13 per cent, in line with the COVID injections—before COVID outbreaks in Queensland and Western Australia—what would make you investigate whether or not pilots are suffering from COVID injection adverse events? Because you don’t do testing on pilots; you rely upon pilots to turn themselves in. What would make you investigate it?  

Ms Spence: The only thing that would make us investigate is if there was an adverse reaction in the cockpit which could be directly attributed to a COVID vaccination. 

Senator ROBERTS: What if I told you that pilots are telling us that they know of mates who have had adverse events but they won’t speak up for fear of losing their job?  

Ms Spence: I would encourage them to report through the confidential reporting arrangements that I mentioned, both with us and with the ATSB, because we are not getting those reports, and there are mechanisms for them to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: With pilots losing their jobs, I wonder.  

Ms Spence: As I said, they’re confidential, so they don’t need to report who they work for—but just giving us the information, if that is actually occurring, would be incredibly beneficial.  

Senator ROBERTS: Given that CASA use Austroads fitness to drive as a guideline for recertification for TIA or stroke in class 5 medicals, on what are the class 1 and 2 medical recertification guidelines based, and do they differ from class 5 guidelines? If so, how and why?  

Ms Spence: The standards for class 1 and 2, which is the commercial pilot and the private pilot medical certificates, are based on the International Civil Aviation Organization medical standards for certification for pilots—for commercial and private. They are quite different to the domestic Australian class 5 medical certificate, which is not an ICAO certificate and doesn’t need to comply with those medical standards. So class 1 and class 2 reference the international pilot standards.  

Senator ROBERTS: And class 5—you make up the standards?  

Ms Spence: Class 5 medical standard was developed through really extensive consultation through technical working groups with both doctors and pilots, with operational input from pilots in particular. It also went through a really strong risk assessment process within CASA to determine what those standards should be, mapped against the risk treatments for the operational restrictions with the class 5.  

Senator ROBERTS: But my question was: CASA developed those standards? I’m not interested in the process. CASA developed those standards?  

Ms Spence: Yes, CASA developed those standards.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. CASA allow airlines to push pilots to the limit as a routine practice. This is facilitated by a concession given to the airlines masquerading as ‘fatigue risk management’. CASA have allowed airlines to use this system as a shield when continuing to roster pilots to fly unreasonably long hours. Do class 5 medical holders and class 1 and 2 medical holders operate in the same airspace?  

ACTING CHAIR: What are you quoting? I think the witnesses would like to see the source of that quote.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not quoting from anything here. My research assistant—  

ACTING CHAIR: I thought you were.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m not quoting.  

ACTING CHAIR: Okay.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just quoting the fatigue risk management title.  

Mr Marcelja: So, for the record, we don’t agree with the statement you just said.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Do class 5 medical holders and class 1 and 2 medical holders operate in the same airspace?  

Ms Spence: Yes, they do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is a class 5 medical holder a single pilot operation?  

Dr Manderson: Yes, it is.  

Mr Marcelja: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. You had some doubts, Dr Manderson?  

ACTING CHAIR: I think they answered the question.  

Dr Manderson: Sorry, only because I felt it was self-evident that—but, yes, it is.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. So, if a class 5 medical holder with a recent history of stroke or TIA after four weeks of grounding is back in an aeroplane at the holding point at an airport and has a relapse, his or her aircraft taxis out in front of the landing heavy jet fully laden. Class 1 and 2 medical holders can operate with multicrew and autopilots as well as current pilots repositioning as passengers in the cabin on numerous flights. Class 5 pilots have no back-up. Is that correct so far?  

Ms Spence: Senator, I— 

Mr Marcelja: Perhaps you could repeat the question. I’m not sure what the question was in that.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve got a heavy laden jet coming in to land with class 1 and 2 medical holders, with other back-ups on their position, and we’ve got a class 5 just about to go in front of the path and they have a relapse.  

Ms Spence: It feels like you’re describing—without being derogatory—a weekend warrior landing in the same place as a large commercial air transport operator, and I’m just trying to—  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s continue then. We’ll get on to your weekend warriors. What value does CASA place on the designated medical examiner’s ability to diagnose and recertify pilots? And what situations require CASA to intervene with their diagnosis?  

Dr Manderson: So the designated aviation medical examiners are absolutely fundamental to us being able to make safe decisions about issuing medical certificates. They are the doctors that perform the examination and interact with the pilots and air traffic controllers at every medical certificate renewal application. We trust their assessment as clinicians as to whether or not there is any medically significant or safety relevant medical condition present in that pilot or air traffic controller applicant. We take their clinical information and their advice when we decide whether or not to issue a medical certificate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why then is CASA advocating self-certification for class 5 medicals—as I understand it?  

Mr Marcelja: We are not advocating. What we’re presenting are options for different types of operations. So a pilot that chooses to operate with a single passenger in a light aircraft can choose a class 5 certificate or they can choose any other certificate. So we’re not advocating any particular medical. We’re creating options and different pathways for different pilots in different circumstances, and those circumstances are adjusted based on risk and the level of medical certification.  

Ms Spence: This is a matter that has been under debate for a number of years, around CASA being a proportionate regulator. Under the class 5 medical, we put restrictions on the way you can operate, therefore you can operate within those constraints and then we will review to see how that’s working over time. We’re monitoring it closely to make sure that we’re auditing people’s self-declarations and the like. So I think people do expect us to be a proportionate risk-based regulator, and I think the class 5 medical is an example of how we can do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I’m exploring here. I’m trying to understand. I’m not a pilot. Considering CASA AvMed can override opinions of consulting physicians and specialists during the medical renewal process, how could the view of a CASA AvMed doctor come to its own diagnosis of an individual pilot in the absence of face-to-face consultation and overrule the opinions of independent specialists and consultants? Is that possible?  

Dr Manderson: The aero-medical decision-making process is more than and different to the clinical decisionmaking process. The medical assessment process that we’re required to follow by the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and the ICAO standards and recommended practices is that we take all of the advice that is available from all of the clinicians—including their expert opinions, the investigations and reports that are available, the medical examination from the DAME—and we apply that information against the medical standard for medical certification. The key difference is that the medical specialists who are seeing the patient and the patient pilot or controller are performing an assessment of the medical status of that person as a clinician for diagnosis and management, not for aero-medical risk assessment and not for medical certification processes. So it’s quite a different role and a different process. We consider their advice, but their advice is about the condition and its disease and severity, not about its safety relevance for medical certification.  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we need to break for dinner. Are you close to finishing?  

Senator ROBERTS: We might put these on next Senate estimates.  

ACTING CHAIR: We are going to release CASA now. Thank you very much. 

/by

$50 Billion Deficit Understatement Amid Improbable Cost Assumptions

The cost of running the Federal Government is an important issue for One Nation. We believe that a smaller government is better and strongly advocate for reducing its size to align with the constitution.

I’m an avid reader of the budget volume that lists out the cost of Government. This year, the figures don’t add up. The budget appears to be assuming there will be no increase in the cost of Government for the next four years.

In a period of high inflation, which will be at least 13% over forward estimates, an assumption that the Federal Government administration cost (wages, office expenses, etc.) will not go up in those four years is, at best, improbable and at worst, dishonest.

I asked the Finance Minister, Katy Gallagher to “please explain”. Aside from small savings from reducing the use of contract labour, there are no explanations for the figures presented in the budget. The outcome is that the deficit over the forward estimates is more than likely understated by as much as $50 billion.

Transcript

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, and will reference Budget Paper No. 4: Agency resourcing, page 186, department expenses table. The government has been conducting a program of reducing spending on external providers—contractors; consultants—and hiring employees directly instead, to perform those duties, and One Nation supports that. These conversions, from external providers to employees, save taxpayers money, being the difference between paying a public servant to do that work and paying a consultant, partly balanced out by the increased costs of office expenses, travel and so on. Minister, how much has this program saved in 2023-24, and how much will it save over forward estimates? I note that, as I understand, the budget papers have another 2,502 conversions projected. 

Senator GALLAGHER: Thank you for asking me a question about Budget Paper No. 4. That is the budget paper that Finance has responsibility for. We have worked hard to make conversions, as you say, and to reinvest and put increased capability into the Public Service. What we did find out from the audit on employment was that the real size of the APS when we came to government was much larger than had been publicly reported, so we are taking steps to rebalance it and to put public servants into jobs that labour hire had done. 

In the last budget, I think the savings were in the order of $800 million in terms of the conversions that were being made. In this budget we’re finding a further billion dollars in reductions to agencies’ departmental expenses because of the investments we’re making in the Public Service. Obviously, we are making additional investments in the Public Service for additional responsibilities that they have, but what we’re doing is painting a very honest picture of the price of delivering improved services. 

Those opposite, I know, are going to do what they always do and say they want a smaller Public Service, but they should then explain why 41,000 veterans who didn’t have their claims allocated now have their claims allocated and now are getting access to pensions. It’s a direct result of our investment in the Australian federal Public Service. We weren’t seeing those results, whether it was in Immigration, DFAT, Services Australia or Veterans’ Affairs. We see that on the payments side now because veterans are getting access because they are being dealt with. Because they’ve got public servants dealing with their claims, they are getting access to the money that they deserve. 

So it’s a piece of ongoing work, Senator Roberts. If there’s further information I can provide to you, I will. But we are finding savings from the program at the same time that we’re making additional investments. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The table shows many departments costing less to run in 2027-28 than they do today, despite ongoing inflation, and rents, electricity and expenses far exceeding the savings from operations. The department of infrastructure is down from $554 million in this budget to $452 million in 2027-28; Health and Aged Care, $1.6 billion down to $1.1 billion; and Services Australia, $5.7 billion down to $4.5 billion. Minister, please explain from where these huge claimed projected savings will come. 

Senator GALLAGHER: In terms of the savings that we’ve applied through this budget, it’s an extra billion dollars onto the $3 billion that we had built into the budget, so that gives you a total of $4 billion. There are additional savings that come through the conversions of expensive labour hire into permanent Public Service work, and so that is part of it. I think it’s probably a question we can go through at estimates, as well, because I don’t have that page in front of me. But there are savings, and we take that money from departments; they don’t get that funding. So that is a saving that is realised at the time that that budget decision is taken. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The $155 billion provided in the budget as departmental expenses in 2024-25 is projected to grow to $169 billion in 2027-28 almost entirely from increases in defence and the NDIS. How could your forward projections show flat or reduced costs for, in effect, the entire government except the NDIS and defence, when the budget puts inflation over that period at 13 per cent? Does your budget dramatically understate projected deficits? 

Senator GALLAGHER: No. The budget papers, as they’re released—Budget Paper No.1, which goes to providing the UCB, is based on all of the information that runs through all of the budget books, and that would include departmental expenses. There is extra investment going into defence and into the NDIS. As you would expect, they are two of the five fastest growing areas of the budget. The NDIS is the second and I think defence would be the third or fourth, and so they would be seeing increases. But the budget UCB takes into account all of those decisions. It may be reported slightly differently in different tables, based on different accounting standards, but the UCB is an honest reflection of the state of the Commonwealth’s finances. 

/by