I inquired with the Australian and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) about the responsibility for the safety of chemicals. I was informed that the APVMA is responsible for the safety of the chemicals they issue permits for, while the States are responsible for their application and that permits are issued based on the safety data on the chemical labels.
I mentioned that there were discrepancies between the data in the safety brochures and the actual permits and was asked to bring that information to their attention.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I will just continue. What was going to be my second set of questions, I will do now because I will continue on from Senator Canavan. There is label use and there is permit use. Where are the Australian environmental impact studies for both these chemicals regarding widespread applications in South- East Queensland and northern New South Wales? Do they have to do an EIS?
Mr Hansen: Not an EIS, but they need to meet the environmental thresholds of the statutory criteria in terms of not being harmful to the environment, and that’s an assessment that gets done by APVMA before we issue the permit.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s built into the permit?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Who is responsible for that? Is it APVMA?
Mr Hansen: It’s our responsibility to look at how they are proposing to use it, to put the restrictions on how it should be used to make sure there is no impact to the environment, and then the actual following of those instructions are the responsibility of the state jurisdictions.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; I’m appreciating your succinct answers. How does the program justify treating areas with no evidence of nests, and how can this be effective if the bait is only active for 24 hours after application?
Mr Hansen: I’m sorry, that’s something for the program.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know why there are discrepancies and contradictions between the latest permit and the safety data sheets regarding safety precautions and application guidelines? I think the permit they are talking about is the permit of the helicopter.
Mr Hansen: For the aerial applications.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Hansen: I heard that question before. I would be interested to see what the variations are—particularly the variations between label and not necessarily the safety data sheet but the label and the permit. If there were differences on that, I’d be interested to see them if you had them.
During the recent estimates, I raised several questions regarding the approval and use of mRNA vaccines by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). I inquired if the APVMA has authorised any mRNA vaccines. Mr Hansen confirmed that, as of now, no such vaccines have been approved. To ensure thoroughness, Dr Maria Trainer, joined the discussion. She reiterated that no permits or authorisations for mRNA vaccines have been issued, although she stated that there is a general permit for small-scale research (Permit 7250) that might cover such activities.
I questioned whether the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries had acted with APVMA’s consent in importing, testing, and manufacturing an mRNA vaccine for border disease. Dr Trainer clarified that while no specific permits were issued, research could legally occur under the general permit. For clarity, I asked for confirmation on whether the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute holds such a permit and was told that this would be provided to us on notice.
I also addressed concerns about the development of mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease by the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute. Dr Trainer confirmed that no applications for these vaccines have been received, with Mr Hansen adding that notifications about genetic material for vaccines would likely fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and Biosecurity.
Lastly, I raised the issue of foot rot vaccines for sheep, noting that an overseas manufacturer has been approved while an Australian manufacturer has had its approval withdrawn. The overseas vaccine is more expensive and less effective.
I urged the government to commit to a process that ensures the availability of the more effective and affordable Australian-made vaccine for our sheep farmers. Senator Chisholm agreed to take this on notice, and Mr Hansen expressed openness to discussions with the Australian manufacturer for product registration.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to my first and most important set of questions. At previous estimates, I have asked if an mRNA vaccine has been approved by your agency, and the response was, ‘No it hasn’t.’ So let me first update, has the APVMA authorised for use any mRNA vaccines?
Mr Hansen: I understand the answer is still no, but if we are going to go down a line of questions on registration of vaccines, do you want me to get an expert to the table?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you like. That’ll make it quick.
Mr Hansen: Excellent. It will be Dr Maria Trainer, but, as far as I’m aware, the answer is still no to that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The New South Wales department of primary industries has imported, tested and now manufactured an mRNA vaccine for border disease for New South Wales at the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute. Was that action taken with the consent of the APVMA?
Dr Trainer: We have not issued any permits or authorised any messenger or any vaccines in Australia anywhere, but we do have a general permit for small-scale research, permit 7250, that potentially would allow for the research being conducted.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t know if they are doing research, but they could legally be doing research under a permit?
Dr Trainer: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice to provide whether or not the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute has such a permit?
Mr Hansen: Provided they met the criteria around the small scale, and that’s spelt out under the permit, then we wouldn’t be informed about it. But that’s something we can certainly make an inquiry about.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, and could let us know on notice, please. The Elizabeth Macarthur Institute has also declared they are developing mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. Have they applied for or advised you of their handling of this incredibly dangerous genetic material?
Dr Trainer: At this point in time, we’ve received no applications to register or authorise any messenger RNA vaccines.
Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t heard from them?
Mr Hansen: No, not on that, and I’m not sure that we would be the people that they would notify about bringing in the genetic material for the vaccine. That would be more likely DAF and biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I was told when looking into this matter that once we have foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease material in Australia, we can risk our disease-free status. Is it a true statement that if the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute mishandles this material and one animal is infected with foot and mouth, Australia will lose our disease-free status and the $20 billion a year this brings in?
Mr Hansen: That’s well and truly in the domain of DAF and biosecurity.
Mr Lowe: That’s an outcome 2 question.
Mr Fennessy: I can tell you that some of the work we may have done in the past is done offshore, so not in Australia. We might work with overseas labs. But it doesn’t come into Australia unless there is a biosecurity permit, and there haven’t been any permits allowed for that.
Senator ROBERTS: Who should we put a question on notice to in regard to that?
Mr Fennessy: To the department.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get on to something quickly. I’ll put most of it in a letter to the minister on a question on notice. There’s also foot rot for sheep. I’m advised that an overseas manufacturer has been given approval and the previous Australian manufacturer has not had its approval withdrawn. The overseas manufactured vaccine is more expensive for sheep farmers based on the need to more frequently apply it plus the cost. It is less effective, and the locally made, therefore, is more effective, cheaper and of higher value than the foreign made. We also have a declaration from a veterinarian that the local product is far more effective. Minister, is your government prepared to commit to a process—I’ve condensed a lot of things into this, and I will put it in detail in a question on notice—whereby it identifies or quantifies the need for this Australian manufactured vaccine and work on foot rot with the relevant parties to ensure the availability of this vaccine for Australian sheep farmers?
Senator Chisholm: I’ll take that on notice.
Mr Hansen: I can provide one more sentence to that, which is that the Australian-made vaccine had an emergency permit because there was no other registered product available in the market. The moment that there became a registered product that had actually come through the front door and had met all the safety criteria, the criteria for an emergency use permit no longer met. We would love the producer of that Australian-made product to come back through the front door for registration as a product, and we’re open to conversations with them on that when they are interested.
Senator ROBERTS: So would veterinarians and so would farmers. They would love that Australian manufacturer to come back. I must say, Chair, Mr Hansen’s comments have been exactly as you said: precise, succinct and direct. I love your forthcoming and forthrightness.
Senator Chisholm: You were the problem!
CHAIR: You got the MR tick of approval, so you’re on a roll here. Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.
At the recent senate estimates in November, I spoke with Dr Antonio Di Dio, Director of Professional Review Services, asking why the current system was still biased against doctors. He denied this was the case, even though the agency maintains a 100% conviction rate of doctors in a system that does not allow merit appeals or the ability to challenge the facts used against a doctor.
Dr Di Dio conceded that the agency had not undergone a review, despite it being suggested many years ago during an inquiry. Senator Gallagher added that a review was unnecessary, asserting that the system was functioning well, despite evidence to the contrary.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS:Thank you. Thank you for being here. Annual reports of the PSR, directed to the health minister, make no attempt whatsoever to disguise the fact that PSR operates in part as a debt recovery system from doctors of Medicare funds. Given that admissions have earlier been made before Senate estimates that committees are not chaired by a judge, that merit review on appeal is not allowed, and that no cross-examination of the committee’s case ever occurs, why is it not reasonable to conclude that PSR operates similarly to a robodebt scheme for doctors, with doctors who’ve come before it having as little meaningful defence as did robodebt’s victims?
Dr Di Dio: That’s certainly not my view. When a practitioner is referred to PSR, a small minority of them are referred to a PSR committee. Last year it was 12 out of 109 referrals. When a practitioner appears before a PSR committee, the committee process is one in which peers interview and discuss with the practitioner under review whether or not, in their view, inappropriate practice has occurred. At every stage of that committee process, numerous times per day, the committee may say, ‘We have found preliminary concerns with this matter and invite your response.’ In other words, the entire process is made up of taking into account the practitioner’s response, over and over again. Furthermore, the practitioner, of course, is invited to bring their legal representative. In terms of a merits review, there is no formal merits review process as that term is commonly known. However, there are opportunities during and after the committee process to respond to the committee’s findings. For example, at the end of a committee, despite having opportunities to respond verbally all through the process, the practitioner under review also is invited, either themselves or through their legal representative, to make final comments about anything that has come up during the committee process. Furthermore, after the committee process is completed, there is a draft report issued by the committee to the practitioner under review, inviting comment and submissions to that draft report. So those committee findings are still deemed preliminary findings, because they are still awaiting further response and information from the practitioner under review.
Senator ROBERTS: That sounds wonderful, but it does not discuss the fact that the PSR’s case cannot be scrutinised in terms of evidence. You omit that. Why do you repeatedly omit that? Every time we come to Senate estimates, you omit that. That’s fundamental to justice.
Dr Di Dio: The PSR process is one in which, in order to elicit whether or not inappropriate practice has occurred, people’s medical records are reviewed.
Senator ROBERTS: But your data is not open to scrutiny; your case is not open to scrutiny. The facts cannot be disputed—cannot even be challenged.
Mr Topperwien: There are no facts found until the end of the committee process. There are no findings of fact until after the committee process, after all of the evidence has come in. Yes, the committee receives billing data from Medicare, but that’s open to inquiry and investigation as to how accurate that is, and that comes up often in hearings as to whether that data is accurate. And it’s open, then, for the practitioner to put on evidence to counter that data. And that happens regularly at committee hearings. The hearing is an investigation. It isn’t a prosecution. So the committee is inquiring into the information that the committee has already received in the way of the billing data and gets the patient records to see how they match up to what’s been billed as to whether the doctor has fulfilled their obligation to keep adequate and contemporaneous notes of what they did, and to then investigate, ‘What was this practitioner’s conduct in connection with the provision of these services?’ It’s only after they’ve conducted a full inquiry investigation, asked lots of questions, and looked at all of the evidence, that they then may find facts, which may show that the doctor has engaged in inappropriate conduct.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back. I don’t want an answer to this just yet, but I want to say that there has never been a comprehensive review of the process, despite a 2011 Senate inquiry saying there should be a comprehensive review within 12 months. So let me continue. Many of the annual reports of the PSR director, to the health minister, contain the assertion that the goals for care planning must accord with the acronym SMART, specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-based—notwithstanding that no explicit allusion to specific SMART goals appears in the care planning MBS descriptor. Given that, essentially, all doctors who appear before PSR committees who do care plans are found guilty, and given that merit review of the committee’s case is never allowed, how can the committee’s finding of all doctors’ care plans as being unacceptable be valid?
Mr Topperwien: The committee examines random samples, usually, of the practitioner’s care plans. The practitioners who are examining those are practitioners who themselves do care plans. They are experts in what the general body of their specialty or profession do in their practice. And the reality is the law requires adequate records to be kept, and care plans that are meaningful. And, quite often, the sorts of care plans that committees see are blank templates. There’s nothing in them other than the patient’s name with goals that are totally meaningless. And so those sorts of care plans are ones on which they will find, ‘This is not a care plan that’s adequate and of any use to this patient. It is not a clinically relevant service that’s been provided.’
Dr Di Dio: Senator, if it helps, I do care plans every couple of weeks in my practice. I could take you through what one should like. But I think what you really want to know is: this is a peer review scheme, and so what the people on committees determine is what the general body of peers would be considering is appropriate or not.
Senator ROBERTS: This is an apparent peer review scheme, but it’s not. You claimed in the past that it is peer reviewed, and we’ve given examples where it’s not. Your predecessor, I think, offered to have a conversation with me—on the basis that it was not to discuss a specific doctor’s case; he made that clear. I accepted that offer straightaway, and I said, ‘That’s no problem at all.’ Soon after, he left. So we’ve never had that. Would you be willing to give us a briefing and have an exchange on that?
Dr Di Dio: I think you’ll find that the person who had that conversation with you was me, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: No, it wasn’t.
Dr Di Dio: Right. Well, Senator, I can further discuss—
Senator ROBERTS: Are you willing to have a meeting with us and give us a briefing?
Dr Di Dio: Senator, in order for me to do that, I need to get the appropriate permissions from my own minister, but, should that be the case, I would be very pleased to discuss with you or anybody else how the PSR system works—on the condition, of course, that it does not discuss any particular case or any particular practitioner. I can refer to some correspondence that I’ve had with you about this in the past, if you wish.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Dr Di Dio: We most recently corresponded with you on 21 March of this year and confirmed that we’d offered to meet with you in the context of providing general information about the PSR scheme and would happily provide that general information, and additionally on any questions you may have on procedural fairness. We said the discussion would not be able to include any specific matter or case before us and that I was not able to meet with any other person being reviewed or their legal representative or anyone else.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that still apply?
Dr Di Dio: Well, yes, because—
Senator ROBERTS: Good. Okay, let’s accept it, and we’ll set up a date.
Dr Di Dio: Well, nice to hear back from you, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Good. Many doctors, and all the medical defence organisations, complain emphatically that committees routinely make up rules in passing their judgement. Why is this not solid evidence of dysfunction, injustice and systemic injustice?
Dr Di Dio: I meet regularly with the medical defence organisations, most recently less than two weeks ago, and I present regularly to thousands of doctors in toto, various colleges and representative groups. That is not the impression that I get, talking to hundreds of doctors around the country. We attempt to do what we exist to do, which is to protect the Commonwealth from paying from inappropriate health care and to protect citizens from potential harms from inappropriate health care through a process that we consider to be as fair as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: And we applaud that. We just want procedural fairness and justice. Minister, when will this government review this broken system? It’s got to be changed.
Senator Gallagher: Well, I don’t accept that it is broken, Senator Roberts. That’s your assertion. The department provides advice to the minister about the operations of all parts of the health portfolio, and we are very confident in the processes and the leadership that’s being provided through the Professional Services Review system.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s been no review since the 2011 Senate inquiry saying there should be a comprehensive review within 12 months—no review. Clearly, it was a problem back then.
Ms Shakespeare: Senator, there have been reviews of aspects of the PSR scheme on several occasions since then. I am happy to—
Senator ROBERTS: Could I have, on notice, those reviews and the dates, please, and the topics and the scope?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/3gQ2vzRnzRs/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-29 17:44:332024-12-29 17:44:37Doctors Versus The System
Since the High Court held that forced ankle bracelets and curfews on ex-detainees are unconstitutional and punitive, the government has indicated its intention to legislate measures that would empower the Minister to enforce restrictions for the purpose of ensuring community safety. This approach is likely to fail for the same reasons outlined by the High Court in YBFZ.
What is needed instead is legislation to expand the judiciary’s power to order such measures, which would ensure separation of powers, rather than leaving it with the Minister, who is part of the Executive.
The Albanese Labor Government caved into to public pressure and scrapped the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 (MAD). This was a huge win for ‘We The People,’ who rejected the level of government tyranny the bill would have legislated.
One Nation has opposed the Bill since the Morrison-Liberal government first proposed it four years ago. We have campaigned tirelessly for years to raise public awareness of the human rights failures in this Bill, successfully influencing public opinion. The Bill should never have progressed to a point where democracy itself stood on a precipice. If that sounds dramatic, then you haven’t read the submission to the Senate inquiry into the MAD bill from human rights and civil rights lawyers.
I hope this marks the beginning of an awakening to the realisation that our country faces a bleak future of totalitarian government and economic decline unless everyday Australians reclaim the government from the self-interest that stained this Bill.
One Nation will continue to defend the human rights of every Australian. I can’t say the same for the other parties. I have no doubt this Bill will return in the next Parliament unless One Nation gains the balance of power in the upcoming federal election.
Transcript
Removing the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 from the Notice Paper was a humanitarian act. It’s said that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. If that’s the case, I would like a paternity test on this vote, because many who are taking credit for voting down this bill only decided their vote last week. One Nation has opposed the bill since the Morrison-Liberal government first proposed this bill four years ago. One Nation has campaigned for years to raise public awareness of the human rights failures in this bill, to inspire public opinion, and we were successful. It should never have progressed to a point where democracy itself stood on a precipice. If that sounds dramatic, then you haven’t read the submission to the Senate inquiry into the mad bill from the human rights and civil rights lawyers. They were scathing. How did committee members listen to three days of testimony with almost every witness calling for the bill to be scrapped yet still produce a report that said, ‘Everything’s fine; pass the bill.’ The original decision of the committee to do just that flies in the face of the expert witnesses who the committee asked to testify. Such an action will make it harder to attract the high quality of witnesses this inquiry attracted. It’s disrespectful to all concerned, and it’s disrespectful to the Australian people, who expect better of this Senate.
I understand why the Prime Minister wants censorship—he has been community noted on X 10 times and certainly needs help with the truth. For One Nation and Australia, the Christmas present in this debacle was the way everyday Australians got involved. This was an extraordinary response and one of which Australia can be proud. I hope this is the start of an awakening to the realisation that our country, this country, is facing a bleak future of totalitarian government and economic decline unless everyday Australians take the government back from the self interests which stained this bill. One Nation will defend the human rights of every Australian—every Australian.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/om0w1PWzhKQ/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-29 08:32:022024-12-29 08:32:05Public Pressure Forces Albanese Government to Scrap Misinformation Bill
The climate division at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is just another part of the alphabet soup of agencies that are dedicated to bringing in net zero goals.
Although no one at the desk wanted to tell me their salaries, the fewer than ten senior executives in the department rake in $4.5 million a year. Secretary David Fredericks, who responded to my question, is on a total package of $907,000 a year.
Are you getting value for money?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: As simply as possible and as specifically as possible, what do the people responsible for outcome 1 at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water do? What is your basic accountability, especially in regard to energy?
Mr Fredericks: In many ways, I can’t do any better than our corporate documents.
Senator ROBERTS: How long is that?
Mr Fredericks: Very short. It’s the outcome that we are held to account for by the parliament and ultimately by the ANAO, which is to support the transition of Australia’s economy to net zero emissions by 2050; transition energy to support net zero while maintaining security, reliability and affordability; support actions to promote adaptation and strengthen resilience of Australia’s economy, society and environment; and take a leadership role internationally in responding to climate change.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. That’s exactly what I was after. What is the total salary package of everyone at the executive?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the corporate questions were at 9 o’clock this morning. We’ve released the corporate people.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/QKiSbasMiRg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-28 20:02:112024-12-28 20:02:13Alphabet Soup Agencies: Are Taxpayers Getting Value for Money?
According to information from the crew working on Snowy Hydro, the reason the Florence tunnel boring machine became jammed while drilling a bend is because it was used for too long between scheduled maintenance. This practice reduces production costs and increases boring rates, however as the cutting wheels wear down, the tunnel is cut to a narrower width. In this case, the machine jammed on a bend where the full width was needed for clearance.
I asked about this at the last Estimates and received a partial admission that the jam was due to worn cutting wheels, but that it was a one-time occurrence. I have requested the maintenance logs for Florence to determine if this was indeed an isolated incident or part of a wider problem.
One Nation believes the Snowy Hydro project is a fool’s errand. While the sunk cost (money spent so far) is around $4 billion, completing the project will cost an additional $20 billion. This does not include the drilling region, which is full of asbestos – a can of worms yet to be addressed.
Another problem is that the electricity from Snowy 2.0 is being sent to Victoria and South Australia via Hume Link, which began construction this week. Hume Link involves putting two high-voltage power lines (two towers) across 360 km of bushland, which will require clearing, as well as farmland and forcibly reclaimed private property. This will cost another $5 billion.
All this expense just to provide firming of unreliable wind and solar power, when a zero emission coal plant could do the same thing for a few billion.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know if this was asked before, but is Florence moving?
Mr Barnes: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: How long has she been moving?
Mr Barnes: She has been moving in a more predictable fashion since July and a total length of 1.6 metres and we are now achieving—kilometres. That was true a year ago. We’re now achieving the rates we need to achieve the target date of December ’28.
Senator ROBERTS: How far has it drilled since July?
Mr Barnes: I would have to come back to you on that specific.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Can I ask about maintenance on the tunnel boring machines. I understand a cutting head inspection must be performed every mere six to eight metres, stopping every two metres for concrete behind. Is that a fair statement of the normal operation of a TBM?
Mr Barnes: The way the TBM advances is that it excavates a two-metre length, and the concrete segments that form the tunnel lining are then placed into the—the circumference of the tunnel. And that takes about 40 minutes, typically. So in that 40-minute period someone will inspect the cutter head to make sure that they can then do the next two metres. Periodically, we stop it for longer and do maintenance and replace some parts.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, weekends are normally used for the inspections on the cutter head.
Mr Barnes: Snowy 2.0 is a 24/7 operation, so it happens as it occurs. So if it was a Wednesday evening when we have to do some maintenance, that’s when we would do it.
Senator ROBERTS: How long has it been 24 hours?
Mr Barnes: Since the start of the construction.
Senator ROBERTS: Since the start. Okay. Thank you. Is it true that the cutting wheels were not replaced at the correct time sometime in the last few months and that the tunnel is, as a result, being built to 11.4 metre width?
Mr Barnes: The tunnel—
Senator ROBERTS: I think the specification is 11.5.
Mr Barnes: I can’t remember the exact figures, but the tunnel boring machine does construct a circumference which is over 11 metres and then there is ground and a concrete segment that brings the interior of the tunnel to just under 10 metres.
Senator ROBERTS: What are the specifications on the drill before you put the lining? Is it 11.5 or 11.4?
Mr Barnes: It’s just over 11, I think is the number.
Senator ROBERTS: Just over 11?
Mr Barnes: We can come back on notice but it is over 11 and then the internal circumference is under 10 because—
Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought they would be very important specs.
Mr Barnes: Well, they are very important specs but I don’t keep every number in my head.
Senator ROBERTS: No, I understand that, but that would be fundamental to the project, wouldn’t it?
Mr Barnes: Yes, they are fundamental and we have an international design joint venture of Tractebel and Lombardi who have signed off on these as specifications that will last 150 years.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there anyone in the room who knows what the designed cutting diameter is? 11.5, 11.4?
Mr Barnes: No.
Senator ROBERTS: No one?
Mr Barnes: No, but we can provide you that information on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: So, as I understand it, the cutting width spec is 11.5 and that because the cutting wheels were not replaced at the correct time, the tunnel as a result is 11.4, which caused Florence to get wedged on a bend. Is that correct?
Mr Barnes: That’s not because of the design characteristics. There was a period in May when we hit very hard rock as we were going around a bend, and that hard rock wore down the edge cutters quite dramatically. I think that happened—I will get these dates wrong, but it happened on a Thursday. We were public on the Friday with that information, and on the Monday we had a specialist crew on site who used high-spec water blasting to relieve that pressure. Florence has now moved forward and is on the straight so doesn’t have any corners to deal with.
Senator ROBERTS: So for clarity, you are saying that Florence never cut a width of less than 11.5. I just said that the spec was 11.5 and the reason it became stuck on a bend was not because the tunnel was being cut to a lesser width, 11.5, as a result of overextending the life of the cutting wheels to speed up excavation?
Mr Barnes: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could you please provide the maintenance log on notice of inspections and replacement of the cutting wheels on Florence for the last two years?
Mr Barnes: Probably. I’m not sure what that would help the minister with—
Senator Ayres: We will take that on notice, if we can, and see whether that is something that we can sensibly provide.
Senator ROBERTS: Swinging quickly to Kurri. What is the completion date of the Kurri gas pipeline? I understand the power station will have to burn diesel until the gas pipeline is connected. Is that correct?
Mr Barnes: The current schedule is for the gas infrastructure to be completed by 10 March.
Senator ROBERTS: 10 March next year. Where is the gas coming from and how secure is your supply over the timeframes of 10 years and 25 years?
Mr Barnes: So we rely on a gas portfolio drawing on the national gas grid. We have a range of contracts. Sometimes we access the wholesale market on the day. We announced earlier this year that we had entered into a gas storage arrangement in western Victoria. So I think the simple answer is that it’s a portfolio approach.
Senator ROBERTS: Who owns the storage facility in Victoria?
Mr Barnes: It is owned by a company called Lochard Energy.
Senator ROBERTS: Above ground energy?
Mr Barnes: It’s underground storage. The Iona Gas Storage Facility, I think is the name of the facility.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s rock. It is not lined?
Mr Barnes: No, it’s an old geological storage cavern.
Senator ROBERTS: The Newcastle Herald reported on the Albanese government commitment of $7 million on top of the current $950 million construction cost to allow the plant to run on a blend of hydrogen and gas. How far advanced is the hydrogen component at Kurri?
Mr Barnes: We have now had confirmation of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that with some notification, we can run at 30 per cent hydrogen.
Senator ROBERTS: How far advanced is the hydrogen component of the Kurri plant?
Mr Barnes: We have proven technically with our equipment provider and with some modification, which we have not yet committed to, that would enable us to run 30 per cent hydrogen.
Senator ROBERTS: Any idea of the completion date?
Mr Barnes: We are not currently executing that project.
Senator ROBERTS: So where is the—you are not executing the project on hydrogen?
Mr Barnes: No. We know it is technically capable.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the end of it for now.
Mr Barnes: For now, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Where would the gas come from? Mitsubishi?
Mr Barnes: Mitsubishi are the turbine manufacturer. The question of hydrogen supply we haven’t assessed.
Senator ROBERTS: Any idea at all? Because hydrogen is very expensive to produce, as I understand it.
Aluminium adjuvants (preservatives) in vaccines are commonly blamed, at least in part, for the increase in autism. Recent work has been done that confirms this theory, so I asked the TGA about the subject. Research on aluminium was conducted on aluminium salts, but the jabs use a quite different type of aluminium which has not been safety tested. This is my exact question:
“A study published in September took biopsies from the brains of older children diagnosed with autism and found their brains contained significantly elevated levels of aluminium, especially aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate, which are present in the hexa jabs. Has the health testing on aluminium build-up in our children’s bodies been done using water-soluble aluminium salts, which are not used in vaccine products, or has this research been done using the actual aluminium used in vaccine products, aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate?”
This question was straightforward and simply put: have you tested the right type of aluminium for safety? The TGA feigned not understanding the question to avoid answering it. When pressed, they took the question on notice and then refused to provide further information, with Minister Gallagher covering for her bureaucrats. This is unbecoming for a senior bureaucrat and for the Minister.
Australians want an answer to this, and I will keep at the subject until I get one. The fact they are hiding from the question suggests the answer is as recent science is showing – aluminium preservatives in vaccines are causing autism in some children.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My third and final set of questions is about aluminium adjuvants. Again, constituents are raising this. A study published in September took biopsies from the brains of older children diagnosed with autism and found their brains contained significantly elevated levels of aluminium, especially aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate, which are present in the hexa jabs. Has the health testing on aluminium build-up in our children’s bodies been done using water-soluble aluminium salts, which are not used in vaccine products, or has this research been done using the actual aluminium used in vaccine products, aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate?
Prof. Lawler: Sorry; did you reference research? There was a question there about whether research has been done?
Senator ROBERTS: Has the research been done on babies’ brains using the aluminium found in vaccine products, aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate, or has it been done using water-soluble aluminium salts?
Prof. Lawler: Sorry; I’m just trying to be clear. Is the research that you’re asking me about the research that you cited?
Senator ROBERTS: No, I haven’t cited anything. To your knowledge, has the health testing on aluminium build-up in our children’s bodies been done using water-soluble aluminium salts, which are not used in vaccine products, or has the research been done using the actual aluminium found in vaccine products, aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate Prof. Lawler: I’m sorry; I don’t know the research that you’re specifically referring to.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll send you some papers. Is the type of aluminium in vaccine products bioresistant? Does it ever leave the bodies of our children?
Prof. Lawler: Again, there are a number of very specific and very technical questions that you’re asking us. For the purposes of answering them, as I’ve previously indicated, we’re very happy to take these questions—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. I’ve got nothing against taking them on notice.
Prof. Lawler: Okay. I would like to provide you with as fulsome a response as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are repeated doses of low concentrations of aluminium adjuvant in a vaccine product more harmful than a single large dose? A related question: how many vaccine products containing aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate has the TGA authorised for administration to children? You’ll have to take that on notice.
Prof. Lawler: I certainly will have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I only had a concern about the one I objected to. I have no concern about the rest at all. I appreciate that it’s a better answer. Individual vaccine products have been safety tested. Has any safety testing been done on multiple, concurrent administration of vaccine products to babies under six months, with special attention to multiple administration of low dose aluminium adjuvants?
Prof. Lawler: Professor Langham can add to this response. There has been not only significant research undertaken with respect to the administration of vaccines but there is significant real-world evidence over decades on the safety of the administration of the vaccines that we approve.
Prof. Langham: I have nothing further to add on that. As you’re aware, we have a number of avenues whereby safety signals from all registered products in Australia are overseen from a pharmacovigilance perspective, as Dr Larter has already mentioned. We work closely with other global regulators and also with other research that’s published. As Professor Lawler has said, with the vast body of information that exists about these vaccines and their use in children, there have been no signals.
Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t answer the question as to whether or not—
Prof. Langham: I think I did answer the question.
Senator Gallagher: Yes. I think that’s definitely an answer.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask it again. Has any safety testing been done on multiple concurrent administration of vaccine products to babies under six months, with special attention to multiple administration of low-dose aluminium adjuvants? Can you tell me if multiple injections have a different effect from one or two injections?
Prof. Langham: The evidence that exists from a safety perspective is not only the clinical trial data that we receive upon registration but also the ongoing evidence from a real-world perspective of the use of these vaccines in those multiple dose formulations in many millions of children around the world.
Prof. Lawler: For many years.
Senator ROBERTS: I have a last question. Are aluminium adjuvants causing the spectrum of neurological conditions that are commonly called autism?
Prof. Lawler: I’m not aware of any accepted evidence that that is the case.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you may sigh—
Senator Gallagher: Do you know why I sigh, Senator Roberts? It’s because I have a child with autism, and I have vaccinated children, and I find it offensive.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, I find it offensive to not respond to a constituent, and I’m responding to constituents. That’s my job. They pay me.
Senator Gallagher: Well, I’ve had enough.
Senator ROBERTS: Professor Lawler, have you heard of these papers? I think this will be my last question, Chair.
CHAIR: Yes, it will be.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve mentioned one by Dr Karla Lehmann from 2024 titled ‘Suspected Causes of the Specific Intolerance Profile of Spike-Based Covid-19 Vaccines’ in the European Society of Medicine. There’s one from 2022 by El-Arif G et al called ‘Angiotensin II Type I Receptor (AT1R): The Gate towards COVID-19 – Associated Diseases’ published in Molecules. In 2023 Fajloun and Sabatier published ‘The Unsuspected Role of the Renin-Angiotensin System (RAS): Could its Dysregulation be at the Root of All Non-Genetic Human Diseases?’ in Bentham Science. In 2023 Parry, P et al wrote, ‘”Spikeopathy”: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA’ in Biomedicines (Journal). The last one is from Pelumbo, Avila and Naftolin in 2016 called ‘The Ovarian Renin-Angiotensin System (OVRAS): A Major Factor in Ovarian Function and Disease’ in PubMed by the National Institute of Health, the National Library of Medicine USA.
Prof. Lawler: I’d be very happy to receive those studies—I’ll speak on behalf of Professor Langham if she doesn’t mind. I would say that there is a very well established understanding of the importance of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in a number of various elements of regulation of human function. I think it is well recognised that they are impacted by the COVID disease itself.
Senator ROBERTS: What part of the COVID disease?
Prof. Lawler: It will be very useful for us to review those articles so that we can be sure that they are reflective of the impact of COVID not, as suggested, an impact of the vaccine.
Senator ROBERTS: Good. Thank you very much. Would you like the references sent as paper copies, as attachments or by links?
Prof. Lawler: At your pleasure.
Senator Gallagher: Carrier pigeon.
Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I’ll be putting forward a number of questions on notice on the spike protein.
COP29 has recently concluded. As part of the agreement, Australia has committed $8 billion towards “climate change” measures in developing countries, including India. I asked the Minister, after 29 years of action to “fight climate change,” how much world temperatures had dropped. The answer was predictable waffle. The truth is, “climate change measures” are not designed to succeed; they can’t—humans can’t control the climate. These measures are designed to transfer wealth from everyday citizens to the predatory billionaires behind this scam.
Watch as the Minister waffles on, unable to answer my simple questions about this appalling waste of taxpayers’ money.
Transcripts
Question Time
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister, and is regarding the United Nations Conference of the Parties, COP29. Minister, COP29 marks 29 years of climate action. After 29 years, it must be starting to work. As a result of the measures implemented via COP agreements, how much have world temperatures been reduced?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities) (14:28): We should acknowledge that, in asking this question, Senator Roberts of course starts from the premise that climate change is not real, is not caused by humans and is not a problem that requires us to deal with it in any way. These are the positions he has put repeatedly—
The PRESIDENT: Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, please go ahead.
Senator Roberts: I don’t need a dissertation on myself; I’m asking about temperatures.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I’ll listen to the minister’s answers, but she has been answering your question.
Senator McALLISTER: As I was saying, the starting point for Senator Roberts’s question, as he has made very clear over his long period in this place, is that he does not believe in the science of climate change, he does not believe that that science has been demonstrated and he does not believe that there needs to be—
The PRESIDENT: Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson.
Senator Hanson: I question Senator McAllister’s response—
The PRESIDENT: Is it a point of order?
Senator Hanson: Yes, it is a point of order. She’s repudiating Senator Roberts’s character in her response—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, that is a debating point. Please resume your seat.
Senator McALLISTER: It’s passing strange to be asked about the effectiveness of climate action because I don’t believe that Senator Roberts actually wishes it to be successful.
However, I will say this. At COP28, the information that delegates received was that the projections had been for a four-degree increase in temperature and that that had been reduced to three degrees based on the actions that had been taken by states to date. Three-degree average global warming is actually a very troubling number. It offers very disturbing consequences for many Australians, including Australians in your home state, Senator Roberts. There is a heatwave warning in place today for the peninsula region of Queensland, and there are flooding warnings in Queensland. All of the advice before us suggests that the extreme weather events that Queenslanders are exposed to are only going to increase as a consequence of a warming climate.
It is in Australia’s interests for there to be effective global action to contain warming. That’s why we are— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
The minister seems unaware that Queensland had bigger floods in the 19th century. How many people did the Australian government send to UN’s COP29? For clarity—just those your government paid for and the cost of that all up, please, including travel, accommodation, wages and expenses.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities) (14:31): As I think the senator will know from when previous questions of this kind have been asked at estimates, the complete costs associated with travel to events such as these, multilateral forums, generally are not available until sometime after the travel has been completed.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
The communique from COP29, released overnight, announced that developed nations will ramp up annual payments to be paying $300 billion annually by 2035, supposedly to meet the costs of transitioning developing nations, including India, with payment being a combination of public and private money, loans and grants. Media reports suggest Australia’s share is $8 billion. I don’t see a government statement to that effect. Minister, how much taxpayer money will be sent overseas as grants to discharge our obligation under the agreement made at COP29?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities) (14:32): Australia does welcome the outcome at COP29, in Baku, to agree a new finance goal to support developing countries. This goal was incredibly hard fought. It is not everything that everyone wanted. In fact, people wanted a range of outcomes, and there was, as there always is in such forums, a compromise. But it is an important step to support emissions reduction and development goals around the world.
We are proud be to be back as a constructive actor on the world stage. It safeguards our national security. Our goal is to accelerate our transformation—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Order! Order!
Senator Canavan interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Canavan, I’ve called order three times. I’ve called you to order, and you’ve completely ignored me. Your interjections have completely drowned out the minister. Listen in silence, or I invite you to leave the chamber. Minister McAllister, please continue.
Senator McALLISTER: As I’ve frequently said to Senator Roberts and others in this chamber, it is in our interests as a nation for there to be effective action to limit global warming. I will say we are now cleaning up the mess left that was left by 10 years of the Liberals and Nationals making a mockery of our— (Time expired)
Take Note
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to COP29.
Three-nil! I asked three questions and got nil specific answers. For 29 years, the United Nations has convened a conference of parties on climate change to counter the manufactured threat of global warming, climate change, climate disruption, global boiling, net zero and many other rebrandings. For 29 years, taxpayers’ money has been wasted on this pointless to solve a fake problem and failed to change world temperatures. Many in this chamber think that giving money to the United Nations will enable us to affect world temperatures, yet we can’t because temperatures are the result of factors not in our control.
COP29 focused heavily on finance. Rich countries, which are overwhelmingly blamed for natural climate variation, agreed in 2009 to ramp up annual payments to provide $100 billion a year in 2020 to developing countries. That pledge was met in 2022—two years past the deadline. At Baku, the United Nations came up with a new number, meaning more Australian taxpayer money would be spent overseas to fight this concocted problem. The new deal agreed on yesterday requires wealthy countries, including the US, European nations and Australia, to ramp up payments to $300 billion annually in 2035. So I asked the minister: what’s Australia’s share? The minister didn’t know. If we paid based on the UN formula, Australia would be paying $6 billion every year—money sent overseas and never seen again, reducing Australia’s gross domestic product and with that the standard of living for all Australians. Worse, the agreement refers to a wider ambition to increase payments to developing nations up to $1.3 trillion—annually, I believe. Developing nations include China, India, Egypt—all modern, vibrant economies. Worse, these nations have no formal obligation to cut their output of carbon dioxide gas or to provide financial help to poorer countries. One Nation will withdraw from the UN climate agencies and UN imposts that are really income redistribution, communism disguised as climatism. One Nation will stop the UN theft.
Treasury officials dodge basic questions about Australian power station coal prices while claiming they “monitor” them for inflation forecasts. Despite promising to get back to me on notice, the officials refused to provide how much coal for generating electricity costs.
Australian coal prices for our power stations remain stable under long-term contracts, yet Treasury keeps pushing the narrative of high international prices to justify soaring electricity costs. Why hide the real numbers? Because cheap domestic coal exposes the true cost of the renewable energy transition to Australian families.
Time for transparency, Australian families deserve to know the real cost of their electricity and it’s not because of Ukraine.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: This is for the Treasury, on coal pricing. The Treasurer said in March, regarding Australian power station coal prices, that thermal coal burned in power stations in Australia was ‘more or less tracking’, according to Treasury’s December forecast, to be down about a third from a year ago. Do you track the price of thermal coal burned in power stations in Australia?
Mr Yeaman: We look at overall market movements in coal prices both for export and for generation, yes, as part of our CPI forecast.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you get that information on thermal coal prices in Australia for domestic use?
Dr Heath: In tracking coal prices on a regular basis, the most publicly available coal prices tend to be shipped coal. So if you’re looking—
Senator ROBERTS: Exported coal?
Dr Heath: Exported coal—that’s what is publicly available. The arrangements that individual coal-fired power plants have to access their coal means that the prices they pay could be quite different to those public prices. That’s not publicly available information, so we would have to basically go directly to the coal-fired power stations to find that information.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand the local price is much lower because they’re locked into long-term contracts. So it’s a vague process. When you’re talking about power stations, is it only power stations that buy their coal or is it also the power stations that are at the mine mouth—where it just goes straight from the mine into the power station?
Dr Heath: I think that’s getting to a level of detail that I don’t have.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice, please?
Dr Heath: We can take that on notice, but I’m not sure—
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know how you get that price—or, if you don’t get that price, that’s fine.
Mr Yeaman: I am aware that we have in the past. Our colleagues at the department of climate change and also the department of industry, along with our colleagues at the Australian Energy Market Operator, look at prices by facility, and I think that does include those that get coal directly from the mine.
Senator ROBERTS: So you get that information from those other agencies?
Mr Yeaman: I’m not sure how systematised that is, but I’m aware we have in the past drawn information from those sources.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the latest figure you have for the price of thermal coal burned in Australian power stations?
Mr Yeaman: If it’s that specific a question, I’ll take it on notice, if that’s okay.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you aware that the CSIRO uses a coal price of $11.30 a gigajoule in its GenCost studies to say that wind and solar are cheaper than coal?
Mr Yeaman: We generally look at the GenCost report, but, for our purposes, we don’t tend to go down to that level of detail around their assumptions.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not aware that CSIRO uses the coal price of $11.30 a gigajoule in GenCost?
Mr Yeaman: I haven’t been aware of that and I’m not sure that my colleagues would be.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I can accept that. Are you able to provide the aggregate figures for coal prices over the last five years, please?
Mr Yeaman: We can certainly have a look and see what we can provide.
