Senator Malcolm Roberts declared Prime Minister Albanese’s trip to China redundant while critical Australian manufacturing is offshored and essential commodities are shipped to the communist regime. He said:
“The net zero Transition is a national security risk to Australia and China knows it. China has a monopoly over almost every element of the wind, solar and battery supply chain.”
“China hasn’t had to apologise at all for its campaign of economic coercion against Australia to secure this meeting with Albanese. They will do it again if we try to stand for our interests.”
“China continued to be our number one trading customer throughout the diplomatic freeze, proving they need our high-quality coal and iron ore more than we need them.”
“We ship coal and iron ore to China, they use it to make cheap electricity and steel, then our net-zero chasing government pays to buy solar panels and steel wind turbines back off them.”
“The Labor government’s continued kowtowing to China on critical industries and dropping our sure-to-win WTO complaint over wine and barley will not work.”
“China will only ever respond to strength. If the previous years have taught us anything, it is that we should be doing everything we can do get out of Communist China Party supply chains and bring manufacturing back to Australia.”
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/image.png?fit=927%2C620&ssl=1620927Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-11-07 08:56:522023-11-07 08:57:01MEDIA RELEASE: CHINESE DIPLOMACY USELESS UNTIL AUSTRALIAN INTERESTS PUT FIRST
The union bosses claim that Labor’s latest Industrial Relations legislation will “close the loophole” of casual workers being paid less than permanents, especially in the mining sector.
You can’t step on site without a union enterprise bargaining agreement, so how are casual workers getting ripped off when they’re working under union negotiated agreements?
The answer is that some union bosses are getting kickbacks from labour hire companies in exchange for passing through dodgy agreements that allow casuals to be exploited.
The Fair Work Commission is meant to stop this, but they’re either asleep at the wheel or deliberately not doing their job.
Transcript
1 November 2023
Presenter
The Fair Work Legislation Amendment, known as the, “Closing Loopholes Bill,” held its hearings in Rockhampton this week. Announced by the federal government in September, the Closing Loopholes Bill aims to criminalise wage theft, introduce minimum standards for workers in the gig economy, close the forced permanent casual worker loophole, and close the labour hire loophole.
It’s all about that thing that we’ve been talking about for yonks, and that is, if you’re doing the same job as someone else, you should get the same pay. One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts is in Rockhampton for the hearings, and he’s been raising the issue of the exploitation of the permanent casual workers in CQ miners for years. Frazer Pearce asked him if the proposed legislation would provide a better outcome for miners.
Malcolm Roberts
Look, my position on this Fair Work Act for a start, the current act as it stands, without Labor’s latest draft amendments, is 1,200 pages long, and they’re wanting to add another 800 pages. It already makes the workers vulnerable because there’s no way any single worker or small business can understand it; and it helps the IR club. All regulations in that help the major groups like the major banks, the big pharma, and the Industrial Relations Club.
That’s the lawyers, the Union bosses, the Industry Associations for multinational companies. It hurts the workers. I’ve seen that firsthand in Hunter, the Hunter Valley, and in Central Queensland. The second point I’d make is that we wouldn’t be having this inquiry if it wasn’t for the fact that the cross bench has moved it to extend the opportunity, to extend the reporting date from October through to next February. We would not be here listening to the views of industry unions and individual workers, if it wasn’t for the fact that we got an extension till next February.
The Labor Party voted against that extension. They don’t want to listen to people. We voted in favour of it. It’s a very important bill. It’s a huge bill. Big ramifications for workers as well as all players in the industry. The third point I’d make is that current employment in the coal industry at least, is that illegal employment of casual, supposedly casual, in coal is only possible, only possible, with a mining and energy union endorsed enterprise agreement.
We’ve seen that. I can go into detail if you need, but this is probably not the time. But the Mining Union in the Hunter Valley in particular, and to some extent in Central Queensland, has been passing enterprise agreements that do not protect the basic rights of workers. They don’t meet the award criteria as a basic minimum. They don’t meet the National Employment standards as a basic minimum.
They have been selling out workers in the coal industry and what we need for a solution is just a simple enforcement of the Fair Work Act. Now, early on in the proceedings and dealing with these issues, I proposed the, “Same work, same pay” bill. It’s very simple bill. But what I’ve since realised in doing more work, listening to miners, is that all that’s needed is to enforce the current Fair Work Act.
Frazer Pearce
What’s the level of, do you think of exploitation against these workers? Are you saying it’s widespread or it’s just isolated?
Malcolm Roberts
Yes, it’s widespread and it varies in severity. They’re paying well below the award and as I said, the award is the basic minimum. They have not done , they’ve not done the boot test, which is the, “better off overall test”. And that’s how these dodgy agreements have got through that are shafting coal miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. They have left out basic leave entitlements.
They don’t pay casual loading. Casuals are not legally allowed to be employed in the coal industry other than in a dodgy agreement, which is unlawful in itself; because they bypass the normal processes. People are missing out on leave entitlement. People are, as a result of being hired casual, short term, are threatened with dismissal at any time, people are afraid to raise safety incidents.
There’s a culture of fear there. There’s a culture of fear at many mines from people standing up and and afraid of standing up. There’s also been a lack of reporting of injuries. New South Wales in particular, we suspect also Queensland. There’s a, basically there’s a loss in some cases of workers insurance, workers’ compensation, accident pay. These are fundamental rights.
Frazer Pearce
Is this going to be a strong platform for you in the next election? Was it a vote winner for you in the last one?
Malcolm Roberts
We don’t do things to get votes. We do things because they’re right.
Presenter
That’s One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts having a chat with ABC Capricornia Frazer Pearce, talking about the closing loopholes bill. The hearing’s being held in Rockhampton at the moment. It’s a couple of minutes to eight.
At Senate Estimates I have been pursuing the Chief of the Defence Force over allegations he was illegally awarded a Distinguished Service Cross.
This represents the hard work and tiring investigations of veterans and others over many years. They deserve justice and CDF Angus Campbell must hand back his DSC and resign.
Australia voted yes to equality. Thank you for saying ‘No’.
You did it. Every State and Territory of Australia said NO to the racist Voice EXCEPT for Canberra.
PM Albanese Fails to Listen to the Australian Heartland
Despite hundreds of millions of dollars for the Yes campaign to constitutionally enshrine a Voice to Parliament, the Australian people overwhelmingly spoke with one voice and said NO, except that is for the Capital. This just goes to show how out of step Canberra’s bureaucrat class are with the rest of Australia.
The government’s Yes campaign involved pushing councils, sporting bodies, schools, universities, unions and the corporate sector including the Big 4 banks and QANTAS into backing the Voice.
Australia saw through the spin and the pressure of the Yes campaign. The Voice was not a genuine offer. It wasn’t about helping Australia’s most vulnerable people. It was yet more foreign globalist interference and follows the UN’s resolution, “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” which Australia signed up to. The UN’s reaction to Australia’s resounding NO is to predictably condemn the vote as exposing “hidden racism” and a failure to recognise human rights of Indigenous Peoples. They fail to grasp that it is aboriginal people in Australian politics and on the ground in the bush who led the NO campaign. Is it ignorance or deliberate misinformation from the UN?
Aboriginal Australians voted against this divisive measure too. Only the Albanese government and woke white saviour lefties voted for it. Albanese is a puppet for the globalists and needs to go.
As Senator Pauline Hanson says, “Australia has dodged a bullet and the people who fired it must now be held accountable”. Despite this overwhelming indication at the ballot box, some state governments are ploughing ahead down the path to treaty. So hang on to your NO t-shirts for now.
The division in Australia isn’t racially driven, it’s politically driven. The Yes campaign didn’t fail on race, it failed because those pushing it, from government to big business, are the same lot that were pushing the COVID shots.
People power is exactly the medicine we needed after COVID.
As the voices grow louder to “Free Assange,” the Wikileaks founder’s family is in the United States to fight against his extradition. They’ve been asking lawmakers there for help, and all hopes are pinned on the meeting between PM Anthony Albanese and President Joe Biden. Australian government officials of all political parties have come to Assange’s defense.
I, along with over 60 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, signed a letter urging the U.S. to drop their pursuit. On 20 September, a cross-party delegation representing Australia went to the United States to support Julian’s right to come home to his family, including his two sons, who have been growing up without their father.
This has gone on far too long. The huge amount of support from around the world in defense of Julian Assange shows that the value of courageous journalism, truth and social justice is far greater than the US administration’s desire to retaliate in their embarrassment over the war crimes they committed, which Wikileaks revealed.
At this time online censorship and state control over information is on everyone’s mind. The Albanese government has proposed a bill designed to censor Australians online. What Julian Assange stands for is traditional journalism and free speech, which are cornerstones of our democracy. Assange is a political prisoner and deserves our gratitude for bringing the truth to light.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Free-Julian-Assange.png?fit=1079%2C537&ssl=15371079Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-10-12 09:05:592023-10-12 09:06:03The Persecution of Assange Must End
Over-the-counter transactions at NAB have decreased 70% since 2015. The BIG Four banks have actively discouraged people from withdrawing cash over the counter in the past several years. By training customers in this way, the banks have been able to produce a ‘shock and awe’ figure of 99.95% reduction in cash transactions.
Sounds incredible, yet that’s exactly what it is. It isn’t so much a shift away from cash by the public – it’s a shift in behaviour by the banks.
The banks have no idea how many people are using cash. They don’t see cash transactions. They are actively discouraging the use of cash, then coming out with statements that people don’t want to use cash, which is just plain wrong.
According to many constituents, if a customer goes to a branch of the NAB to use the counter services, there is a high likelihood they will be shown how to use the ATM. The NAB says that’s because they need to know and be fully aware of the alternative options. In June, the NAB is pleased to report they saw 96% of customers making digital transactions. How many of those were walked outside to do that?
Mortgage applications are now being conducted remotely by 40% of customers. Pre COVID the figure was zero, yet post COVID the NAB has found that customers are very happy to take up the digital services for buying a house. The NAB report that a massive shift has occurred over the last few years. Social distancing and lockdowns furthered their digital goals.
The NAB’s reported 99.95% less cash payments is just for bank transactions within the bank itself. All real-world cash transactions are an unknown figure. Customers still need to go to the bank though to withdraw their money to use it in their daily lives. How hard is that becoming?
Ross McEwan, CEO of the NAB, says there are thousands of ATMs available to do this freely, and also acknowledges that Australia is a large country. The NAB says it looks at a range of factors when making decisions to close branches, including feedback from staff members and what is happening in the community where it has invested. How much of that is about listening to customers’ needs?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Your submission includes this statement: ‘Banking transactions made over the counter at NAB branches have decreased by 70 per cent since 2015.’ Is that a 70 per cent reduction in actual transactions; and, if so, what are the figures for, firstly, total over-the-counter transactions in 2015 and, secondly, total over-the-counter transactions now?
Mr McEwan: I’ll ask Krissie Jones to address that question.
Ms Jones: I’ve got the data from 2017 in front of me. We understand that, in 2017, there were 35½ million over-the-counter transactions through our branch network. Certainly, there has been a large reduction over the period since then and, at the conclusion of this year, we expect that there will have been a 71 per cent reduction. We’ve seen a massive shift over the last few years with our customers starting to use digital services. In fact, in June, 96.5 per cent of interactions were digital ones.
Senator ROBERTS: According to reports made to my electoral office, if one of my constituents goes into the NAB to conduct an over-the-counter transaction, it is likely that the teller will march that customer out to the ATM in front of the bank and make them conduct their business there. Does your 70 per cent reduction figure compensate for increases in the use of ATMs in front of your bank?
Mr McEwan: First off, we should probably look at the circumstances in which a customer is shown how to use an ATM. It also depends on the branch structure that we have, as we’ve got a number of branches that are open for standardised hours, which will probably be three hours a day, and the staff member may have shown the customer how to use the services 24/7. But I’ll pass over to Krissie because, again, she runs the network and is very familiar with what staff are being asked to do, in training and developing customers and showing them odd services. Krissie, maybe you could talk to the senator on that one.
Ms Jones: Yes, sure. We want to make sure that our customers are aware of all of the options that are available to them. If they want to conduct their banking in a branch, then we would welcome them using the over-the-counter services. But we want to make sure that, for those examples of when a branch isn’t open, they know of the alternative options. Over the last few years, we’ve added in new functionality to be able to deposit a cheque on your phone from the convenience of your home. So we really want to make sure that customers are fully aware of all of those alternative options, whether it’s phone banking, digital banking options or Bank@Post. But, of course, if a customer wants to come in and talk to their local branch team member to do their transactions, we welcome that too.
Senator ROBERTS: This is a quote from your submission: ‘Only three per cent of our personal banking customers exclusively use our branch network to conduct their banking.’ Could you define ‘exclusively’, please. Does one ATM withdrawal or one call to report a stolen card constitute the loss of ‘exclusive’, as in ‘did not exclusively use over-the-counter services’?
Ms Jones: We do publish some of this information in our FAQ sheets as well, but our definition of ‘exclusive’is really about when a customer walks into the branch. So ‘exclusive’ would be a customer who comes in and only uses that branch for their transactions; it would not include things like the use of ATMs or other services, such as digital transactions.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if a customer used a bank for over-the-counter services every time, except for one call to inquire about a bank card, would that mean that they do not exclusively use over-the-counter services?
Ms Jones: It’s a rolling period and so it would be that, in that period, that wouldn’t be the case. But we look at it over different rolling periods.
Senator ROBERTS: You say here, ‘Only eight per cent of our business banking customers exclusively use our branch network to conduct their banking.’ That’s one in 12, which seems a lot to ignore, doesn’t it? Asking that same question again, does the same definition of ‘exclusive’ apply?
Ms Jones: Yes, it’s the same definition of ‘exclusive’. For both our personal customers and our business customers, I think we are seeing a really big shift in the way that they’re transacting. As I’ve said, in June, we actually saw digital transactions occurring with 96 per cent of our customers. So there really has been a very big change. Also, we are seeing more of our business customers starting to use alternatives as well.
Senator ROBERTS: This is another quote from your submission: ‘Over 40 per cent of home lending appointments are held via videoconference.’ That means that 60 per cent are not using videoconference; is that correct?
Ms Jones: Yes. We offer a range of ways in which our customers can take out a home loan with us. They can go onto our website to find an appointment that is the most convenient for them. That can be in their local branch or over the phone; it can be with a banker coming to their home or their workplace; or it can occur by video. What we are seeing, even just in the last week, is more than 60 per cent happening over the phone or via video. But a large proportion of customers still want to come into a branch to undertake that conversation with the banker.
Mr McEwan: Just to give you a feel for the rapid change in those numbers, I can say that, pre-COVID, that was zero; we did not have that facility available. Today, as Krissie has said, these stats were put at 40 and, in the last week, that has gone even higher. So customers are very happy to take up those services, and it doesn’t matter whether they are regional or city-bound customers.
Senator ROBERTS: I quote again: ‘99.95 per cent of all payments made by or received by NAB customers were made digitally in 2022.’ Does that include when a person ‘beeps’ to pay for a coffee, petrol and the minutiae of everyday life?
Mr McEwan: Yes, it does.
Senator ROBERTS: If I withdraw cash from an ATM and spend that cash in a farmers market—in fact, I am noticing an increasing number of small retailers asking for cash payments—how would you know that I’ve paid with cash or not?
Mr McEwan: By way of a retail transaction?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr McEwan: If a person paid cash, we would not know.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.
Mr McEwan: What are you asking for help on with that one? When people have paid with cash at a market or out in society, we have never known what those numbers were.
Senator ROBERTS: So what is the statistical basis for the 99.95 per cent figure, when you have no idea of what your customers are using cash for?
Mr McEwan: No. That 99.95 per cent figure of the transactions that come through our bank are done digitally; that is, the ones that we’re aware of. The definition of that stat hasn’t changed, as we’ve never known what was going on with a trader or a person at a market who is taking cash for goods. Those stats have never appeared in our stats.
Senator ROBERTS: I made this same point with Westpac, I think it was: so we don’t really know what people are using cash for, but people want to use cash outside of the banking transaction.
Mr McEwan: That’s correct. Yes, you’re absolutely right: I do not know what you use your cash for and you don’t know what I use my cash for. But the point that we’re making is that 99.95 per cent of those interactions with the bank are now done digitally, and that doesn’t preclude customers doing what they like with their cash.
Senator ROBERTS: So 99.95 per cent of payments with NAB might be digital. With customers exchanging money with other customers, we don’t know what it is.
Mr McEwan: No, that’s right. Again, that’s not a service that I provide. Your paying cash to somebody else is not a service that I am involved in; it’s a service that they do themselves.
Senator ROBERTS: No. But for me to pay someone else cash, I need to come to NAB to get the cash.
Mr McEwan: Yes, or you could go to 4,000 ATMs around the country that I pay for you to use and they’re free to you, or you could get the money out at a branch or at 3,400 Australia Post outlets; they will give you the cash.
Senator ROBERTS: Cash is still important. So, on the face of it, your regional banking hubs are a good idea. I assume that these centres are there to handle face-to-face transactions with people from areas where a branch has been closed. You mentioned Emerald in Queensland, where I used to live some years ago. Can I ask: what is the catchment of that Emerald bank, please? How far away are the areas that it is designed to service?
Mr McEwan: We’ll have to look at that. Krissie, do you know the Emerald catchment at all?
Ms Jones: I do, but I want to make sure that we’ve got the facts right, so perhaps I could come back to you on that. We do have surrounding branches to Emerald. As well as our branch in Emerald there are Bank@Post facilities.
Senator ROBERTS: It looks to me as though the next branch, heading west from Emerald, is Longreach, which is four hours away. Is that a good indication of how far apart these regional branches are?
Mr McEwan: The regional branches will be quite different; some may well be at a shorter distance than that and others will be a longer distance apart. As you know, Australia is a huge country. But the point there is that there is a very large number of regional Australia Post offices that people can get to as well, which will service those needs.
Ms Slade: Krissie, you might want to talk about the things that we look at and take into consideration, such as where customers are travelling to already and the other branches that they’re using.
Ms Jones: When we’re making investment decisions or the decision to close a branch, we look at a range of factors, which include: where are our customers shopping; where are they banking; where are they are travelling to, whether it’s to see the doctor or the mechanic; and where do we need to invest to support them? So there’s a range of things that we take into consideration when we’re not only making investments but also making the difficult decision to close. We also seek input from our staff on the ground. We have a large number of colleagues—around 2,300 across NAB—who work across regional Australia, and many of those are bankers who face customers every day. That may be in retail, or it may be in regional and agri, which is where we have over 774 bankers providing services in those areas. So we listen to feedback from our staff members as well about what’s happening in that community, what’s most relevant for that community and what’s the way in which we can shore up in order to serve them as well.
A theme throughout this inquiry into Australia’s bank closures is that bank representatives continue to say they are committed to providing cash for the foreseeable future despite Australians using cash less frequently.
The Commonwealth Bank has no plans to remove the distribution of cash even though it is a cost to the bank to keep cash available, according to CEO Matt Comyn.
I know that Australians are afraid of losing cash. There’s no doubt that the best way to keep cash alive is to keep on using it.
Despite regional bank closures, more than 90% of customers remain which is seen as a sign less customers see a physical branch as important because more of them are using online services.
I asked Matt Comyn about the bank’s digital expansion which includes the CommBank App. He said this app is used by eight million customers and the vast majority of customers appreciate the bank’s investment in it. The bank’s contract with Australia Post, worth tens of millions of dollars, is a partnership allowing customers to make transactions at Australia Post outlets where the bank has been shutting down branches. For many rural customers the Bank@Post scheme doesn’t offer everything they need.
We also discussed the many ways the Commonwealth Bank along with the rest of the Big Four Banks are supported by the government including bail-in, props such as government guarantees for overseas borrowing, regulatory support and their advantages over smaller banks.
When I asked about the shareholdings by asset managers such as BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, Matt Comyn responded that most of the bank’s shareholders are Australian retail shareholders, domestic superannuation shareholders, and shares held by 12 million Australian families. Share dividends will be high this year with a record $10.2 billion profit and a pay packet for its CEO of $10.4 million.
The Commonwealth bank serves about 10 million customers. Among those customers are many Australians who are worried about digital controls, branches closing, and the gradual loss of cash as a readily available and convenient means of transaction. The Commonwealth Bank prides itself on supporting its customers so let’s hope they’re also a listening bank.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of what has happened to Qantas’s reputation in the last few months?
Mr Comyn: Yes, I am.
Senator ROBERTS: You represent a bank which provides financial services, and cash is fundamental to those for many people. People are afraid of cash. Whether you agree with that or not, they are afraid of cash and they’re increasing their use of cash. As to your costs and services, from your statement I concluded that they’re reviewed annually, but are you considering the whole service and what people really expect from your bank?
Mr Comyn: Yes, absolutely we consider the whole service.
Senator ROBERTS: More than 90 per cent of your customers stay after a bank closure?
Mr Comyn: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So, your customers are sticky?
Mr Comyn: Yes. It could be perceived in a slightly different way as well, which is the role of a physical branch in some customers’ minds perhaps isn’t as important as it was. I sort of agree with that and I think it very much depends on different customers. I think a range of different conclusions can be drawn from that.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you. The fact is your customers are sticky and so are other customers. You mentioned cross-subsidisation of electronic customers on cash is $40 per customer?
Mr Comyn: What I said was we calculated we think the cost of providing cash, and I believe providing cash will continue to be important and is an important issue. I suspect we pay a significant proportion of the costs of providing cash in Australia. I don’t say that as a complaint, I say it more as a statement of fact. We serve about 10 million customers. It works out to be about $40. The reality is, like anything, there’s a small proportion of customers who use cash very often. There’s a much larger proportion who don’t use it at all, and there would be somewhere in between who are using it infrequently across that. I’m not exactly sure I understand the point you made about ‘afraid of cash’? I think you said earlier on in your question that Australians are afraid of cash? Did I mishear you?
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry. They’re afraid of losing cash. Thank you for picking up on that. That’s a very important point. They’re afraid of losing cash. We’ve seen a digital identity mooted by the Morrison government, now raised by the Labor government, and a bill that was introduced not into parliament as such for processing but into the public debate in parliament last year. We’ve seen attempts to limit the cash ban bill. People are scared, especially after losing a lot of their fundamental freedoms in the last three years under COVID mismanagement. They’re worried about being controlled in all aspects of their lives. How much has your bank spent on digital expansion that cash customers did not ask for?
Mr Comyn: It would be very difficult for me to answer that, because we haven’t asked every one of those 10 million customers.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that.
Mr Comyn: I think we could reasonably assume that with our retail bank, the CommBank app, which is our mobile banking app, we have more than eight million users. On average, they log in 39 times per month. It’s clearly one of the most important, if not the most important, feature that customers use. I’d say that clearly the vast majority of customers highly value the investments that we make, both in terms of hopefully helping make it easier for them to manage their financial lives but also as Senator White was asking, to make sure it’s the safest, secure and most resilient experience possible.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll come back to cash in a minute. You just said you’ve got a commitment to cash?
Mr Comyn: I believe cash will continue to be available for many years within Australia. I don’t think people should fear that cash is going to be removed from circulation.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that your commitment or is it just your belief?
Mr Comyn: I can only make the commitment on behalf of the Commonwealth Bank.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I mean.
Mr Comyn: We certainly have no plans to remove cash distribution or the provision of cash in Australia. I don’t think that’s feasible, and I don’t think that would be desirable, certainly in the foreseeable future.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s turn to Australia Post and we’ll come back to cash. How much do you pay Australia Post for the community representation fee—not the transaction but the community representation fee?
Mr Comyn: I mentioned in the introduction it’s tens of millions of dollars. I know I’m protected by parliamentary privilege. Would you mind if I checked whether there’s any commercial—
CHAIR: You can take it on notice.
Mr Comyn: I know what the number is. I don’t have any difficulty sharing it with you, but I probably should check that.
CHAIR: I think usually the best idea is to take it on notice. Mr Comyn can provide the information to us.
Senator ROBERTS: Is your concern one of the figure or of releasing it?
Mr Comyn: I’m not personally concerned with either of those dimensions, but since it’s in a contract entered between the Commonwealth Bank and Australia Post I just want to doublecheck if there are any contractual restrictions and probably out of courtesy let Australia Post know.
Senator ROBERTS: It was released in 2018 as being $22 million for each bank.
Mr Comyn: It’s more than that.
Senator ROBERTS: So, you’re currently flooding Australia Post. When I say ‘you’, it’s not just the Commonwealth Bank but all banks. You’re closing branches in the regional areas and Australia Post is getting flooded with customers. Is it more than $22 million?
Mr Comyn: The totality of what we pay Australia Post? Yes, it is. Again, not to get caught up in the semantics, I wouldn’t characterise it as ‘flooding’. We pay on a per transaction basis to Australia Post with an extension beyond 2030. We entered into a long-term contract to give Australia Post and some of those individual franchisees certainty. We meet—I know Mr Jones does—regularly with Australia Post to talk about are there opportunities for us to continue to improve the service to be able to support Australia Post’s customers better and to make sure as many transaction types are available in Australia Post to ensure the convenience is as high as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: So, you’re treating them as a partner?
Mr Comyn: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to the structure of the banking system in this country, especially the big four banks, there is protection for the banks if the banks go overboard in risk or the economy collapses. You’ve got protection in bank bailing, which was legislated I think in 2018. That was confirmed to me by a senior Treasury official two years ago. You’ve had props from the government in the past, and government guarantees for things like overseas borrowing. You have enormous support. Four pillars for a start is a regulatory support. You have more generous treatment from APRA in risk weighting. You have barriers to entry that the regulations provide for protecting the big four. You have a barrier that’s legal in the sense that you’ve got deep pockets and you can fund enormous defences in lawsuits brought against you. I’ve seen this first-hand when chaired the Senate select inquiry into lending to primary production customers. You dominate the cash distribution network. You’re essentially now, as a result of the support from the community and governments, a low-risk business. And your customers are sticky. That’s a hell of a ride.
Mr Comyn: I’d challenge just about every one of the assumptions that you made then, but I’m not exactly sure where that would get us. I definitely wouldn’t characterise it in terms of the context that you did. Are we heavily regulated? Absolutely. Is there a lot of investment required to manage and appropriately respond to that regulation? Yes, there is. Do I think significant financial institutions in Australia and others should be heavily regulated? Absolutely. Do I think it’s important that Australian banks and the Commonwealth Bank have unquestionably strong levels of capital? Absolutely. Because we’re big importers of capital and the success of economies and financial institutions are necessarily very intertwined. I could give you multiple examples but I don’t know how helpful it would be. Even if you think about capital levels, Australian banks hold considerably more capital than many other financial institutions and jurisdictions. As a policy setting I think that’s absolutely appropriate, but to help make the numbers real that costs across the major banks per annum between $7 billion and $11 billion. I’d characterise a lot of things differently. I think sometimes our funding facilities are described in a way that’s not necessarily matched by our experience.
Senator ROBERTS: I acknowledge your view. I point to the fact that every monopoly in the world—I’m not accusing you of being a monopoly—is there as a result of government. You say you have a low-risk business. Your ownership of the Commonwealth Bank, a significant controlling portion, includes the Vanguard Group and BlackRock. I’m reading from your registry: Vanguard Investments, Norges Bank, Goody Capital Management, BlackRock Advisors, Vanguard Global Advisors and a couple more. When I look at the other three big banks, they’re almost identical in terms of the significant controlling interests. It seems to me that we have one bank with four logos. That’s a very tight industry. You hide behind the regulations, I’d put it to you. When I chaired that Senate select inquiry into lending for primary production customers, I saw the services almost identical from each of the banks. The strategy is almost identical. The disregard for customers is almost identical as is the hiding behind regulations. Regulations are there to protect your bank; that’s the way I see it in practice. It’s almost identical across all four banks. Directors appoint you, I take it, and your directors are appointed by the likes of BlackRock, Vanguard, First State and State Street. The banking sector with the four big banks seems to be a very cosy club and you can do whatever you want with very sticky customers; is that correct?
Mr Comyn: No, it’s not. Again, the shareholder base is quite different to the way you outlined. There are quite significant differences even across the major banks. We’re an extremely widely held retail stock. Approximately 50 per cent of our shareholding is held directly by retail onshore shareholders. Obviously that’s a result—
Senator ROBERTS: How many of those shareholders vote?
Mr Comyn: Every one of them is entitled to vote.
Senator ROBERTS: How many of them vote?
Mr Comyn: I couldn’t give you the exact number. One thing I would say is clearly I meet with institutional shareholders. I just came back from meeting with some institutional shareholders internationally. I can assure you I get stopped and asked about the performance, profitability, questions on people’s minds, and the dividend by a lot more retail shareholders than I ever do from international. To finish quickly on the shareholder base, more than 50 per cent would be direct to retail. The next approximately 30 per cent would be institutional but domestic, primarily through superannuation, some of the biggest industry and superannuation funds. We actually have quite a small representation internationally. You mentioned some of them. There’s a mixture of both. You touched on some of our index funds. Some have a variety of different mandates from either US, North America or within Asia. Fundamentally if the Commonwealth Bank is profitable, 75 per cent approximately of our profits go to our shareholders, predominantly Australian families—more than 12 million. I can assure you based on my experience they absolutely do value it. I’m not sure the point you’re making on regulation, either. Obviously we work very closely with regulators.
Senator ROBERTS: The point I’m making was that regulations help you because they give you protection. It’s very difficult for a small borrower to take you on legally.
CHAIR: We’re going to have to rotate the call. Mr Comyn, you can briefly respond to that if you want to. It’s up to you.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/O8cF3E60W4g/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-09 12:21:122023-10-09 12:21:17What is the Role of a Bank?
Your future is digital and Westpac’s is even higher profits. Once again, the commercial in confidence excuse was trotted out around disclosure of the cost of the Australia Post community representation contracts that are allowing the banks to close many of their regional branches. In 2018 the amount was public information so what’s changed? Westpac has taken the question on notice.
Almost a quarter of Australians cannot do digital banking. Either they lack access or the necessary skills to go online for their banking. I asked Westpac why the bank is turning its back on these Australians. The way Westpac’s CEO Peter King views this is that 96% of their own customers are engaging with them digitally so all is well.
Has Westpac looked at the fact they’re pushing people online who don’t actually have the capability to stay safe and secure on that platform? Instead of directly answering my question, Peter King said the three biggest scam losses are through investment scams, romance scams and business email compromises. Banks are doing everything they can, he said, to prevent this by blocking suspicious payments and educating customers.
Westpac is enthusiastic in its push towards digital. In Townsville for example, where Westpac has shut its doors, the bank conducted education sessions to help customers adapt to the digital transition. Clearly there are factors that limit digital banking in regional Australia. Westpac’s answer isn’t to reverse the closures, it’s to improve its banking app to do everything. The bank intends to shoehorn people into the digital economy whether they like it or not. Peter King believes this shift is much broader than just banking because all government and essential services will become digital too.
Will there still be cash? Peter King thinks that cash will still exist in the economy but its use will decline. Cash made up 70% of all transactions in 2007. That figure is now 13% and trending down. Where telecommunications or power are cut off, Westpac would get cash into an affected area by flying it in. Telecommunications is obviously critical.
Finally, I asked if Westpac’s data might not be accurate. It isn’t capturing all cash transactions. Once cash is circulating there is no way to track it, so perhaps they’re not seeing the real picture of cash use in the economy. I was told the Reserve Bank undertakes surveys into how cash is used and in Westpac’s view there is less call for cash making it less important in the scheme of things. Online banking and Bank@Post will replace bank branches, particularly in regional areas where Westpac and the other big banks are pulling away from in person services.
Profits over personal touch is what’s in store for customers in the digital economic future. In a move we’re seeing across the corporate and political sectors, the Big Four are making the data fit the narrative so they can achieve their goals. Where’s the care factor?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Just sticking briefly with Australia Post, how much do you pay Australia Post for a community representation fee, not the transaction fee?
Mr King: It’s subject to some commerciality requirements. I’ve said it will be over $200 million over 10 years, including the fee. We might see whether we can provide that separately in confidence.
Senator ROBERTS: It wasn’t commercial-in-confidence in 2018. Is something being hidden?
Mr King: No. We’ll work with Australia Post on how much detail we can give you.
Senator ROBERTS: So, you’ll take that on notice?
Mr King: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Your submission relies on digital technology as a fallback to the removal of physical branches, yet 23.6 per cent, almost a quarter of the population, either lack access to or the ability to handle digital banking. Why are you turning your back on almost a quarter of the population? Do they not have enough money to warrant your attention?
Mr King: What we see in our customer base is 96 per cent of customers are engaging with us digitally, in terms of transactions.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s your customer base. I asked about the population of Australia. Almost a quarter don’t.
Mr King: In terms of our service offering, if you take the cash, we have our own branch network, and the Australia Post, and an ATM arrangement. So, there are plenty of opportunities for customers who still want to use cash to get cash through the country.
Senator ROBERTS: The ACCC reports that Australians lost $3 billion in online scams in 2022. Has Westpac done any work on what share of that has come from Westpac and the banking sector in general, forcing this 23.6 per cent of the population online when they lack the skills to avoid being scammed? Is Westpac simply setting up these people to lose their money in an online scam?
Mr King: In short, no. There are three big drivers of scam losses, and the biggest one by a long way is investment scams. As to investment scams, we have less financial planners in the country, more people doing research, including on social media platforms, and that’s devastating. Romance scams are still pretty high in terms of people being prepared to pay for romance scams, and then there’s business email compromises. A lot of those are issues around how customers are being tricked out of their money, effectively. The way the banks are reacting is to do everything we can to help customers make better decisions. So, prompt them about those types of things, put friction in the system to stop the payments. But we do need to help our customers pick these scams up as well.
Senator ROBERTS: In towns where you close your branch and provide education to customers on how to use online banking safely, do you open a digital education centre?
Mr Miller: In a regional town where we’re closing a branch we have a fairly lengthy period where we’re consulting with our customers. We run education sessions from the branch before it closes. When the branch has closed, we’ve enabled our call centres to be able to take calls from customers anywhere in Australia where they can continue that digital education with customers online. We would have had 340,000 of those conversations with customers since March this year.
Senator ROBERTS: Some of them are a physical, face-to-face in town where the bank is about to close?
Mr Miller: Absolutely. That’s our priority during the transition period.
Senator ROBERTS: What factors would limit digital banking in regional Australia?
Mr King: For us, I think we’re looking to have everything you can do in the bank in the app. We’re not there yet, as Ross said, but we will be. Another is, as you just said, helping people transition to the digital economy. But I think it’s broader than banking. If I look at government services, banking services and most services in the country, they’re all going to go digital, so we have to help people get on. Then telecommunications is critical as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying there will be no cash, none of this stuff?
Mr King: No.
Senator ROBERTS: You said ‘all digital’?
Mr King: I believe there will still be cash in the economy but the usage will go down. I think I used a stat before that, in 2007, 70 per cent of consumer transactions were cash based. It’s now 13 per cent and it will go further down; that is the trend. Cash will be less important in the scheme of things than it has been historically.
Senator ROBERTS: What are customers supposed to do if the bank or the NBN or the telco fails for a whole day? I noticed in Mount Isa, the day before I arrived recently there was no internet and no EFTPOS so people had to use cash. Business was open purely because of cash.
Mr King: That is an important part, but also the merchant terminals can go into a mode which is called offline for a period of time, but you need your card. You need to put your physical card in. It’s hard to use a digital wallet in that situation. There are fallback facilities when telecommunications are down. It’s a bit harder when the power is down, obviously. In that case, like we do in any event, a flood or fire, we would get cash into the area and a way to distribute it. We did that in Lismore through the floods by flying it in.
Senator ROBERTS: If a constituent of mine goes to a farmers market and pays cash, how is that captured in the data for cash use and electronic payment?
Mr King: It will depend on how that merchant reports. Certainly, when we’re tracking cash usage we’re looking at money going in and out of the banks. It will depend on how that person banks, whether they go near a bank at all. They might just spend it. The Reserve Bank has the data on how much cash is on issue, and then it touches the bank at certain points but we don’t see 100 per cent of it because some of it’s in the economy and going around without us seeing it.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s exactly the point, isn’t it? The data does not capture all of the cash transactions?
Mr King: If it doesn’t go through us we won’t see it; that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct. Could the volume of cash transactions occurring outside of the banking sector be quite different to the data you present as being the reduction in cash transactions?
Mr King: Possibly, but the Reserve Bank also does periodic surveys where they survey consumers on how they’re using cash. That doesn’t rely on the reported data. You also get surveys. Our experience in what we’re seeing is there is less cash being used for transactions, and much more cards and particularly debit cards are being used for transactions.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m being sent complaints about queueing in the branches that remain after closures in the area. Your point of presence is now inadequate. If a customer wants to use face-to-face and their branch is closed, then they go to the next nearest branch which is queued out the door so they give up and go home and use phone or internet or banking, would you consider your bank as being helpful?
Mr King: As I started with, customer service has to improve. If there are examples from your constituents, send them through and we’ll have a look.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/-RDbqOZMf-c/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-09 11:24:252023-10-09 11:24:30The Future is Digital Says Westpac CEO
In Senate Estimates, Professor Brendan Murphy, former Chief Medical Officer for the Australian Government and now Health Secretary, rejected the suggestion that the TGA ever took a position on vaccine mandates.
You can listen to him saying here that the government only supported mandates in limited circumstances earlier in the COVID injection roll-out. He says they were only needed in health, disability and aged care settings due to their high vulnerability.
National Cabinet had no strong position on community-wide mandates. Professor Murphy claims that everyone, including other departments and jurisdictions, took their own position. The TGA did not promote the COVID injections or mandates. Incredible!
The TGA authorised Moderna’s injection for young children with co-existing health conditions despite the fact the study is only being conducted in healthy children. That study is also not yet completed. ATAGI’s guidance is that the ‘vaccine’ is recommended ONLY for high-risk children with a comorbidity. Under questioning, the TGA admits it does not require patient level data and relies on a dossier from the sponsor (the pharma company). The ATAGI advice was that this shot be reserved for use in ‘at-risk’ children, i.e those with immuno-compromising pre-existing conditions.
I asked the TGA about reporting performances in the DAEN database of adverse events including fatalities. I wanted to know whether adverse event notifications were higher in those parts of the country where reporting is required compared to those without mandatory reporting. I’m advised that reporting rates are not higher in the jurisdictions where it is obligatory to report. The TGA has advised that consumer reporting of adverse events directly to the TGA increased by 28-fold in 2021 compared to 2020. Similarly, health professionals submitted nearly three times as many adverse event reports to the TGA in 2021 compared to 2020.
Strict independence of scrutiny for these products is clearly needed and is now being called for by a highly regarded epidemiologist.
Mortality figures for cancer are higher since the injections were introduced. The COVID products were not tested for carcinogenic properties simply because those responsible have taken the position that the substances involved don’t warrant such studies. The TGA did review Pfizer product on paper only for genotoxic and carcinogenic potential. In its dossier, Pfizer justified the absence of studies into cancer risk based on the exposure threshold concept. However, there is an absence of repeat dose toxicity data and the assessment of the stimulation of cytokine release.
Pfizer’s dossier, as sponsor of the product, adequately justified the authorisation of its use in Australia by the TGA, and so we joined what former Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, called the largest human trial and the largest vaccination trial that the world has ever engaged in.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s talk about approval of paediatric COVID vaccines. The TGA approved the Moderna COVID paediatric vaccine on 19 July last year for children aged six months to five years. According to your website, this was based on the results of the KidCOVE clinical trial run by Moderna in the USA and Canada. The approval was for all children, but ATAGI’s guidance is that the vaccine is recommended only for high-risk kids having one of a list of serious comorbidities. Is that correct?
Dr Langham: I believe so. I would have to check the current ATAGI guidance, though. I can take that one on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The KidCOVE clinical trial is listed on clinicaltrials.gov as ‘a study to evaluate the effectiveness of Moderna’s vaccine in healthy children’—healthy children—’aged six months to 12 years’. On what basis did TGA authorise the use of a vaccine, tested on healthy kids, for use in Australia on high-risk kids with serious comorbidities?
Dr Langham: What we’ve learned throughout the pandemic is that the disease of COVID is most damaging to those with other comorbidities, and particularly people who have immune systems that don’t work well. Our recommendation, or the recommendation of ATAGI and the recommendation of the TGA, would have been to be able to support young children with precisely those conditions by demonstrating that the virus was safe and efficacious in a healthy population.
Senator ROBERTS: The study was to evaluate effectiveness of Moderna’s vaccine in healthy children, yet you’ve approved it for children with comorbidities—no basis.
Dr Langham: Again, it is the sort of thing that can be extrapolated. It was very important to be able to provide a protective therapy for young Australians who were at risk of serious illness from COVID-19.
Senator ROBERTS: You just extended the study into a completely different field without testing?
Prof. Murphy: You can’t do the clinical trials—those trials have to be done in healthy children. You wouldn’t be able to do that first in-population trial in people with severe underlying diseases. You’d have to get healthy volunteers. The ATAGI advice considers all of the other risks of COVID as well. The safety can be shown in healthy people but the ATAGI advice is relevant to the risk of severe COVID. There’s no disconnect there.
Senator ROBERTS: Your approval was in July 2021. That clinical trial finishes in November 2023, so it is not even finished yet. The TGA must have worked from interim documents. Did the TGA evaluate the patient-level data, or did you just take Moderna’s word for it, like you took Pfizer’s word for it?
Mr Henderson: The Moderna vaccine was approved through the provisional pathway, which is a wellestablished pathway. It was an established pathway before the pandemic. That allows for approval based on interim clinical data, and data will be supplied on a rolling basis over a period of time.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you evaluate the patient-level data before you approved it?
Mr Henderson: We have answered questions in relation to patient-level data. At the TGA, we do not require patient-level data. We do require clinical data that is sufficient evidence from the sponsor of the vaccines.
Senator ROBERTS: So you relied on sponsors of the vaccines?
Mr Henderson: We relied on the dossier provided by the sponsor, with clinical data provided.
Senator ROBERTS: Would this be misfeasance on the part of the TGA?
Mr Henderson: Sorry, Senator, I’m not sure—
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. Quality of reports in the DAEN: the DAEN reports can come from medical practitioners and also the general public. How many of the reports of deaths from COVID vaccines recorded by DAEN came from members of the public and how many from medical practitioners?
Mr Henderson: I don’t have those exact numbers with me. I will take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is the first question you ask, when a person makes a report: ‘Are you a medical practitioner or a member of the public?’
Mr Henderson: It is to allow us to have as rich a dataset as we can.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is the first question that one?
Ms Duffy: It allows the triaging of the subsequent questions as you go through the form.
Senator ROBERTS: Checking these reports—my staff have checked the reports—suggests there is a waiting room at the DAEN database holding reports that have been made but not yet checked and registered, which seems logical. How many reports of COVID vaccine harm are waiting to be checked? How many of those are reports of death or serious injury?
Mr Henderson: Again, I don’t have those numbers with me. I will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Were more reports to DAEN made by states with mandatory adverse vaccine effect notifications—which I think is New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, which is only 62 per cent—as against states without mandatory reporting of vaccine harm?
Mr Henderson: Senator, could you repeat the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Was there a higher proportion of reports of adverse events from states with mandatory adverse vaccine effect reporting notifications?
Mr Henderson: I would have to take that detailed question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: There is now a call for a vaccine safety office from an epidemiologist. He is pretty highly regarded, from my understanding. He is calling for independence in the scrutiny. When we have a provisionally approved medication, surely, it’s even more important to have a very strict reporting of adverse events?
Mr Henderson: We have a very comprehensive and rigorous safety monitoring system at the TGA. We use a number of mechanisms to look for safety signals, as well as talking to our international regulator colleagues and sharing information in relation to safety issues with the vaccines.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you done any testing on what percentage of doctors and the public are reporting adverse events?
Mr Henderson: No, we haven’t done that study. I will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to carcinogenicity of the vaccine. The European Medicines Agency, EMA, had a 140-page assessment report for the Pfizer vaccine. On page 55, it says: No genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided. It then says: The components of the vaccine are lipids, an mRNA, which are not expected to have genotoxic potential. The carcinogenicity part of that statement was skated straight over. I want to ask you about that. Did you receive any genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies in support of the Pfizer application?
Mr Henderson: I do not believe that we did, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The words ‘carcinogenicity’ and ‘cancer’ do not appear in your 42-page assessment report. Did you review the Pfizer product from the perspective of cancer?
Mr Henderson: I believe there was no need for that. I will take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: According to the data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in their latest release of the provisional mortality statistics, we know that it under-represent deaths—this was from the head of the ABS the other night—by 15 per cent because it does not include autopsy reported deaths, only doctor reported. The figures for provisional mortality from cancer were as follows: based on average for January-February over the last four years, 3,637; January- February cancer deaths in 2023, 3,803—plus 15 per cent; and for 2021 it was 3,816. Both years are above trend. It should be remembered that trend includes autopsy deaths and the provisional mortality figures do not. Yet the provisional mortality figures for cancer are above the past figures. The problem is worse than these figures suggest. Let’s review: we have injections that were approved without carcinogenicity testing. We now have a spike in cancer. Can you please show me where you have investigated this spike and ruled out it being from the COVID injections? Have you even considered that?
Prof. Murphy: There is no evidence that increase in cancer risk is vaccine-associated. As Professor Langham said, there have been many billions of doses of these vaccines administered. If there was a significant association with cancer, I think the international data would have shown it. There is no evidence that there is an association.
Senator ROBERTS: The reference to lipid nanoparticles in earlier conversations around COVID vaccines suggested that the nanoparticles stayed near the injection site, then passed out of the body. Am I remembering that correctly?
Dr Langham: Senator, that’s correct. We’ve dealt with this on a number of occasions, in answer to other questions on notice as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Documents released in the Pfizer-gate court-ordered document dump showed that Pfizer knew at the time of seeking approval for their product that the lipid nanoparticles not only collected at the injection site but significant concentrations were also recorded in the adrenal glands. A table in the Pfizer test data showed they accumulated in the ovaries, the liver, the kidneys, the brain and the adrenal glands; they go all over the body. Did you know at the time of the Pfizer application that lipid nanoparticles collected across the body?
Dr Langham: Senator Roberts, what you are describing is a particular aspect of the pre-clinical studies by which an element of the lipid nanoparticles was labelled with a fluorescent label. What is seen in those studies is the fluorescent label and not necessarily the lipid nanoparticles.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it still your position that this build-up does not have an adverse health effect?
Dr Langham: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Why did former minister Greg Hunt say, ‘The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial’? Why did he say that as health minister?
Dr Langham: I can’t speak for Minister Hunt’s comment; I am sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: We have dealt with other agencies and employers who relied on you, as the TGA. They cite your advice as the basis of their policies and decisions: CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Fair Work Commission, Fair Work Ombudsman, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, judiciary, the Department of Home Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, state and federal health ministers, the chief medical officer and the chief health officer all drove vaccine mandates. The national cabinet cited you guys. Millions of people have been gutted, based on these horrendous facts and injuries, all pointing their finger at you. Do the members of the board of the TGA understand the concept of misfeasance in public office?
Prof. Murphy: There is no board of the TGA. The TGA is part of the department of health.
Senator ROBERTS: Do the heads of the TGA understand the concept of misfeasance?
Prof. Murphy: We very much understand the concept of misfeasance, and we totally reject any suggestion that has taken place. I should point out that the TGA has never taken a position on vaccine mandates. The TGA’s remit is to assess the safety and efficacy.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you support them or not?
Prof. Murphy: The Commonwealth department has supported them in limited circumstances, particularly early on, when transmission reduction was much more beneficial. We certainly supported them for aged-care workers and disability workers. The Commonwealth department has not taken a strong position on community-wide mandates. Some of the state and territory governments have taken a much stronger position.
Senator ROBERTS: Who from your senior leadership advised former Prime Minister Scott Morrison to buy the injections, at billions of dollars, to then give them to the states, to indemnify the states, to also then provide the health monitoring data so that vaccine mandates could be introduced? The state premiers then said that they mandated vaccines on the basis of the national cabinet, which the Chief Medical Officer is associated with. Then we saw the former Prime Minister mandate vaccines in Defence, the Australian Electoral Commission and aged care. Then the former Prime Minister said repeatedly, daily, for two weeks, ‘We have no vaccine mandates in this country.’ It was a blatant lie. Did you do anything to stop him lying?
Prof. Murphy: I can’t comment on what the former Prime Minister said. I know he supported vaccine mandates in aged care and disability. That was very much a national cabinet position because of the high vulnerability of the residents and workforce in those settings. I don’t believe national cabinet took a community-wide mandate approach. Various agencies—state, territory, Commonwealth and private sector agencies—made their own decisions about that. I don’t think it is fair to say that the TGA has been promoting vaccine mandates. It’s not their remit and they have never done it.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you do anything to stop it?
CHAIR: Thank you, Professor Murphy. Senator Roberts, I do need to share the call. Are you able to place the remainder of your questions on notice at this point?
A cheap, safe, award-winning, generic medicine, one that has been around for decades and was readily available, was shown to save people’s lives during an outbreak of a virus. Do you think it was a good decision for Australia’s Therapeutic Drug Administration (TGA) to arbitrarily ban its availability and off-label prescription in order to save it for skin conditions? Why not just buy more of it?
Despite substantial bodies of evidence from around the world, Australia did not recognise the available proof supporting Ivermectin’s use because no ‘sponsor’ (read pharmaceutical company) brought it to the TGA. What they did do was convene a Commonwealth-funded Clinical Evidence ‘Kangaroo Court’ which declared Ivermectin had no value in the treatment or prevention of COVID19.
This completely ignored a generation of evidence that Ivermectin was an effective early stage treatment for coronavirus.
The TGA continued to ignore the new data that showed Ivermectin was an effective and safe early treatment for COVID until the jab rate was over 95%, then they allowed its use. Here’s the kicker — the TGA admits in this video they made this decision because they were worried that people would not seek vaccination if they believed Ivermectin could help them.
Regulatory capture by pharmaceutical industries is a well known concept but I’m reassured that this “doesn’t happen at the TGA”. Yet in the same line of questioning, the TGA admits that if a pharmaceutical company sponsor does not promote a drug with them, and pay the fee of course, they don’t bother to show the initiative themselves.
This is purely a transactional process, as the TGA itself admits in this senate estimates. It’s clear that there is something very wrong with the system.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to the TGA. In the last Senate estimates, I asked Adjunct Professor Skerritt if the TGA was inquiring into the opportunity presented by albicidin, a natural antibacterial derived from a sugarcane virus that does not cause antimicrobial resistance. Dr Skerritt’s response was: We are very closely monitoring the science. In fact, I’m the keynote speaker next Thursday at the Australian Antimicrobial Congress…We haven’t had a submission relating to that product because it’s still very early days, but we are monitoring…antimicrobial resistance because…it’s a serious threat.
I was concerned that was a non-answer, so I asked the minister about it, in question on notice 1449. His response was: ‘The department of health is not conducting a review into albicidin.’ Can you clear this up, please? Are you treating albicidin as a prospective revelation in the battle against antimicrobial resistance, thoroughly deserving of active research and development?
Dr Langham: The normal manner in which the TGA evaluates and assesses a product for use is through a process whereby a sponsor brings us a product, with all of the relevant research, clinical trials and a dossier of its safety and quality, and that has not happened at this stage. Until someone comes to us with this, we’re not able to do anything in terms of furthering what could potentially be a really important treatment; we’re not able to further that, in terms of making it available to the public.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the department of health have any role, ability or authority to sponsor?
Prof. Murphy: Generally, no. Occasionally, we have taken the role of sponsoring in very difficult circumstances, when there’s a drug that’s registered and available and the sponsor doesn’t want to sponsor it. But with an experimental new drug, we would never take that role. Occasionally, there are avenues for us to support drug development through MRFF and NHMRC research. There have certainly been programs that have looked at therapeutic advances in that space. But with a new agent or a new molecule, it would be quite inappropriate for us to take a role as a sponsor.
Senator ROBERTS: The TGA is 96 per cent funded by pharmaceutical companies through fees. Albicidin is a naturally occurring substance. Can it be patented? I would say not.
Prof. Murphy: We’d have to take that on notice. It depends on the use, and patent law is quite complicated. I can’t answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: My point is: would it get a sponsor to make an application? Drug companies rely a lot on patents and making excessive profits.
Dr Langham: You would expect so, absolutely.
Prof. Murphy: If it were proven to be highly effective, I would imagine that a drug company would be very interested in pursuing it, but—
Senator ROBERTS: Drug companies have shown that they’re only interested in profits—the major ones.
CHAIR: Please put that as a question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is a question.
CHAIR: What was the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t that the case?
Prof. Murphy: No. Private companies all make a profit, but profits can often come by sponsoring highly effective new agents; that’s where they make their biggest profits. This is all highly speculative and I don’t know that we can progress it much further.
Senator ROBERTS: The CSIRO has produced a guide to controlling antimicrobial resistance that assumes massive government power, including close monitoring and regulation of homes, pets, agriculture, waterways, new vaccines against diseases that used to be controlled by antibiotics and, of course, conferences. Antimicrobial resistance is being set up to be a massive government and pharmaceutical company gravy train. Why are you ignoring a probable solution to antimicrobial resistance? Do you want the power to order more vaccines, to wield more intrusive powers and to make more sales for big pharma, which is the history of the last few years?
Prof. Murphy: We reject that assertion. We completely accept the assertion that antimicrobial resistance is a significant problem. One of the ways that we have been, for many years, trying to combat it is to try to encourage prescribers in the use of antibiotics to reduce their use of antibiotics, which is not in the interests necessarily of the pharmaceutical industry. We are very keen to make sure that we limit the use of antibiotics to those situations where they are absolutely essential. There’s a lot of unnecessary prescription of antibiotics, and some of that is a real problem. We certainly have a lot of interest in antimicrobial resistance, and any new agent would be of interest to us. But we are not in a position to sponsor something like that.
Ms Duffy: We are in collaboration with the CSIRO in advancing their work and we have been involved in a number of CSIRO roundtables on this project that they’re going through, so we are working in lockstep with them.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s turn to medical or medicinal cannabis. My office is getting reports that prescriptions of dried medical cannabis issued under the pathways scheme are being endorsed with the phrase ‘for vaping’, and that requires patients to also buy and use a vape. A doctor that my office spoke to has advised that this is a TGA instruction; is that correct?
Dr Langham: Medicinal cannabis products, with the exception of two of them, are not regulated as ‘medicinal products’ by the TGA. They are available under a special access scheme, and it’s a condition of the special access scheme that the practitioner who is approved to prescribe adopts all of the undertaking to ‘consent’ patients, to understand the research, to advise on side effects and so forth. The TGA does not regulate any of the medicinal cannabis products in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you require someone who uses medical cannabis in dried form to purchase a vape— the device?
Dr Langham: It’s not our advice, no, and it would be coming from the medical practitioner, if the medical practitioner felt that there was a substance that was better done as an ointment, a tablet, a spray or a vape. I don’t know whether you’re able to add anything on vaping devices for that.
Ms Duffy: In terms of the method of delivery, it would be up to the treating practitioner to identify the most appropriate method for that patient.
Senator ROBERTS: To list a product under the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods for prescription under schedule 4, there’s a prescribed process, which is not legislative. The steps, time frames and levels of proof of safety are all in regulation issued by the secretary under delegated powers, and much of the process isn’t even regulatory but administrative. Is that an accurate statement?
Dr Langham: I’d need help on what’s in the act and what’s in the regulations.
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: I didn’t understand all elements of that question.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you want me to repeat it?
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: To list a product under the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods for prescription under schedule 4, there’s a prescribed process, which is not legislative. The steps, time frames and levels of proof of safety are all in regulation issued by the secretary under delegated powers, and much of the process isn’t even regulatory but administrative. Is that an accurate statement?
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: I don’t know that’s an entirely accurate statement. Some of the process is set out in primary legislation and some of it is set out in delegated legislation. But, yes, there are some administrative policies that support the administration of the act.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the suspension of these processes by the minister and/or the secretary during COVID prove that the ARTG—the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods—process is whatever the secretary or the minister says that it is?
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: That’s simply not the case. The secretary’s powers are bounded by the act and instruments made under the act, including regulations, which are made by the Governor-General.
Senator ROBERTS: COVID vaccines were not manufactured under good manufacturing process, GMP, so even this basic requirement for the approval of a drug is just a preference and not a legislated requirement, is it not?
Mr Henderson: For the provisional approvals of the vaccines, they needed to provide evidence that they were manufactured under good manufacturing practices.
Senator ROBERTS: But they weren’t. Could you get us a copy of that evidence, please?
Mr Henderson: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, fine. Referencing section 26BF of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, this ‘allows the minister to direct the operations of the secretary in respect of the scheduling and listing of products’. Minister, isn’t it true that the minister could down-schedule medicinal cannabis to schedule 4 and move the products approved for prescription under the pathways program onto the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods right now, if he wanted to? He might not intend doing that, but it is within the minister’s power, isn’t it?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that the minister could regulate right now to move medicinal cannabis to schedule 4. Thank you, Minister.
CHAIR: I believe that the witness is taking that on notice; is that right?
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: Yes. We can take it on notice, but I’ll just add that I don’t believe that power supports that. The usual process is that there has to be a legislative instrument, made under a power much further down in the act, to amend the Poisons Standard.
Senator ROBERTS: The way that I’ve been advised, I’m pretty confident that it’s just a ministerial regulation.
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: We can consider that further, but that’s not my general understanding.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, my office checked all the state legislation on prescribing and found much commonality. There is the use of a simple statement such as ‘prescriptions can be issued for anything listed in schedule 4′. There is no separate state list of drugs. If medicinal cannabis were down-scheduled federally, the states would need to introduce legislation to over-rule that decision and then get that legislation through their own parliament; is that correct?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, could the bill introduced by Senator Hanson to down-schedule medicinal cannabis be regulated right now, today, if the minister chose to do so? In other words: the legislation is not needed and the minister could just regulate.
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let’s come back to today. Today is a wonderful day to celebrate. Today is 1 June 2023. From 1 June 2023, the prescribing of oral ivermectin for off-label uses will no longer be limited to specialists such as dermatologists et cetera. It’s back and can be used off-label. I must note, to keep the secretary calm, that the TGA says that it does not endorse off-label prescribing of ivermectin for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. It doesn’t do that, but it can be used for that. Craig Kelly, a former member of parliament, contacted the office of the chief minister in Uttar Pradesh—Uttar Pradesh is a state in India—and asked for guidance on how Uttar Pradesh had successfully used ivermectin to control the COVID virus in Uttar Pradesh. He received great information on their success. If a member of parliament, at the time, could reach out like that to be better informed, why didn’t the TGA reach out and be better informed on ivermectin?
Prof. Murphy: The TGA relies on the body of scientific evidence. Professor Langham can talk about that. We rely on the published scientific evidence and not the statement of a politician in India. Professor Langham, do you want to comment?
Dr Langham: Thank you. I guess it comes back to my earlier point that a drug, a medicine or a product that is on the ARTG is there for a specific indication. In this case, the specific indication for ivermectin—for which there’s been a dossier provided, evaluated by the TGA as robust, good clinical science—is that it is useful for the treatment of certain parasitic illnesses, be they gastrointestinal or skin based. No evidence has been presented to the TGA by the sponsor to demonstrate in any way, shape or form that ivermectin is useful in treating COVID-19. If the sponsor would like to do so, we’d be happy to consider that, because that’s the only way that the TGA is able to expand that indication.
Senator ROBERTS: Could I table these for discussion, please, Chair.
CHAIR: You can submit them to the committee for consideration. It’s going to take a while to work through them, by the look of it.
Senator ROBERTS: What is being distributed is an affidavit from Dr Pierre Kory in the United States. He has gone through this for many years and he has compiled many references—I think it’s over 96—that praise ivermectin’s use in treating COVID. It’s been used in many countries and has stopped COVID in its tracks. It has been not only a treatment but also a prophylactic, to prevent the spread of the disease. This is my last question: are you aware of any successful programs overseas that used ivermectin to control the pandemic? Now you’ve got the evidence, Professor Langham.
Dr Langham: Obviously, there’s a very dense article here and a lot of different publications are being referenced. For me to pass judgement on this particular body of evidence, I’d need to take that on notice and get back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m pleased to hear you say that, because I wouldn’t want it done on the spur of the moment.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/792LxTu1Tgs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-09 10:19:212023-10-09 10:21:57TGA is Risking Your Health to Act as a Sales Agent for Big Pharma
