Imagine that you’re a successful breeder and your animals sell for thousands of dollars. Then imagine that the RSPCA seizes your animals under questionable circumstances and on sells them for thousands of dollars in profit to the RSPCA.
This is what I’ve heard from concerned constituents. If it’s true I don’t think the RSPCA deserves to hold its tax-exempt status as a charity. I want to get to the bottom of if this is happening, what else the RSPCA is doing and what the government is doing about it.
Transcript
[Female Speaker] Okay, thank you.
[Male Speaker] Senator Roberts.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Thank you for being here, Dr. Johns. Thank you. My questions are to do with the RSPCA Australia and Queensland. They’re two separate bodies. What body oversees the activities of the RSPCA Australia at either state or federal government level?
I’m sorry, I’d have to take that on notice. We’d have to look up the register and look at its details.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] And, you’ll be excused if you have to take up a lot of these on notice. It surprised me when I learned about this. Why, in Queensland are RSPCA state inspectors who laid charges, also the prosecutors in the same cases? Shouldn’t they be merely a witness?
I will take that on notice, thank you.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Why are RSPCA Australia staff referring owners to particular vets and refusing to recognise the expertise of others?
I’ll take that on notice, thanks. Sorry, and I’ll just interrupt at this extent, we will have a look at any charity’s fitness for registration. We don’t go beyond that remit, but nevertheless, please.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Why would this RSPCA Australia be the recipient of fines levelled at an owner of an animal when prosecuted by a state RSPCA staff member?
I’ll take that on notice.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Aren’t RSPCA Queensland and RSPCA Australia separate bodies?
[ Dr. Johns] I’ll take that on notice.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] If an RSPCA Queensland inspector tells an owner of an animal to pay a large sum of money in order to get their unreasonably seized animal returned, and if not paid the animal will be killed, doesn’t that sound like extortion?
I don’t know, but I’ll take it on notice.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] How many animals are put down by the Queensland RSPCA in a year?
I’ll take that on notice.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Is it true that animals held by the Queensland RSPCA are given to organisations for laboratory experimental purposes?
I’ll take that on notice.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Are the RSPCA Queensland and the RSPCA Australia genuine charity or nonprofit organisations and worthy of receiving Commonwealth grants?
I’ll take that on notice.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] How can the Queensland RSPCA seize valuable animals from registered breeders and then on-sell them for thousands of dollars in profit for the RSPCA?
I’ll take that on notice, thank you.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] How much money does the RSPCA Australia and RSPCA Queensland receive from the Commonwealth in grants?
I’ll take that on notice. I’m sure it’s on the register, but yes.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. No, I don’t expect you to know these. It surprised me when we found out what we found out. Not at all surprised that you’re taking them on notice, and I appreciate that. Why would anyone donate to the RSPCA Australia and RSPCA Queensland when its practises are not very charitable? Is it time for the RSPCA Australia and RSPCA Queensland to be investigated as to its offensive practises?
I’ll take all of those matters on notice, thank you.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ypIfldFGv4Y/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-03 11:31:382021-06-03 11:32:20Is the RSPCA really about saving animals from cruelty?
The one thing we here again and again from small businesses is that Industrial Relations in this country is simply too confusing. You just about have to be a specialised lawyer to simply employ someone and be across all of the applicable legislation. The awards and language need to be made much simpler if small business has a hope of surviving. A fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work, and a way to punish dodgy employers who dishonestly try to break the rules: that should be the simple basics of industrial relations but we’ve complicated it far too much
Transcript
Senator Roberts.
[Roberts] Thank you Chair.
Thank you again for being here today. My questions cover a broad range. In the Fair Work Commission statement, dated 9th of April, 2021, regarding the Casual Terms Award reviewed 2021. This review must be completed by 27th of September, 2021. Are you on target for this date? And what has been identified as going over that date so far?
[Luby] Uh…
[Furlong] Ms. Luby
Thanks Mr. Furlong, I’ll take this one as well. Thanks Senator. Yes, the Fair Work Commission is definitely on target for that. That’s a date that was set in the statute and where we’re working towards that. So the Commission has issued a number of information papers outlining the range of casual terms that are found in Modern Awards. A full bench has been listed for hearing to consider a small group of Awards that cover either a large range of employees or have sort of quirky casual terms. And so that’ll be some, I guess some principles or precedent will be set by that full bench and then that will be applied to the remaining Modern Awards. So we’re working through that.
[Roberts] Okay.
With respect.
[Roberts] Thank you. Now from the Casual Terms Award Review 2021, at 12 and 13 of the Fair Work Commission Statement, I note that the Black Coal Mining Industry Award, MA000001, has not been included in the initial review. Yet, the background of that is that there’s a lot of confusion and uncertainty, in the black coal mining industry, because there was no provision in the award for casuals on production. But nonetheless, the Hunter Valley CFMEU did a deal to get that into the Enterprise Agreements. So that meant because there was no award provision, there was no, basically anybody under that EA was locked into permanent casual rort and they couldn’t get out. Now with the legislation that the government introduced in March, there is a pathway to permanent work for all casuals, but I think it needs to be clarified as quickly as possible. Many everyday Australians think it should have priority, the Black Coal Mining Award should have priority for definition of a casual mine production worker, given the harm it’s done to so many casual black coal miners, the lack of that definition. Can you ensure that this Award is reviewed promptly, please?
Senator, well, obviously it’s not for me to determine what order that the Awards are looked at. That’s a matter for the President and full bench presiding over that. I’d just like to clarify that the purpose of these proceedings are to determine whether the casual terms in the Awards are compliant or not contradictory with the terms that were introduced in the Supporting Employment Bill. It doesn’t go to whether there are entitlements to casual work in a particular Award. The issue of whether there should be the possibility of casual engagement under the Black Coal Award, was considered as part of the Four Yearly Review. And I think Mr. Furlong spoke into that previous estimates and it’s been covered in some of our Questions on Notice. That’s perhaps a different issue that could be raised at, and it could be raised at any time, if the parties were to seek to include a casual term for those production employees under the Black Coal Award.
[Roberts] Okay, so there’s nothing to stop a casual worker, who’s on permanent casual rort at the moment, thanks to Enterprise Agreements, from actually casual conversion, if they’re offered that conversion now?
No, I’m sorry Senator. There is no provision for casual employment for a production employee under the Black Coal Award.
So if I might. My understanding of the legislation it covers, because it’s been placed into National Employment Standards, it applies broader than all the Awards. So if someone is a casual, whether there’s an Award term for casuals or not, then the provisions within the Act will apply. So yes, there is a pathway to conversion because it’s been put into the National Employment Standards.
[Roberts] Okay, so thank you. So it overall
[Luby] Thank you, Mr. Hehir. Sorry.
[Roberts] It overrides the Award. So, people
[Luby] I apologise I apologise Senator for not getting that.
[Roberts] Yeah. So just to be clear Mr. Hehir, the people who are working as casuals, when the changes were made in March, will now have access to conversion once they’re offered?
So that’s my understanding because it’s been placed into the National Employment Standards. It expands beyond the award system and does apply more broadly.
[Roberts] Thank you. Because there are a lot of people cursing Enterprise Agreements that basically locked them into permanent casuals. How long after this review
[O’Neill] If I could get your attention Mr. Roberts. We asked a couple questions yesterday about these matters with the conversion. Under 15 employees, there will be a different
[Hehir] Thank you Senator
[O’Neill] situation.
[Hehir] O’Neill.
[O’Neill] But I guess one of the things that we got yesterday that’s important was it’s a test of reasonableness about whether those coal miners will actually be able to
[Roberts] Oh that test is
[O’Neill] Get
[Roberts] Yeah.
[O’Neill] the reasonableness
[Hehir] I think
[O’Neill] Test. Yep, yep.
[Hehir] reasonableness is the goal Senator O’Neill.
Yep.
[Hehir] Well I’m sure…
[O’Neill] Well it’s it’s gonna matter
[Hehir] Council, Senator Roberts.
[Roberts] In the Fair Work Commission Statement, dated 9th of April, 2021 regarding the Casual Terms Award Review 2021 at 12, I note the hesitancy regarding the definition of simple terms. Can you advise if your concerns over language will hold up the review process or have they been resolved?
No Senator. I think that we’re still on track to meet that deadline of the 27th of September.
[Roberts] Thank you. So we’ve been advocating for a fair go for Australian workers for a while now. Since the last Senate estimates round, can you tell me what due diligence has been put in place for Fair Work Commissioners to use to ensure that the boot analysis improves and that we do not see any more failures like the Chandler MacLeod Northern District of New South Wales Black Coal Mining Agreement of 2015? My understanding is that there was no Enterprise Agreement. The Chandler MacLeod initially employed miners under the Award, where there was no provision for casuals. Then they came up with the Enterprise Agreement and that breached the boot test from what we can work out. So we need to make sure that miners are protected in future with Enterprise Agreements that comply with the boot test. Can you tell me what’s being done like that to make sure there’s no more failures?
Just a couple of things on this, Senator. It’s actually been on notice and to a reasonable sort of extent, in relation to the decision about the Chandler MacLeod Agreement, it was approved by Senior Deputy President Harrison. And while the decision was short, she did go to the boot, the analysis of the boot. Ms. Luby can provide further and better detail on it. But every agreement application that is made to the Commission undergoes a very comprehensive, administrative checklist and was performed by specially skilled staff to ensure that the statutory requirements and pre-lodgement provisions are satisfied. And in terms of Ms. Luby saying that 95% of those applications are made and provided to members within five days, that is the process that is undertaking that first step.
[Roberts]Okay, I’m having a lot of trouble hearing you or understanding. Could you just explain, perhaps you could explain. I understand that you’ve given us a reassurance that the process is going to be followed. Could you please explain the boot analysis process? What are the main steps that the commission now undertakes and is it applied appropriately to each case?
The answer to that question is easy, yes. There’s a legislative checklist that is completed by as I said specially trained staff at the Commission. The template of that checklist is available on our website as well. If you’d like to have a look at it, we can certainly table it for you to have a look at. Bit it is a consistent checklist that is performed for every Enterprise Agreement application that is made.
[Roberts] Okay, thank you. I heard it clearly that time, so we’ll check that checklist ourself. We’ve heard that some union bosses are saying that it is the worker’s responsibility not the unions for what is put to the Commission in relation to Enterprise Agreements. Can you tell me then how you ensure that the workers themselves are happy with the Agreement? And what checks do you have to make sure that you’re satisfied that it’s the workers that are happy with the Enterprise Agreement?
Ms. Luby might want to add to this. Effectively there’s an access period, a statutory access period, Senator. That all, every employee who’s to be covered by that Enterprise Agreement has got access to that Agreement and that the employer has gone to reasonable lengths to explain the terms of the impact of that Enterprise Agreement. Ms. Luby would you like to add anything to that?
Sure, Mr. Furlong. So I guess there’s a few strands to it that the member who assesses the application will look at whether the terms and the effect of the terms of the Agreement were effectively explained to the employees. That’s an important test that’s been the subject of a number of federal court decisions and quite clearly laid out, in terms of the level of detail that must be explained to the employees to give them an opportunity to vote in an informed way. And then clearly there is the vote itself, so that there must be a majority of employees who vote for the agreement, who vote in favour of it. So they’re the primary tests.
[Roberts] Thank you.
We’re also quite transparent about the fact that an application has been made. So an employee will have an opportunity to make a submission to the Commission if they choose to do so.
[Roberts] So what recourse do workers have through the Commission or anywhere else, where a union boss fails to do what they promise to bargain for or where they might ignore workers’ needs in favour of their own interests? How do we make sure union bosses’ held accountable in this process for approving an EA, Enterprise Agreement?
I think Senator, the Commission, as I said, we are quite transparent in terms of when an application is lodged. It’s always published on our website immediately. So it’s available for the employees to see before the application is approved. And during that time it’s not uncommon for an employee to contact the Commission and their email or letter that they put in will be sent directly to the member who’s dealing with the application. So if they’ve raised any concerns that will be brought to the member’s attention.
[Roberts] So what you’re saying is, it seems reasonable to me. What you’re saying is that if an employee has concerns about the employer, or the union bosses, that they need to go and check themselves and take responsibility for the Enterprise Agreement themselves before they vote.
Um..
[Roberts] Vote, inform themselves
[Luby] I guess
[Roberts] So they vote in an informed way.
Yes, definitely and it’s the employer’s responsibility to inform them of the effect of the Agreement.
[Roberts] Thank you.
[Luby] So that’s an quite a proactive step that the employer needs to take.
[Roberts] Okay. Have they been
[Furlong] Senator may I also, sorry. I may also be of assistance. If an Agreement is reached, or past its normal expiry date, a party of the employees covered by that Enterprise Agreement, that is past its normal expiry date, can make an application for that Agreement to be terminated.
[Roberts] Okay, so it gets fairly complicated, doesn’t it, quickly? Have there been any cases regarding casual conversion put to the Commission for determination since the changes to the Fair Work Act earlier this year? And if so, how many And what have been the issues and the results?
Senator, I can take that one. There’s been one application so far, under the new section 66M, that application was an employee in the social and community services sector. It was only recently received and it’s been allocated to a member for hearing.
[Roberts] Okay, so one application for an appeal to conversion. Correct?
Yes.
[Roberts] Thank you.
That’s correct.
[Roberts] Now moving onto another topic. Have wage theft cases increased or decreased in the last 12 months?
That’s a matter for the Fair Work Ombudsman. I understand that they’re giving evidence later this evening.
[Roberts] Yes, we’ve got some questions for them. Thank you. Small business owners frequently find that the cost of being away from work to defend a sometimes spurious, unfair dismissal case or other complaint is too much and they end up paying “go away” money, which everyone knows about, to the employee. What is the Fair Work Commission doing, or what could you do, to help small businesses and small business employees, especially given that they’ve done the heavy lifting during the COVID restrictions and downturn? And many are finding it hard now, both employees and small businesses.
I’m not too sure. I understand that the notes of the term “go away” money, Senator. I can’t say that I necessarily agree with it. There are, we receive approximately 15,000 unfair dismissal applications every year. About 80% of those applications are resolved through agreement, through reconciliation process.
[Roberts] What percentage, sir? I’m sorry.
About 80%.
[Roberts] Thank you.
For those that and the vast majority of them are conducted online, so on the telephone, at a time that hopefully suits both of the parties through that process. And there is no obligation, for the parties, the small business that you’re talking about employers to the employees, and to the applicants to settle but if they arrive at a settlement through that process, then the matter is finalised. They can obviously decide not to settle at that point and have the matter dealt with by a member through arbitration.
[Roberts] Okay.
Ms. Carruthers, anything else you’d like to add to that?
Thank you, Mr. Furlong. Senator I might just add as a useful bit of context, that in about 2/3 of cases where money is paid, it’s for less than $6,000. So they are modest amounts of money that are paid when payments are made. And payments are made in around 80% of matters that are settled.
[Roberts] Yeah, my point is that the Fair Work Act, when it’s printed out is about that thick, laid on its side, it’s that thick. It is so damn complex that employees and employers, don’t know what, small business employers and employees, don’t know where they stand. Many employees right across industry, all sizes of companies, don’t know where they stand and that’s not good enough. So with that, there comes, it’s much easier for one to rort the other, employer to rort the employee, and also for people to avoid accountability. So the complexity of the Fair Work Act is really hindering employment and hindering the employer-employee relationship, which is the fundamental relationship on a workplace. So that’s why I’m asking that question because we know talking to small businesses, listening to them, that they are not hiring people at times because of the complexity and their fear of what will happen. And we’ve got to remove that.
Senator there is a part of your question that we didn’t get to is about what we can do or what we are doing. There are a couple of very large projects that are underway at the moment to improve the services of the Commission. One of them, and it’s a very large project, is the redevelopment of our website. And at the moment, the language used on our website is, it’s technical. One of the major change, one of the major improvements, is there’s going to be, the new website is going to be written in very accessible, plain language. We’re aiming for someone with a year level literacy of eight to 10. We’ve also just kicked off a forms redevelopment project that applies or that will be applying data and behavioural insights, so behavioural economic insights. To ensure that the regulatory burden associated with making these applications and that people are informed, as best as they possibly can be, are a part of the process. So we are looking at ways that we can improve our service delivery and we’re acting on them at the moment.
[Roberts] Well, thank you. That’s encouraging. Fundamentally though, the Fair Work Act is highly complex and it doesn’t matter how we dress it up in practical language, it’s still going to be complex. That makes it difficult for both employees and employers to know what they’re accountable for and what their entitlements are. I appreciate you raising that. Thank you. Last questions on just another topic here. Can you please undertake to inform on the status of the Award Modernisation process that you’re undertaking?
You’re referring to the Four Yearly Review of Modern Award are you Senator?
[Roberts] Yes.
Okay. Do you have any questions in particular about the review? It’s a very, very large piece of work.
[Roberts] Is it progressing on schedule?
It is. It’s very close to being finalised. There are a number of common issues and Ms. Luby can talk to that for today’s, but one of the major initiatives that’s still being progressed is the plain language writing or rewriting of a number of Awards that’ve got high, high world reliance. So those Awards that have got a lot of employees covered by them or relying on them to set out their terms and conditions.
[Roberts] So…
Ms. Luby, do you have anything else to add to that?
Certainly. Thanks, Mr. Furlong. Thanks Senator. So the Four Yearly Review has, as you know been going on for a number of years. In terms of the Award specific reviews, there’s only seven Awards that are outstanding of the 122 that we started with. There are five of those Awards that are undergoing what we’re referring to as a plain language review, which goes to the point you were just making, and Mr. Furlong was making, about trying to make the terminology less complex. The others are the Nurse’s Award which is probably, it’s very close to completion. We’re hoping it will be completed by the end of July. A final draught has been published of that Award. And it’s just out for comment to ensure that there are no technical or drafting issues that have been incorporated in it. And the final other Award is the Black Coal Mining Award, where there’s one issue in relation to the interaction between shift work and weekend work penalties and the casual loading for staff employees. There was a conference about that yesterday but I understand the parties couldn’t come to an agreed position, so there’s a further conference scheduled in a couple of weeks.
[Roberts] Okay
So they’re the Award specific issues and then there are a number of common issues across the Awards that have progressed. But again, there’s only a small number of those that are left of the vast number of reviews that were undertaken over the last six years.
[Roberts] So while I see it as tinkering, it is a good step for having modernisation and simplification of the language in particular. So everyone knows where they stand.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/3XfTHqGBUEY/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-03 09:31:192021-06-03 09:31:29Fair Work Commission – Award Modernisation & Small Business
After failing to get some of the answers we were seeking on vaccines, I went back to the Department of Health and Dr Murphy to ask some more questions about informed consent and vaccination by coercion with a vaccine passport. I think you’ll find their answers in this part 2 just as interesting as part 1.
[Malcolm Roberts] And one that I touched on briefly, the intergenerational effects of the vaccine are unknown, the effect of the vaccine on transmission is unknown, GPs are not even allowed to say which vaccine they have available. Well Australians have a right to know the foundation of informed consent is accurate and full information. How is it possible to achieve real informed consent in this information vacuum?
So, I think the GPs are certainly able to say which vaccines they have available and they provide informed consent-
[Malcolm Roberts] Just to interrupt there, We had a presentation, I attended a presentation by you and Professor Kelly saying that the vaccine injection rooms would not be disclosing which vaccine was given at that time. Where people go to get their injection.
They’re not given a choice. They’re not given a choice
I think you’re talking two different things, Senator, so, clearly, at this stage of the rollout, the GPs are distributing AstraZeneca. The issue would’ve been the choice and perhaps there might’ve been some other issues that…
[Malcolm Roberts] It was certain, nonetheless, Minister, with so many effects unknown, how can there be an informed consent?
Well, Senator, I’m not going to try and give you health advice, and so I’ll prefer to-
Professor Kelly might be able to address that, but just to be very clear that people undergoing the informed consent process are very clear about which vaccine they’re getting, we’re not disguising the vaccine. So Professor Kelly can can go through the informed consent process.
Yeah, so, informed consent is a very important component of any medical medical procedure or treatment. And doctors do that with their patients every day, every time they see them pretty much is talking through the pros and cons of various, in this case, vaccines. As the Secretary has said, it’s pretty clear if you turn up to a GP at the moment with a couple of exceptions, but almost all GPs are only using one vaccine and it’s only for those over the age of 50 if it’s AstraZeneca. And there is some benefits of that in the particular circumstances of the person in front of them would be discussed in great detail. We’ve provided a lot of information, very detailed information based on the ATAGI advice in relation to that risk and benefit equation for GPs and other medical practitioners and nurses to use.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. My first question goes to the, question of mandatory vaccination. Is the government considering mandatory vaccination?
Government’s repeatedly said it is not considering mandatory vaccination for COVID vaccines or any other vaccines.
[Malcolm Roberts] So is the vaccine passport still under consideration?
The only situation that, as we referred to early today, where people might be on a public health, state and territory, for example, may say that they would refuse entry to a residential aged care facility, that’s the position that AHPPC is considering. That is not mandating vaccination, it’s basically saying that in certain situations it may be not possible to participate in a certain activity unless you’ve been vaccinated. But there has not been a position that we’ve taken so far, AHPPC is reconsidering it.
Can I just add Senator? So, obviously the issue of medical advice is the extent to which and whether and when you might want to limit access to aged care facilities, which the Secretary’s talking about, the broader issue of whether there’s a vaccine passport to identify you’ve had a vaccine and what impact that might have, internationally or otherwise, is a matter for the Department of Home Affairs. You should refer it to them.
But we are providing citizens with evidence of vaccination, they can get a vaccination certificate and they can use that in whatever way they choose.
[Malcolm Roberts] So that’s essentially a vaccine passport then isn’t it? Ms. Edwards?
It’d be a certificate. I mean, at the moment, it’s a long… The Australian Immunisation Register has been around for quite a long time, it got expanded a few years ago to cover all vaccinations and it will have the evidence of your vaccination of COVID-19 vaccine in it. And you have access to it in a printed form or electronically. That’ll evidence you’ve had the vaccine. There is no activity, at the moment, of that you’re either permitted or prevented from doing by virtue of vaccine status but as obviously medical information for you.
[Malcolm Roberts] So that vaccine register should be confidential, shouldn’t it?
It is.
It is, but any citizen can print their own certificate and they can use it as they choose fit.
And we use it for aggregated data. So a lot of the data we’re getting about how many people have been vaccinated not just for COVID-19 vaccine, but for the range of vaccines that we know is drawn out of the Australian Immunisation Register in a de-identified aggravated form.
[Malcolm Roberts] So a vaccine passport, though, could be established for restricting movement of people or entry of people to a specific venue?
Well, it’s a hypothetical question, not one within the remit of the health department. All that we’re talking about is having evidence that you’ve had the vaccine, which is really important, apart from anything else, so that people know what your risk is if you come into contact with COVID-19. And also, it’s used in vaccination clinics to check that it’s your second dose. So if you turn up for your second dose they’ll check the register to check that, yes, Senator Roberts has had one dose of AstraZeneca and here’s the time for the second one. So used for those safety reasons for an individual and it’s evidence of the medical treatment that you’ve had. But any further use of it, one’s not in contemplation that I’m aware of, we’re certainly not involved in that. And the questions about how it might be used internationally, or so on, is a matter for Home Affairs.
[Malcolm Roberts] So Home Affairs, where would they get their advice from? It would be from you, wouldn’t it?
They seek health advice from us,
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.
and also advice about how the Immunisation Register works and so on, together with Services Australia, and they would be engaging with other agencies as well.
[Malcolm Roberts] So as I see it, threatening Australians with the loss of privileges of free movement, or a job, or even a livelihood without a vaccine passport, that’s really a digital prison.
I’m not aware of any proposal to do any of those things, Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] You’re not aware of any? So is the government enforcing vaccination through coercion, if that would occur?
[Secretary] Well, Senator, that’s a hypothetical and it’s an opinion, Senator, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to ask the officials that question.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, going back to the vaccine, people expect the vaccine to do more than prevent deaths, more than not cause deaths, people expect the vaccine to bring back life as we know it, the removal of all restrictions and the resumption of international travel. Clearly, while acknowledging the many unknowns that you commendably and openly acknowledged this morning, what percentage of vaccination unlocks the gate and removes the restrictions, and when?
I think Professor Kelly can address the fact that that’s still an unknown parameter and our knowledge is evolving, but Professor Kelly has been asked this question on many occasions.
And I’ve since answered it. Thank you, Secretary, just on the-
[Secretary] They’re still asking it.
Yeah, I will get to your question just on the proof of vaccination. On my phone through my Medicare app, I have proof of my vaccination, it arrived within 24 hours of that vaccination happening, and it’s just shows that this is already happening. Anyone who’s had a vaccination will be able to access that, and if it’s needed to be shown it’s there.
[Malcolm Roberts] We’re not worried about that. My constituents are very worried about it becoming a condition of entry to a venue or to travel or something like that.
Well, as the associate Secretary has mentioned that it’s a matter for other parts of government to consider but we will provide medical advice about how that information can be verified in terms of a vaccine that we trust and know that works. So, to your question about where’s the target, this has come up on multiple occasions, I guess my answer is that these are non-binary states. So every single extra person that’s vaccinated in Australia is part of our path to the post-COVID future you’re describing. There’s no magical figure that says when we get to that, we’ve reached herd immunity and everything will be fine, rather it’s a process of getting towards that. We do need quite high coverage, though, to be able to get to the situation where, for most of the time, a seeding event, such as what we’re experiencing in Victoria, right now, will not lead to a large outbreak. So, that is, modelling that is being done at the moment by colleagues at the Doherty in Melbourne, and others. It’s part of the work that AHPPC has been asked to do to provide information into Mr Gaetgans’ committee, which is in turn providing information and advice to the national cabinet.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Where’s the government’s plan for managing the COVID virus because, the six components we discussed, the three of us discussed at the last Senate estimates, isolation lockdown, testing, tracing quarantining, restrictions, treatments, such as cures and prophylactics, and the fifth was vaccines. And then I think Professor Kelly added personal behaviours as number six. Perhaps we could add a seventh, and that is prevention through health and fitness because we’re seeing now that obesity and comorbidities are a big predictor of people dying from COVID. When will we see action in number four, which is treatments, cures and prophylactics, and health and fitness?
I can perhaps address treatments. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, which is the committee that looks at the vaccines also as a watching brief on all treatments and has considered whether there are any treatments that we are recommending government to purchase. There’s also the TGA obviously also is reviewing treatments as they appear at this stage. And we also have an evidence taskforce that looks at the real-time evidence of treatments. At this stage there really is very limited options for treatment other than vaccines, but Professor Skerritt can perhaps give you more information.
Thank you Secretary. So, at the moment in Australia, the Clinical Evidence Taskforce endorses three TGA-approved treatments. The first is, and may depend on how sick you are, whether you need oxygen and so forth. So if you’re in hospital requiring oxygen, corticosteroids are recommended for use with COVID patients. And I would venture to say that, globally, they’ve probably been the most successful intervention. A drug called Remdesivir is approved for moderate to severely ill patients who don’t require oxygen or ventilation. And more recently, there’s a drug that was originally an arthritis drug, known as Tocilizumab, T-O-C-I-L-I-Z-U-M-A-B, I don’t get to name them.
[Malcolm Roberts] You barely get to pronounce them.
No, no, no, no. But it’s tricky, If they have unpronounceable names, everyone uses a trade name. That’s the trick. But Tocilizumab is for people who do require oxygen. Now, what we don’t have yet, and I think I may have said this at last estimates is a antiviral drug that’s up there as effective as the recent antiviral drugs for Hepatitis-C or for HIV. But trust me, there’s a major effort of companies working on that area. The other thing that has been coming through the system, and seem to be getting better, are these antibody-based treatments. And we’re currently looking at a drug, or an antibody, called Sotrovimab. It’s S-O-T-R-O-V-I-M-A-B and it has some very promising early results, and we’re currently assessing that. But we have always said that antivirals and other treatments will be important for a range of reasons. One of which is that even with the greatest adherence to, say, the three week gap for Pfizer vaccination, or the 12 week gap for AstraZeneca vaccination, neither treatment is 100% effective against catching or transmitting the virus. They seem to be very effective against death or hospitalisation, but we do know that treatments will play an important part in getting on top of this virus.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, just building on that, you didn’t address item number seven, which I suggested, health and fitness. But the focus on the vaccine is not addressing the end to end from prevention to resiliency to treatment. Don’t we need the full gamut? A comprehensive and complementary approach, what would that look like? And would it not include Ivermectin, assuming someone sponsors it and other treatments for those who want alternatives to vaccines? Because there are people who want alternative.
Well, very briefly on general health, the fact that people are going to many general practitioners and having the COVID vaccination is always an opportunity for the GP to have a quick discussion, “well, hey, smoking doesn’t actually help your respiratory chances with COVID.” There are some mixed messages out there and some mixed results. For example, a lot of people with asthma were very worried early in the COVID pandemic, but some of the asthma drugs, there’s a drug called Budesonide an orally inhaled steroid, inhaled steroid, which is actually quite effective in the early stages of COVID. People with asthma, for example, in general, especially if they’re on those drugs don’t seem to have been affected. But it is true that if you have co-morbidities such as diabetes and so forth, your risks of COVID infection are greater. And that’s why in Phase 1b a number of people who, for example, had drug resistant hypertension or had diabetes and so on were prioritised early for vaccination. Going back to other therapies, we’re always interested in evidence-based submissions for any other therapy. The challenge is that some of the early papers that suggested, for example, with hydroxychloroquine there was a lot of promise, when the blinded trials were done objectively the early promise very sadly didn’t hold up.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you, Chair. I’ll leave it there.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Ua4DLlEL-cw/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-02 12:42:242021-06-02 12:42:33Informed Consent and Vaccine Passports – Department of Health Part 2
IF THERE’S ONE VIDEO YOU WATCH FROM SENATE ESTIMATES MAKE IT THIS ONE.
I questioned the Government about vaccines, the indemnities it has provided to vaccine manufacturers and whether the government actually has a plan to stop restrictive lockdowns. These are common sense questions about liability and informed consent, let’s see if the tech-censors agree.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair. And thank you for appearing today. Many Australians have heard that getting vaccinated does not stop us from getting COVID, and that if we do get it we could still infect other people. Is that true?
– Yes – I guess Dr. Kelly onto that.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What is the risk of being infected by a vaccinated person with COVID compared to an unvaccinated person with COVID?
So, just repeat the question.
[Malcolm Roberts] What is the risk of being infected by a vaccinated person who has COVID compared with an unvaccinated person with COVID?
Well, it’s lower. I’m not sure I can give you an exact amount. I think Professor Murphy earlier talked about the issue and also Senator Colbeck, about the issue of transmission and how the vaccine affects that. We’re getting more information, and it seems like there is a definite influence on transmission, decreasing transmission somewhere between 30 and 60% less likely.
[Malcolm Roberts] Is that a mass figure or is that if you had COVID and you were vaccinated compared with if you had COVID and weren’t vaccinated, would I have the same risk or lesser risk?
You would have a much lower risk, but it’s not zero.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. What decrease in transmission of infection would stop restrictions such as lockdowns, masks, and social distancing?
So, that’s a matter that we’ve been charged by national cabinet way as in Australian Health Protection Principal Committee of which I chair, by the national cabinet to look at. And so, it’s a matter for the national cabinet. There will be, there’s a series of papers that we’re preparing exactly to answer those questions. Some have been produced already and presented and there’ll be more in the coming meetings.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. How many times and how often would each of us need to be injected for the vaccine to be effective and for each time, for how long does the effect last?
So, as I mentioned earlier in the hearing, very good protection from one dose of vaccine, either the AstraZeneca or Pfizer particularly in relation to severe infection, but also to symptomatic infection, and to a lesser extent asymptomatic infection. So, that’s a single dose. The second dose is important for both of those vaccines. And most of the vaccines that are currently being used around the world require two doses to give a longer effect and a more deep effect, if you like, in terms of protection. I think it’s very important that Australia knows that this is the start of our vaccine programme. It will almost certainly not be the end. There will be a need for boosters into the future particularly in relation to the variants of concern of which there are four now that have been designated by the World Health Organisation. And some of those we already know do affect the vaccine efficacy. So, it’s likely we will need to have boosters into the future. How long the two dose effect works is still, we don’t know. We know it’s at least six months because that’s the studies of, been looking at it for six months. It’s almost certainly longer than that for the original strain, but the variance of concern adds another complexity to it.
[Malcolm Roberts] Can you guarantee Australians that all the vaccines you have obtained are 100% safe?
I can’t say that they were 100% safe, Senator, no.
[Malcolm Roberts] I do appreciate your honesty. How many years will it be before we know the long-term and intergenerational effects of these vaccines that only have provisional approval?
I might ask my colleague from the TGA to come up to answer that one.
John Skerritt, Deputy Secretary, Health Products Regulation, also responsible for the TGA. So, TGA, unlike the U.S. and the UK, for example, did a provisional approval of a vaccines as opposed to an emergency use authorization. The reason why it is a provisional approval is because we don’t have, for example, as Professor Kelly has just said, information on the duration of protection from these vaccines. And we require that the companies to give us that sort of information in the coming years. I mean, no one has those answers now. There’s some encouraging results, but as Professor Kelly has said, it’s likely that further vaccinations will be required. As part of the approval of any medicine or vaccine, big companies together with us are involved in very extensive safety monitoring. And we publish the results of the safety monitoring of that vaccine every week including mild or 24 hour adverse events, right through to those that might be much more serious and require hospitalisation. And no medicine or vaccine is without adverse events, but on balance, the number of adverse events, especially serious adverse events for these vaccines are comparatively low. The overwhelming majority of people vaccinated from them at worst suffer the 24 or 48 hours sore arm or tiredness, fatigue, et cetera.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, thank you. It’s a very comprehensive response. So, to summarise, we don’t know yet, but you’re relying upon company, the vaccine makers, to feed you back information as time moves on.
No, information on safety comes from a wide range of sources. It comes from the states and territories. For GP vaccination agreements, the GPs make an undertaking to also report any adverse events. The companies are legally bound to report adverse events not only in Australia, but also globally. And of course we share, and in fact at nine, 10 o’clock tonight we’ll be having one of our regular fortnightly video conferences. We share information on adverse events with all the major regulators globally. So, and the final sources from a medical scientific literature. So, while the companies have this legal requirement to report, it’s only one of a number of inputs to understanding adverse events. And many of our adverse event reports come directly from doctors or even individuals. Any individual can report an adverse event directly to us.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, moving onto another topic away from vaccines for a minute, the vaccine only has provisional approval. Is it true that provisional approval is only possible where there are no approved pharmaceutical treatments available?
The provisional approval is possible where there is not a similar treatment available in that, for that group of patients. And so, if there’d been an approved vaccine, but say it had been on the market for several years, fully approved, then it wouldn’t have been possible to provisionally approve a vaccine, but at the time of the submissions of those vaccines, and indeed we have provisionally designated the Novavax vaccine as well and the Johnson & Johnson or Janssen vaccine, it is possible to provisionally designate and potentially provisionally approve those vaccines.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Ivermectin is an antiviral that’s been proven safe in 3.6 billion human doses over 60 years. It’s now demonstrating success in treating COVID internationally, including in certain Indian states that are performing far better than the other states without it. Last time you were here, sorry Dr. Murphy and, Professor Murphy and Professor Kelly, you acknowledged that cures and preventatives are a fundamental and complimentary part of a virus management strategy. What is your timeline for the assessment and use of Ivermectin in light of the emerging evidence and it’s historical setting.
Senator, we have not received a submission for Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID. I have had a number of people write to me and say, “Why haven’t you folks approved?” We can’t make a medicine submission to ourselves for regulatory approval. There’s no provision in law for us because it requires a legal sponsor. But we have said to people if you come with a dossier of information we will review it as a priority. Now, if you go to the broader community including the company that is the main originator company that is a sponsor of Ivermectin, they do not believe that the overwhelming balance of evidence actually supports that Ivermectin being effective in the prophylaxis or prevention or the treatment of COVID. However, our doctors and scientists would look at that evidence with open eyes. And so, it is open for any sponsor to put an application in for Ivermectin to the TGA for regulatory approval.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Moving back to the vaccine, the government has provided an indemnity to vaccine suppliers, as I understand it, and multinational pharmaceutical companies who have caused harm in the past. What is the nature of the indemnities that government has provided, and are they full indemnities?
Yeah, just give me a moment. Sorry, Senator, going to a wholly different part of my folder.
[Malcolm Roberts] You’ve got a lot on your plate.
So, just to go to your question, I understand it. You’re wanting to know exactly the nature of the indemnities provided, obviously–
[Malcolm Roberts] That the government has provided to the vaccine manufacturers and suppliers.
So, in the first instance to say that the actual detail of the indemnities is part of the Commercial in Confidence contracts, but I can provide you some information about the nature of what’s provided. So, we’ve agreed to certain indemnities with the COVID-19 vaccine suppliers. They’re contained in commercially confidential contracts. The indemnities are designed to operate if there are problems with the flow on from the vaccines themselves, as opposed to the manner of administration and so on, they don’t cover that. Details of the agreement are Commercial in Confidence, but nothing in any of the contractual agreements from individual companies would stop individuals from seeking to litigate should an individual seek to do so in the future.
[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, could you repeat that again, please.
So, the actual detail of the indemnity, it relates to the nature of the vaccine itself as opposed to the manner of administration or any other issue to do with how it’s transported and so on. But it is absolutely the case that nothing in the indemnities prevents an individual from taking an action against the manufacturer or against anybody, if there’s an issue that arises from the impact of the vaccine. So, the summary of the arrangements are that they ensure that manufacturers have the significant indemnity in place to allow them to come into the marketplace and provide the protection, but they don’t prevent any action being taken by an individual who might be affected by a vaccine.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, what would they be? Why would they need an indemnity if they, they can still be sued? I don’t understand that. I’m not a lawyer, but.
I was once, but it’s a long time ago.
[Malcolm Roberts] You could say, I’m honest with you. Now, we’ve got lawyers as good friends. We’ve got good friends.
So, no one’s saying I’m . It’s to do with the relationship between the government and the company.
[Malcolm Roberts] What is the nature of that relationship?
Well, those are the things that are confidential in the contracts. You’d appreciate in order to get these vaccines into Australia so that we have access to them, there are strict requirements in the way the contracts are done with the companies and confidentiality. And the nature of the indemnities are part of that confidentiality.
[Malcolm Roberts] In the event of an injury or death from the vaccine, who pays compensation?
Not a question I can answer in the abstract. It would depend on the circumstances and so on and how the legal process would go on. As I say, the indemnities with manufacturers relate only to the flow on from the vaccine itself. So, in the event that negligence happens in any mechanism then it could be actionable against the person who had done the negligence, but there’s no simple answer to who pays compensation ’cause compensation would have to be found to be payable and attributable to someone and so on.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, it’d be pretty challenging, Ms. Edwards, for an individual to sue that they’ve just lost their spouse or their son or daughter, because, I’ll just go through some of the settlements in the past or some of the fines. Pfizer has paid the second largest pharmaceutical settlement in history, $2.3 billion in 2009, off-label promotion and kickbacks plus US$ 430 million in 2004 for off-label promotion. AstraZeneca has paid US$ 520 million in 2010 off-label promotion and kickbacks and US$ 355 million in 2003 for Medicare fraud. Johnson & Johnson has paid US$ 2.2 billion in 2013 for off label promotion and kickbacks plus millions in Australia last year for defective pelvic mesh implants. It’d be a pretty brave person that would hope to get anything out of this if they tried to sue any of these companies. These guys have a history of dodging.
Well, I’m not aware of any of the instances you’re referring to, but clearly there have been instances in which action has been taken against these companies.
[Malcolm Roberts] Are these companies appropriate to be entered into an agreement in this way? I mean, look at the history.
So, the Australian government and Australian consumers have the advantage of pharmaceutical products produced by companies such as these and many others. Obviously, enormously important to the health of Australians that they have access to medicines, including vaccines. We rely heavily on the scientific advice from the CMO, from the TGA and from experts as to what is the appropriate vaccine to be approved and used in the country. And those are the vaccines which we have purchased and are administering.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’m going–
[Member] Senator Roberts…
Senator, I think that perhaps I might throw this in In relation to this. The approvals for the vaccines have been based on a considerable amount of data. The approvals haven’t been provided lightly. And we have had the advantage of the visibility of the application of the vaccines in a number of other jurisdictions. It’s an important question that you ask, I think. And so, it’s not a company reputational issue, it’s actually the data that supports the application of the vaccines that is assessed by not only our regulatory authorities, but also the regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. And also the fact that, as has already been indicated, there is a lot of discussion between those authorities in relation to that data. So, it’s interrogated as a part of the approval process not only in this jurisdiction, but in others, and I might…
[Malcolm Roberts] I understand it’s, perhaps you could also include reference to this Doctors Skerritt that some of the overseas nations that are using these vaccines have suspended their use.
Well, there’s several questions. I’ll return to suspension of use although it’s been relatively limited in countries like Norway. But to talk about those fines for the companies, I should clarify that it’s a consequence of one of the things that personally I hope Australia never follows. And this is the U.S. widespread advertising directly to the public of prescription medicines. And it is legal and extremely commonplace. You only have to have the TV on for five minutes in your hotel room to see an advertisement for prescription medicine in the United states. And however, it is tempting for some of these companies. And they’ve been found with major fines from court cases when they push for sorts of conditions, what we call the indications for which a medicine is approved. So, a medicine may be approved for certain sorts of arthritis and their marketing people think it’s a great idea to talk about arthritis in general, and that’s where they get these multi hundred million dollar fines. So, if you go into those cases in the U.S. it’s not about them providing defective vaccines or cheating with their quality data or cheating with their clinical data. Almost all those cases come down to inappropriate promotion because of the, I guess the temptation the United States systems offers of allowing to advertise prescription medicines directly to the public. Now, thank God we don’t have that system in this country.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s still a matter of ethics, though, isn’t it? That the companies are pushing that, it’s their marketing people they are employing.
It’s their marketing people, and of course, we could mention many well-known Australian corporations who have also had challenges with marketing, including of telecommunication services. Now, we also —
[Malcolm Roberts] But they also go to the essence of integrity of the company?
But in Australia, we do look closely at promotion, including to doctors. So, recently we fined a particular company over $300,000 for what we concluded was inappropriate promotion of opiates to doctors. This wasn’t of a general public, but it was still inappropriate in our view. So, we will take action if we believe promotion of a product is inappropriate. Now, talking about companies in countries that have suspended vaccines, there were a number of short term suspensions of vaccines. For example, when some deaths in aged care were reported very early in the new year, they were then lifted off after further investigation where it was found that sadly people die in aged care. And the death rates were not all that different from the expected death rates. There were then short term changes, suspensions in some countries after the initial clotting cases were found AstraZeneca. In most countries, although Norway, for example, was an exception, most countries have re-introduced those vaccines, but like Australia, many of them have age recommendations. And those ages vary between countries.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.
Senator Roberts, you’ve just run out of time. So, if you’ve got one more question.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. After the TGA had already provisionally approved the AstraZeneca vaccine, Minister Hunt said of the vaccines quote – “The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”. Australians later died of blood clots due to the vaccine, a side effect that was not known prior to provisional approval. Why should Australians be the lab rats of a drug trial?
So, the word trial really, I mean, the treatment of COVID. And none of us has a crystal ball, where we’ll end up, whether it’s opening the borders or changes to the way we live our lives in a year or two is probably one of the biggest societal trials we’ve had since World War II. So, it’s true to say that because we don’t know whether vaccines are 100%, 90%, 80%, 70, 50, 60 in preventing transmission because we don’t know about the duration of protection, all those things. It is a trial in the sense that anything is new. So, that was a context. If you look at the wider context in which the Minister made those comments. Now, on the issue of benefit versus risk, every medicine or vaccine has significant risks. There’s been many dozen deaths due to Panadol in this country. And yet, if we didn’t have that drug for the relief of simple fever and so forth, there’d be a lot of people suffering. And so, every medicine has its benefits and its risks. Now, because the clotting thing is very rare, even though the trials were extremely large as trials go, 20, 30,000 people, and there’s been another 30,000 people on a follow-up trial of the AstraZeneca. Those numbers were still too low, but you would predict something would be seen 10 in a million times. And so, that’s why the clotting thing was not picked up.
[Malcolm Roberts] Isn’t there still something really big, outstanding though and that is that these are an RNA vaccine?
[Professor John] No, the AstraZeneca vaccine–
[Malcolm Roberts] Some of them, sorry, are RNA. How long before we know the intergenerational effects?
[Professor John] There’s no evidence at all from animal or human studies that the RNA vaccines, if you’re talking about them, incorporate into the genetic material of human beings. They wouldn’t have been approved for regulatory approval and that includes by much bigger regulators such as the FDA, if these bits of mRNA incorporated into the human genetic material. In fact, medicines that incorporate into human genetic material and are inherited are currently not permitted in most major countries, including Australia.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, what you’re saying is that it is okay to have a few deaths?
I’m saying that every medicine or vaccine is assessed both before it goes onto the market and once it’s on the market based on benefit and risk. And in Australia, we’ve had, sadly, one death. We’ve had a number of cases of this clotting syndrome, but the really encouraging thing is that many of our cases seem to be milder than in our countries. And that’s because of such widespread awareness. These cases are picked up early, they’re put in hospitals, even if it’s minor clotting, and the really good news is that, the overwhelming majority of those people were already out of hospital.
A damning 255 page report has slammed the board of Australia Post and found that Christine Holgate did not breach any policies. We know from the small businesses that operate licensed post offices that Christine Holgate was well respected and had a reputation for actually getting problems fixed. I questioned Australia Post at Senate Estimates.
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts] Disappointing to note that the CEO of Australia Post, the former CEO of Australia Post, Christine Holgate, has taken up a new role rather than pursuing a return to work in Australia Post. I’ll explain more about why it’s disappointing in a minute. In denying Ms. Holgate “her legal principles of procedural fairness and natural justice,” can Australia Post employees, licensees, and customers expect the same treatment as she got?
Senator, I’d prefer not to comment on matters dealing with the board and that have been very well dealt with, with the inquiry and the 255 page reading that we’ve received yesterday. But I think those matters should be kept entirely separate from the matters that happen on a day to day basis at Australia Post. I think that they’re very different matters-
[Malcolm Roberts] I can imagine you-
Those matters have been well covered.
[Malcolm Roberts] I can imagine you are advocating that, but the description of your board chairman’s behaviour in giving evidence to both Senate estimates and committee’s subsequent inquiry has shown him to, at best, have an appalling memory, and, at worst, at being deliberately evasive and misleading. I’ll just relate a personal example, personal interactions with the LPOs, because this issue about what happened to Christine Holgate goes well beyond Ms. Holgate. It goes to the goes to Australia Post. The ministers have done enormous damage, I believe, to Australia Post and to the LPOs. Now I’ve been pursuing issues for the LPOs strongly and vigorously. We’ve gone out into the regions and we’ve listened to people in the city LPOs, and they have told us, for years, that their needs have not been met. They’ve not been listened to. They’ve been abused. They’ve been trod on. So prior to Ms. Holgate becoming the CEO, that’s the way the LPOs are treated. And what stunned me, was the LPOs is just swung straight in behind Ms. Holgate. Very, very strongly behind her. And they said that, she actually told me later, that due to my questions in Senate estimates, she said, “There’s a problem here.” And she went out and listened. And the LPOs were very, very grateful for that. And they swung in right behind her. Angela Cramp from the LPOs, very strong advocate. The LPO is we’re writing letters to us, saying how much they appreciate Ms. Holgate. They’ve never had that kind of support and now they’ve lost it. And the way she’s been dismissed has left a lot of people wondering what’s going on in Australia Post. That’s why it’s so important.
Senator, if I could try and separate those issues and matters that have been dealt with well by the inquiry in the former CEO. But I could give you my, having grown up on a farm myself, and coming from regional Western Australia, and joining Australia Post because of its far reach into regional and rural Australia, I appreciate, as does Ms. Sheffield, who looks after community and consumers and all of the LPOs, how important the LPOs are to Australia Post. We are absolutely committed to the LPOs. And as Ms. Sheffield said, the first round of payment reform was what 55 million increase in additional payments. So there is a significant amount of support within Australia Post here at this desk today and back in the offices right across Australia Post. So, we do appreciate everything the LPOs do. They’re a very important part of the Australia Post. And will be for a long time to come out, I hope.
[Malcolm Roberts] But we’ll be assessing it by listening to the LPOs, as to what happens, because they are Australia Post in many communities. And they’re the community, they’re the heart of many communities. So-
Senator, and just take that on board. When I sat down with the chair of the Australia Post Advisory eh-
[Ms. Sheffield] APLAC.
APLAC. I always get the acronym wrong. Outside his LPO and discussed matters, and we are listening to LPOs every day. It’s very important.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, I just had a text message from Angela Cramp. And she’s saying, “He has had no contact with LPOs since he took over the role. He’s not responded to anyone.”
From Ms. Cramp-
[Malcolm Roberts] To me.
Directed at me?
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.
I haven’t had direct contact with Ms. Cramp. As I said, I sat down with the chairman of APLAC, and I’m out in post offices, corporate and LPOs alike. So, as Ms. Sheffield, on a regular basis.
[Malcolm Roberts] We hope it doesn’t go back to the way it was pre-Holgate.
Can I also add to that, Senator? We have worked very hard to build those relationships with licensees. We understand and value licensees incredibly. This week, we had an APLAC board where we brought everyone together, which Angela Cramp is a National Director on. We, you know, we’ve just finished six weeks of road shows, where all licensees were invited to the communities and we will be coming, well hopefully, COVID permitting, in Woolongong next week for, you know, to ensure that we hear from our licensees because we agree with you. We have to listen. There is a lot of change happening in our community. There’s a lot of change to their business, and there’s a lot of change that needs to be there to support them. And whether it’s in looking at what products they’re offering, outlets, payments, lots of consultation, and we really do value the input that they have, in both associations, both LPOG and POALL provide a lot of input and provide, not just to myself, but to teams of people at Australia Post that really are there to do the best. And we don’t want anything to go back. It won’t go back. This payment reform is written. It’s an agreement. It is there to stay, and the next phase will be an agreement. So, really it is, it is there to really support them and help them to grow. Because we know when LPOs thrive, Australia Post thrives. And that’s why we created the payment reforms so that they’re not, it’s not a cost, it’s actually a cost of sale. It’s based on growth. So as e-commerce grows, they grow, because they get a greater share of parcel revenue, which they never got before. So the whole basis of how that set up, actually, is there to drive their growth and ensure that their businesses grow.
[Malcolm Roberts] Right. And as you said, it didn’t happen before. Thanks to Ms. Holgate, it has happened. So we’ll be watching very, very closely because we don’t want to see it go back to the previous days. Will you be implementing Senator Pauline Hanson’s recommendations as part of the committee’s recommendation and report that came down yesterday that the Australia Post chair, Mr. Lucio Di Bartolomeo, be removed from the board, given the scathing conclusions and comments about his behaviour?
Senator, thank you very much for that question. I don’t think it’s the responsibility of the acting group chief executive to comment on the chair. The chair has put a statement out yesterday afternoon saying he’s committed to continuing to lead Australia Post. So, but it’s not for the acting management, and as acting CEO to comment on, on that.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’ve had other questions on services so I’ll put them on notice.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/n0LRDpVqVG4/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-01 13:30:002021-06-01 17:39:59Will Australia Post apologise to Christine Holgate?
I asked the AEC about the new software they used for counting votes. Concerns have been raised about previous AEC software by cryptologists and the National Audit Office.
The AEC claims to have written new software that fixes all of these problems, but they won’t tell us who audited it and what the results were. An open and transparent audit is absolutely necessary to ensure there is 100% confidence in our elections.
Transcript
Thank you, Miss Jay.
Thanks Senator Sullivan, Senator Roberts.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. And thank you for appearing today. My questions apart from the first and third, fairly brief. So the first one, in reference to testimony at the last estimates, and I’ve I’ve got copies of your questions on that, responses to your questions and that is. The AEC bought but did not use the Scytl software. Rather you write your own. To write your own election software is a really impressive feat. We’ve been talking to people, they’re very impressed. May I ask how many staff are on the development team please?
I’d have to take that on notice.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. What was the total cost of doing that?
I’d have to take that on notice.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. What testing did you use before deployment now I’d imagine some kind of parallel running or some form of a dry run.
Well, in fact, we did multiple forms of testing and assurance Senator, as I’m sure you would as I’m sure you’d be aware. And look Senator, to be abundantly helpful here, we’re happy to provide you a more detailed personal briefing on this. I’m happy to talk to you about it. It is a complex process. As you’re aware, we’ve been using our audit, our checked software, easy CAAT for a number of years and we’ve redeveloped that that’s effectively what we deployed as part of the 2016 solution. As I think we said last time, the Siedel solution, we got Seidel on board as really as a business assurance process to make sure that we had software that was going to work at 12 week period to deliver it. The software we’re using has been checked, double-checked and assured. And not only that, the important point to note it’s totally in line with the existing legislation and all of the data that we then generate from that software is put online and the results are then replicated by a number of psephologists and political science departments who use that data to replicate the count. And it exactly matches the outcome of their own. So there’s a range of different ways of assuring that this software is fit for purpose.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. Still part of the first question. Were any of the staff involved doctorate or masters degree qualified in a suitable discipline such as mathematics or cryptology?
Senator I’d have to take that on notice.
[Malcolm Roberts] Could we get their names please? When you provide it a notice?
No.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. And how long did it take?
We had for the 2016 process we had that 12 week periods in Israel, as I’ve said previously.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. And can you provide their qualifications?
Senator again, if you can help me here on letting me know where you’re trying to head, maybe I can provide some more fulsome answers.
[Malcolm Roberts] Perhaps we can, we can go into that in the briefing. I’d love to take you up on that. So did your bespoke solution use any code from Scytl and if so, what percentage?
It did not.
[Malcolm Roberts] None at all. Great. Your software, you intimated has been audited in accordance with standards published by the National Association of Testing Authorities, NADA. That certification does not specify a standard for the auditing of election software. It’s more of a general process for an audit to follow, as I understand it. Having the audit is not a guarantee that your software works within acceptable accuracy levels. Although these issues may come out in an audit who conducted the audit and how much did it cost and what was the result?
Senator as I’ve just said, if you can help me here by telling me where you’re trying to head with this process I would get some of these questions. If somehow the results of this were somehow secret or behind closed doors. We use a piece of software that’s been tested and assured on multiple occasions. The same time, all of the data that this software produces is then publicly published on our virtual teller even on our website, which on election day, as one of the most used pages in Australia, that data is then used by a variety of psephologists and computer and political science experts to replicate those results. It’s intensely public. If you’re trying to indicate that there’s some sort of issue, I just don’t understand why you’d be doing that when there’s been no evidence of that at all.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, we were just concerned about the auditing. That’s all. Because we got some answers from the, I think it was a Nao that didn’t give us the assurance. So let’s go onto some of the physical things then of the 511 polling places in the last election. How many of those had computers or other devices that communicated with the AEC computer system or were capable of doing so?
Senator I’m Jeff Pope, deputy electoral commissioner. I’m not sure what you’re referring to with 511 polling places we had nearly 8,000.
[Malcolm Roberts] Could that be state?
Perhaps you might be referring to–
[Malcolm Roberts] While it is not a mandatory requirement for pre-poll voting centres at the 2019 federal election. 115 of the 511 people voting centres. So pre-poll, sorry, pre-poll. My mistake.
[Man] Right.
[Malcolm Roberts] Had me worried there.
You had me worried.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, just how many have got a physical connection? How many had a physical connection?
For what purpose, Senator?
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, I’m going to go into that in the next few questions.
Many in terms of the role. And–
There are, we have electronic certified lists in every I think in every one of those pre-poll centres last event where citizens names and marked off the roll.
[Malcolm Roberts] No, it’s beyond that. I note from your answer on questions on notice F-O six five on polling place security, that those electronic devices were protected by monitored back to base alarm in only 115 of the 511 polling places. Were any other measures in place to protect the cyber integrity of those devices during the election period? For example were they air gaped, were they turned off at night, was there IP traffic monitoring for the period when they should have been none because they were turned off? That’s what we’re after.
I think all of your thoughts–
[Malcolm Roberts] You think?–
So we’ll take it on notice. But again, we’ve had no issue with any breach of our software or our hardware, with respect to delivery of the election–
At all, and no indicator of any breach and our handling of all of that data. And the physical equipment was in line with relevant Commonwealth guidelines and regulations and the risk assessment that we undertook.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. I’m just doing my job on behalf of my constituents.
I get it Senator. And I’m doing my job.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.
On also defending one of the world’s best and most transparent electoral systems.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well I’m not attacking it. I’m just making sure that–
Fantastic. And so we’re both doing our jobs in terms of making sure that citizens have the information they need to form their judgements.
[Malcolm Roberts] Correct. I’ve only got three questions to go. In your response to questions on notice F-0 six eight, you make the comment, ” All preferences and all Senate ballot papers are reviewed by at least one person at the scanning side.” Does that mean that they compare the scanned ballot with the paper ballot to ensure accuracy? Because that’s the impression your answer gives. Do they compare the actual scanned ballot with the paper ballot?
Senator the process is that a data is both manually entered and scanned and then that’s matched with the automated process–
[Malcolm Roberts] All the ballot papers are manually entered?
Manually entered but all paper is scanned when it first arrives. Then from that image which is an image that data is then entered. And then the scan, the data from the scan is then compared with that to make sure that they match. Where they don’t match, we undertake further processes.
[Malcolm Roberts] Could you explain that in terms of, we have a physical paper ballot that is scanned in–
[Man] Correct.
[Malcolm Roberts] And then–
And then it captures an image.
[Malcolm Roberts] Right. And then what is compared with that image?
That image is then presented to the Data Entry Operator who enters the data from that image–
[Malcolm Roberts] From the image–
Right.
[Malcolm Roberts] So he or she enters it physically.
Correct.
[Malcolm Roberts] So that’s the manual part.
That’s the manual part, then at the same time the data capture process as part of capturing the image is then compared with that manual process. Where that matches, that’s taken to be an accurate match. And that’s included in the count. Where it doesn’t match, we undertake further processes.
[Malcolm Roberts] So that last estimates in October, I asked what percentage of computer records that checked back against the paper record. And you took that on notice, your lengthy answer failed to provide a figure. Is that because it’s a hundred percent?
Which was the question Senator?
[Malcolm Roberts] I asked what percentage of computer records are checked back against the paper record? And you took that a notice, your lengthy answer, which is I think F-068. Hang on, it might be zero eight four. Sorry, zero eight, four. So, as I was saying your lengthy answer failed to provide a figure. Counting ballots is a quantitative exercise. So everything comes down to figures. What percentage of electronic voting cards are compared back to the ballot paper and what is the variance?
I wonder whether we’re talking about different things here, Senator. The process that I’ve just been through demonstrates that every single paper.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.
Yep.
[Malcolm Roberts] Last question . On this topic, anyway. Has the AEC ever run a test batch of a few thousand ballot papers through your system then run those same ballots through a second time and compared the result? Surely any variance between these two runs would give you a figure for system accuracy.
Again, Senator I’d rely on what I’ve just said before that the process that we’re running involves a full manual entry of every single ballot paper compared then to the scanning, capture of the scanned data. So we’re doing that in any case.
[Malcolm Roberts] That that’s what I thought. Okay. Just a final question. Just to lose question. I was thinking as, the senators were asking questions. Voters tell us quite often that they’re then not in favour of being assaulted by a number of how to vote cards distributors being volunteers, distributing how to vote cards when they’re entering a polling booth and some of the premises managers getting to have a bit of strife with it too. I don’t know. I haven’t read the act that covers this, but would there be any possibility or any consideration given to putting the, how to vote cards in the booth or is that fundamentally flawed?
Absolutely not Senator yet. I know what you’re saying that occasionally people do so that. What I’d say in defensive 99.9% of all of the party workers is most people strive to do the right thing.
[Man] Yeah.
We have a few over-excited individuals that really like to get those how to vote cards in the hands of voters. And that can cause some offence but most people do the right thing. We would never put a how to votes in the polling place, because then get confused and think we’re endorsing a particular process and it creates grief.
[Malcolm Roberts] What about if everyone was in there? Every party.
Same thing people then get confused and I’d be absolutely–
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s a fair comment. So if someone’s handing it they can stop them and ask questions about it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Last year the government unveiled their totally lacking plan for a toothless Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Important powers and jurisdictions were completely missing from their proposal, including oversight of the conduct of judges.
When there are complaints about the judges, it is essentially up to the judiciary to investigate itself.
This type of self-regulation does not work, it always fails. That’s why a well-resourced, powerful, independent external agency is needed and would only increase confidence in the judiciary.
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts] And today. My question’s too are in regard to establishing Federal Integrity Commission. First question. Is it the intention of the government to consider adding to the duties of such a Federal Integrity Commission, the overview of the judiciary and other officers of the court?
I think the former Attorney General had indicated that the coverage of the judiciary was an issue under consideration, but not necessarily within the integrity commission, because of constitutional complexities, but also looking at the possibility of a separate judicial commission.
[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s true, isn’t it, that there is currently virtually no authority with jurisdiction to overview the conduct and actions of the judiciary, many of whom are appointed for life?
So the federal judges are appointed to the age of 70 and then they have to retire. The current process is that if someone has a concern about a serving judge, they raise that with the Chief Justice or chief judge of that jurisdiction. The Chief Justice or Chief Judge is empowered to either appoint a conduct committee to investigate allegations made against a sitting judge or, alternatively, the Chief Justice or Chief Judge can refer the matter directly to the Attorney General, and there’s a process of where both houses of parliament can be asked whether they wish to make an address to the government general seeking to have the removal of a sitting judge on grounds of, for example, misbehaviour. So there is that process, but the conduct committee, appointed by the Chief Justice or chief judge is the first step.
[Malcolm Roberts] So there is… thank you. There is wide support for a commission with the jurisdiction to overview the conduct of the judiciary, coming out of the recent inquiry into family law, from retired judges, from academics, from constituents, and from the legal profession itself. So at the moment the errant judge’s conduct is not addressed under an independent system. Correct? You’ve just outlined that system.
That’s correct. Well, it’s an independent conduct committee, so it’s appointed by a Chief Justice or chief judge. It’s not composed of people from that court, so it’s independent to that extent, but they make a report to the Chief Justice of that court. So, no, it’s not a standing independent commission at the moment.
[Malcolm Roberts] And to trigger it requires someone from within the system?
It requires a person to make a complaint. So that might be a litigant, who has been disappointed with how a sitting judge has behaved. It could be someone who is a staff member, an observer, it could be anyone. Anyone who has a concern about a sitting judge can make a complaint.
[Malcolm Roberts] They can make a complaint, but whether or not it goes anywhere, it still depends on someone within the system?
It will then depend upon the relevant Chief Justice and what they wish to do with that complaint.
[Malcolm Roberts]Sorry, who heads up that independent conduct committee?
So it’s a matter for the respective chief general Chief Justice.
[Malcolm Roberts] So there’s one for each court?
They can appoint one per court. So for example, if it was a complaint, Senator Roberts mentioned a family law. For example, if there was a complaint about a sitting family court or federal circuit court judge practising in family law that’d be a matter for the Chief Justice of that family court or the chief judge of the federal circuit court to appoint a conduct committee to look into that particular allegation.
[Malcolm Roberts] So I just listed some of the areas we’ve had complaints from. So given the increasing number of complaints being level of judges based on their conduct, is it not time to ensure such complaints can be examined and addressed in a timely, reasonably costed way ensuring that there are real consequences if necessary?
So wait, my colleague, Ms. noted before that the previous attorney acknowledged there is certainly a question there about whether there should be a body, an integrity body that is able to look at complaints against sitting judges. That is something that the department is continuing to work on, but there are a range of complex constitutional and other legal issues that we’re working through. Attorney General Porter had said it’s perhaps a second order issue in terms of looking at integrity commission first, and then simply look at a judicial integrity type commission but it’s something we’re continuing to work on.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. So let’s change tact just for a minute for two short questions. What is being done in the way of suicide prevention for judges as well as for the victims of poor judicial behaviour?
So suicide prevention for judges is particularly a matter to address to the courts themselves in terms of what what measures they’re actually taking to looking after the wellbeing of judges sitting in the courts because things such as the allocation of work to judges and the allocation of support mechanisms are within the control of the chief judge or chief judge of each jurisdiction.
[Malcolm Roberts] So I imagine being a judge in certain circumstances would be very taxing emotionally. So it’s recognised that the stresses on judges may lead to a need for professional help for these judges. Is this assistance being provided at the moment at an adequate level?
So that would be a question better directed to to the federal courts. And I note that the family court and circuit court are appearing tomorrow, tomorrow at five o’clock.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much. And thank you chair. That’s all I have.
[Chair] Thank you very much Senator Roberts. Just as a followup question, in relation to where an independent conduct committee is appointed by Chief Justice about a complaint, a serious complaint in relation to a judge’s conduct what sanctions are available to that committee and ultimately to the Chief Justice?
It’s an excellent question To some extent there are measures that can be put into place by the head of a jurisdiction in terms of for example, does a judge require retraining or should a judge be moved from a particular court and practise in a different court. Things like that, are steps that are available to a judge. But if the concern of the head of that jurisdiction is that that judge should in fact no longer be a judge then they need to refer that to the Attorney General, who would then consider whether the matter should be brought to parliament again, for consideration of whether they should have been addressed by both houses of parliament and to seeking the removal of that sitting judge.
[Chair] Ultimately the power to remove a judge is in the hands of the parliament and the people…
In the hands of Governor General, ultimately
[Chair] Yes, but that’s obviously a very serious matter,
Farmers at Gatton and beyond are petrified of the spread of destructive fire ants. Fire ants ravage crops and if they get into animals, they drive them crazy with pain. Left unchecked, they’ll turn productive areas effectively barren.
I asked the Department of Agriculture about what we are doing to eradicate them. Unfortunately, it looks like there isn’t enough money allocated to eradicate the destructive fire ants.
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts] How much is it costing Australia in funding the fight against spread and ultimate eradication of fire ants?
[Mr Tongue] Senator, it’s approximately $450 million dollars. I’ll defer to my colleague Ms Laduzko.
[Mr Metcalfe] These are red imported fire ants?
Yeah, red imported fire ants.
[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve got domestic fire ants?
[Mr Metcalfe] No, we’ve also got the yellow crazy ants as well.
[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve got a lot of ants.
[Mr Ludisco] The red imported fire ants particularly which are a particular problem in the Brisbane Valley.
[Malcolm Roberts] 400 million over what period?
[Ms Laduzko] Sorry, Senator Roberts, we have a ten year funding programme currently agreed across all States and Territories in the Commonwealth and the budgeted allocation for that current ten year programme, about which we’re nearly halfway through is 414 million.
[Malcolm Roberts] So about 41 million a year.
[Ms Laduzko] Yeah, roughly speaking.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. How successful is the management and eradication programme?
[Ms Laduzko] We are four years into a sustained effort at eradicating an invasive ant that has got quite a wide spread. I think and I think I might’ve given this evidence last time to the committee which is we have been learning a lot more about the ant. It’s a very large scale eradication so we’ve been making progress but in the meantime, the programme which is actually led by the Queensland government has been trialling different ways of killing the ant through different bait combinations and technology so I’d have to say we’ve seen some positive signs and there are some learnings around eradication but the actual size of the task and whether it’s sufficiently funded are matters for current discussion.
[Malcolm Roberts] So you haven’t got any concrete measures other than that, you’ve just making progress? Not trying to be cheeky, I just would like to have something quantified. How do you assess progress? Because that’s an awful lot of money.
[Ms Laduzko] Yes, assessing progress is an interesting question and partly we go through cycles of eradication and surveillance so we eradicate to a programme and then we go back and do surveillance to see how effective those measures have been. If you want specific information, I’d probably prefer to take it on notice because that would be what I would source from the program-leading Queensland government to make sure I’m accurate.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you.
[Mr Tongue] And Senator, just to describe there is the programme is run by an independent committee chaired by Wendy Crake who is a very distinguished authority in natural resource management matters.
[Malcolm Roberts] Queensland or Australia?
[Mr Tongue] Australia, Australia and as Ms Laduzko said, jointly funded and there is quite a significant amount of detail that we can provide you on notice about the roll out of the programme, how they’re measuring effectiveness, etc. It is just a very big eradication programme, that’s all.
[Malcolm Roberts] That would be useful because I’ve attended a meeting at Gatton, in the heart of the Valley, and the residents there were pretty upset that they don’t trust what the Queensland government is doing so yeah, I’d like to learn more about it, thank you.
[Mr Tongue] Certainly.
[Malcolm Roberts] How effective are similar overseas eradication programmes?
[Ms Laduzko] I think that it’s true to say, Senator, that nowhere has anyone successfully eradicated red imported fire ants. In fact, Australia is the only successful eradication outcomes and they were on smaller incursions that were, we were able to contain to port environments so we have successfully eradicated small outbreaks but it’s not my understanding that any other country has ever managed to eradicate.
[Malcolm Roberts] So is that ominous for the Valley?
[Ms Laduzko] Well, I think it gives us pause for thought around the size of the eradication and the funding commitment and what our long term strategy is but we do have it, you know, it’s, I think, there’s some stats that suggest if we’d done nothing from when we first saw it, it would already have largely covered the entirety of Australia by now and we have managed to keep it to a defined region.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay so in that sense, it’s effective.
[Ms Laduzko] In that sense, it’s effective.
[Malcolm Roberts] Or it may have delayed the overrun of Australia? We don’t really know yet.
[Ms Laduzko] That’s probably a fair call.
[Mr Tongue] Red imported fire ant is viable in 99 per cent of the Australian continent, Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s actually being done on this in Australia? Are you just containing it or you’re trying to eradicate it? Sounds like you’re trying to eradicate it.
[Mr Tongue] It is an eradication programme. It has been going under various guises for a number of years now. In fact, this is a ten year programme. Prior to that, I think we’ve done a seven year programme ahead of that so it’s an eradication programme.
[Malcolm Roberts] How far are we into the ten years? Excuse me for interrupting.
[Mr Tongue] We would be between year four and year five.
[Malcolm Roberts] So we’re halfway through.
[Ms Laduzko] A little less than halfway.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, okay. So what’s being done in terms of the actual on the ground, what’s happening? I know the Queensland government is…
[Mr Tongue] Sorry, it’s quite a complex programme and it’s very large. The nuts and bolts part of it is we’ve agreed a programme for how we approach the eradication efforts so we have zoned certain areas and they’ve embedded a sentiment of moving from west to east with rolling eradication efforts and suppressing in those other areas. I haven’t got to so hard eradication, suppression, suppression, rolling forward but we also have to put a lot of investment in the edge to make sure it doesn’t further escape. The west to east model goes from rural land through to urban environments and that changes the nature of how you do eradication and how you engage the community.
[Malcolm Roberts] And it makes it difficult.
[Ms Laduzko] It does make it a bit more difficult, yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s hard to tell where are we. At the moment, we seem to be stabilising in your opinion?
[Ms Laduzko] I think at the moment we have certainly, you’d have to say we haven’t allowed it to become worse and we’ve managed, I think, some success in the semi-rural areas. The question will be, as we get closer to those urban environments.
[Malcolm Roberts] What else needs to be done? What more needs to be done?
[Ms Laduzko] I think that’s an open question. You know, the scale of the response is enormous and it often comes down to funding and commitment of participants. Once you’re in an urban environment, everyone needs to be willing and engaged.
[Malcolm Roberts] So are there enough resources to achieve eradication?
[Ms Laduzko] Not something I’d like to comment on right now, Senator, we’re going through a bit of a review. Part of the resourcing question goes to what other strategies we can adopt. Is the technology moving ahead of us? Is the baits, are the baits becoming more effective? A few things like that so I think that’s probably a question perhaps you might like to pose in maybe next session when we’ve done a bit of our own efficiency review.
[Mr Tongue] And I should add, Senator, that it is a science-driven programme so we’re drawing on the best possible science we can. We’re trying to do something, as you’ve alluded to, that hasn’t been done anywhere else in the world. It is success to contain it at some level, it is success to contain it because it is a uniquely adapted little ant that really can move quite swiftly if left uncontained. The challenges around the urban areas, you know, baits, poisons, schools, backyards, you know, those sorts of things are quite difficult. We are also finding, I think in the programme, that the cycle of wet and dry, particularly in that kind of area of Southeast Queensland, can frustrate efforts, you know, lay baits, it rains, all of that work is lost. You go back again. So finding the kind of rhythm, the drum beat that will beat it is something that’s just under constant review. It is an enormous eradication programme and as Ms Laduzko says we’re re-looking at it at the moment and governments will need to make decisions.
[Mr Metcalfe] Not with a view for stopping it.
[Mr Tongue] Not with a view for stopping it.
[Mr Metcalfe] But with a view of how we do it, can we do it better?
[Mr Tongue] Can we do it better? If we up the cash burn rate, would we go faster? If we slowed the cash burn rate, will we do better? Some of those questions, you know. What is the right modality to get rid of it?
[Malcolm Roberts] Before I ask you my next question, it probably is associated with the next question, but just make the comment, not having a go at you but when people use the word ‘science’ around here, I usually start digging because it’s just usually opinion and no science. And in Queensland, farming is being devastated by the Queensland Labour government, citing science but being nowhere near science and they’re destroying whole communities, whole regions and farms so I just make that point. I’d like to see the science rather than believe it.
[Mr Tongue] Sure.
[Malcolm Roberts] So moving on that, on what basis are federal monies provided to the States to assist in these programmes? Because listening to a forum at Gatton, people seem be questioning the Queensland State government’s motives. Is there a different formula, for example, for stabilising and containing versus eradicating?
[Mr Tongue] There is a couple of ways to answer that. In the environment we work in when we do eradication responses, like for things that aren’t yet established, we have agreed deeds where States and Territories and the Commonwealth and industry, where relevant, have an approach they use for eradication and how they cost share that. The Reefer eradication programme we’re talking about started in advance of us having an appropriate deed structure to use so it’s run a little bit differently to other eradication responses but in essence, for us, we have a partnership agreement with the Queensland government that sets out milestones that need to be met in order for us to provide funding to a schedule.
[Malcolm Roberts] So there are conditions attached?
[Ms Laduzko] Yes, yep but consistent with many of these what are largely termed environmental eradication responses, the Commonwealth is contributing 50 per cent of the cost.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. So is this in any way an enduring money spinner for the States?
[Ms Laduzko] A money spinner? No, I wouldn’t characterise it that way.
[Malcolm Roberts] Could they manipulate it by taking various strategies, for example containment versus eradication, just to prolong it? That was a concern of constituents in Gatton area.
[Ms Laduzko] Yes, you can see how that comes ’cause it gets to a point where in all eradications, this applies in small ones, large ones, you have to make a concluded position about whether you think eradication remains feasible and cost-effective. At the moment, we are signed up to an eradication programme.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.
[Mr Tongue] And because of the structure of it, I would argue, Senator, how would I put this? All the jurisdictions involved, other than Queensland, have a huge interest in ensuring that the programme is running well because they’re all on the hook to fund it and so it would be very difficult for Queensland to manipulate a circumstance with the gaze of all the other jurisdictions upon it as well as the community where, if you like, they were turning this into some sort of money spinner.
[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s different about Queensland?
[Mr Metcalfe] That’s a very open question, Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] Apart from the fact that we win State of Origin very often.
[Mr Metcalfe] Well, that’s right, yeah. You’re talking to a Queenslander here, of course.
[Mr Tongue] So this eradication is just, is different because of scale and it’s different because it’s outside what we know as the deed structure. So what we have is risk sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth, the States and Territories and industry, in the agricultural industries, they’re known as the plant deed and the animal deed, and they set up arrangements where we share risk and depending on the nature of the effort that needs to go into deal with a response to some pest or disease or weed, the scale of Commonwealth investment changes and those arrangements are managed by Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia and they’re bodies that, if you like, sit outside government and outside industry but they work across to manage those deeds. In this instance, we don’t have that arrangement so we’ve set up this independent style committee.
[Ms Laduzko] Just a slight qualification, we do but that arrangement came into place after we started.
[Mr Tongue] After we started this. This one’s slightly unusual and also scale, it’s vastly different.
[Ms Laduzko] And sorry, Senator, can I just correct something? I said 414 million, it’s 411.4. I think I was just truncating numbers.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, I appreciate the accuracy. And you’re going to send us some details on how you’re assessing progress? In a quantified way.
[Ms Laduzko] Yes, if you’d like to put them through on notice and we’ll answer to that.
[Malcolm Roberts] Quantified.
[Mr Tongue] Yep.
[Ms Laduzko] Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ususjGouvSo/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-27 13:06:452024-07-10 08:55:06Department of Agriculture Questioned at Estimates on Fire Ant Eradication Program
One Nation has their eye on important infrastructure projects across the country.
Projects like the Iron Boomerang, connecting the West Australian iron ore fields with the Queensland coalfields so we can make steel in the country, could set our country up for decades.
Transcript
[Woman] Senator Roberts.
[Man] Thank you, Chair, thank you Roberts.
[Malcolm Roberts] My questions are designed to see where the department is up to, if at all, on some major infrastructure projects that have been brought to my attention on recent listening and fact finding tours to Northern Australia. First one is the Iron Boomerang to connect the Pilbara iron ore with Bowen Basin coal to create a new Australian steel capability with more than $50 billion a year.
Thanks Senator. Shona Rosengren, Assistant Secretary in Queensland, Northern Territory and WA. So obviously we’re, we’re aware of the discussions around Project Boomerang. What, there is no current Australian government commitment to the project. However, we have already got commitments of $330 million on the Outback Way. Over $700 million in NAP and beef projects in Northern Australia.
[Malcolm Roberts] Excuse me, the Outback Way being the highway.
Being a highway, yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts] not the railway.
And also $8.4 billion in roads of strategic importance projects across Northern Australia as well.
[Malcolm Roberts] But nothing on the railway line.
[Rosengren] But noting on the railway line.
[Malcolm Roberts] Is it seen, the Iron Boomerang, is it seen as really a very, very important security issue for us because it’ll give us independence and sovereignty over our steel industry and steel imports? And also make Australia a significant global player in steel?
I understand the dynamics of the project, but it’s not one that currently has Australian government commitment to it.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you. Secondly, is the department working on any proposal to extend inland rail north to Gladstone or Townsville?
Not at this stage no, Senator. I think we’ve looked at business cases on that front I think twice in the last–
[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, what was that?
There’ve been business cases considering a Northern connection to Gladstone, I think twice in the last five years or so. But I’ll confirm with my colleagues through the afternoon.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you. Thirdly, is the department working on any project to connect the Adelaide to Darwin rail line with the Northern Rail System via Longreach or Mount Isa? Again, another national security issue. Enabling competition between ports, and also security if one of the ports goes out, or if the rail line goes out. Because the current rail line is… No?
[Man] No sir.
[Rosengren] I’m not aware of anything.
[Malcolm Roberts] It would mean easily moving troops from Townsville to Darwin. Okay, the fourth question. The Tully Millstream hydro project, power project, to provide 600 megawatts of clean baseload power into the national grid. Anything on that?
Not under the, I’m only responsible for road and rail projects. I’m not aware of the, the water grid.
Is anyone in Infrastructure Australia available to comment on that?
[Rosengren] It would be under the water .
Yeah, Infrastructure Australia is on tomorrow morning. That might be a Water question, or potentially an Industry question.
[Malcolm Roberts] So you probably won’t know this one either. Is the department working on any hydro projects in what is loosely called the Bradfield Catchment from Charters Towers to Cairns?
[Rosengren] I’m not aware in my responsibilities.
Yeah, I think potentially a question for the Water Grid Authority on Friday?
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, sixth. A space launch facility currently proposed for Abbot Point in North Queensland?
[Rosengren] Again, beyond my responsibility centres.
[Malcolm Roberts] So your departments are, your agency’s responsible for expenditure on projects more than $1 billion?
No, road and rail.
[Malcolm Roberts] Just road and rail.
So land transport.
[Man] Mostly deal with land transport.
[Malcolm Roberts] Mostly, what else?
Well, it’s land transport. We’ve got regional projects. We’ve got city deals.
[Malcolm Roberts] Regional projects, that’s brings up the seventh one which is the copper string to high voltage power transmission line, to bring Mount Isa into the national electricity grid.
I think the electricity projects are probably a matter for Department of Industry. So, DISER.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/CVXx1Jtxm1Q/mqdefault.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-27 10:21:592021-06-01 17:40:49Senate Estimates – Is the Government looking at the Iron Boomerang?
My motion last month calling on the government to ditch Gender neutral language passed the Senate. Despite this, the government style guide still includes these gender neutral terms. The Digital Transformation Agency creates the style guide, I asked them why they were defying the will of the Senate.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’d like to ask questions about the style Manual, which is produced under the auspices of, the digital transformation agency. It’s something very dear to the chair’s heart. I don’t know, she’s stated this in public, language is crucial as a very powerful driver of behaviour and it’s been shown to be influential, for many hundreds of years now. So our office recently investigated the origin of the style manual and we got this advice. These quote, “The Australian government style manual was produced under authority from the Australian government. It is a government publication, but there does not appear to be, any specific regulatory or legislative framework under which it was produced,” Is that correct?
I would need to take that on notice, Senator I’m sorry.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, my understanding is, there’s no specific regulatory or legislative framework. So I noticed that this seventh edition, was compiled by working group with 167 different agencies. There you go Senator Gallagher, you’re always helpful, 167 different agencies, some of whom are organisations, some of whom are individuals, some are voluntary, some are paid part time. How much did edition seven of the Star Manual cost? And what is the annual budget of the style manual unit?
So I will need to look behind me to see, if we have anybody with the numbers, for the the cost of producing the style manual.
So just, we’ll get the numbers for you as soon as we can Senator, but the the actual style manual team is very small. It is purely on a sustainment footing right now, which means the sustainment is just minimum support. So we have a digital edition, which we have produced, which you would be well aware of. Some are very keen still to get paper copies, as you would expect and lots of very enthusiastic participants, but the the investment in the style manual has largely ceased.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, someone has got to keep going with this, because there’s a document on the website, that says help us improve the style manual. So someone collects this feedback and then actions it, So there is an ongoing cost. So have you worked at how much it is going to cost to go through all the federal government business and implement the changes called in this style manual?
Yes Senator we have released the latest edition and beyond that, the feedback that we take, will potentially make incremental improvements. The benefit we have though, with the style manual being digital is that, it is much simpler for us to make minor refinements than it is where you have a physical document. So it is, as I said, a very small team, it’s one or two people, and they respond to feedback and ensure that the product is maintained with very small sets of changes.
[Malcolm Roberts] So if it’s not a referable document that can be referenced, how do you maintain the integrity of the document? How do we make sure that no one can just walk in and change it when they so want to?
And so we put controls around changes to the document. If it’s helpful, we’ll provide on notice a summary of the team, the level of change, and then how we’re ensuring that the actual product is change controlled in the way that you would expect it to be.
[Malcolm Roberts] So correct me if I’m wrong, the document only exists on a web page at the moment, there’s no printed copy authorised?
So other than the copies that we have produced for editing and so on, there are no hard copies.
[Malcolm Roberts] But there’s not a copy that the minister authorises or anyone has authorised or anybody has authorised?
Sir we had, as you demonstrated many stakeholders who were participating in the refinement of the style manual in the latest edition, I’ll come back to you with the details as to how that process was undertaken to the point at which this is the specific person who authorised the final copy and the how do we manage it.
[Malcolm Roberts] And who is the guardian of changes in future. And what about, has anyone in the government done the costing of what it would cost to change thousands of web pages to make sure that language is complied with, thousands of forms? Has anyone done the costing of that? The implementation cost of this?
I wouldn’t have thought so, Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. At the end of the development process did the minister approve the final format?
Also I’ll come back to you on notice on that.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. I note that the style manual prevents the use of the word junior to describe an adolescent. Have you told all the foot junior footy clubs around Australia that they have to change their name to adolescents?
I don’t believe we have said adolescent footy clubs.
[Malcolm Roberts] So I’m even told that the word youth, let me better get this right. The word youth is okay. The word young people is okay, but the word junior or juniors or youths is not okay. So I noticed the style manual also requires federal government employees to find out the user’s preferred pronoun. Now you didn’t follow your own manual, because nobody asked me what my preferred pronoun was. So, is it more than a recommendation or is that all it is?
Senator it’s a reference for good writing. And in order for us to provide that advice, there is a level of discretion that can still be applied at the individual author level. This is good practice guidance that has been updated to be more contemporary than the last edition.
[Malcolm Roberts] Based upon what a lot of people have inputted but no reference to the English language or dictionaries or custom and practice of what our language means. Just a lot of opinions going in. You don’t look familiar with the process, okay. My Senate motion number 1055 sought to remove use of gender neutral language from federal government business. I asked the office of digital transformation to update the style manual accordingly and they advised it wasn’t necessary as the specific language expressions in my motion were not contained in the style manual, is that still your position?
I will come back to you Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, now your web pages are not numbered for reference in the section on language, your web page advises use gender language, to use gender neutral language. Now federal programmes are being changed to gender neutral language and your style manual has given us the reason, but apparently the department refuses to remove or qualify this gender neutral requirement, is that correct?
Senator, I’m going to need to come back to you with.
[Malcolm Roberts] So I’ve got a few final terms chair, that I’d just like to check, which is recommended by the office of digital transformation for these common terms, breastfeeding or chest feeding.
Senator, I have not.
[Malcolm Roberts] Breast milk or chest milk? Father or non birthing parent? Mother or gestational parent? My motion has the effect of about preventing this language, and now your proposing use of this language. Does that mean you defying the will of the Senate? It did pass.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/VjiRbDXdOms/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-27 09:50:402021-06-01 17:41:00Senate Estimates – Why is the Government still using Gender Neutral Language?
