With 520,000 net arrivals in one year, we’re now being told that yoga teachers will be prioritised over tradies to be let in the country.
Despite telling Australians immigration is necessary for skilled workers to build homes, the truth has emerged that yoga teachers (including up to 1,800 Indian yoga teachers, weirdly specific) and dog handlers appear on the priority skills list while not a single construction trade does.
If you ever needed proof the immigration program is a Ponzi scheme, just look at the fact that yogis and dog walkers are getting priority over construction workers.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’ll be very brief in my questioning. Was the department consulted at all on the draft core skills visa list that prioritises immigration for yoga teachers, martial arts instructors and dog handlers above construction tradespeople?
Ms James: Senator, I appreciate you weren’t in the room, but we had quite a lot of questioning about this earlier today. We have answered that question, and the answer is, no, we weren’t consulted in relation to that. It’s not our role to provide input in that way. Jobs and Skills Australia, which is an independent agency, has been in a consultation process about those lists, and it’s important to emphasise that they are all still in draft form.
Senator ROBERTS: I think I pointed that out—yes, draft core skills. I want to ask about the trade support loan eligibility list. Is anyone here familiar with that?
Ms Campbell: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand leather production and saddlery were not on that list and that the government is not accepting it as an apprenticeship that can lead to work in the agricultural sector, which would make it eligible. We’re talking about saddles here; they go on horses and they get used in agriculture, so it seems like a pretty clear link. Can you tell me if leather production and saddlery will be on the trade support loan eligibility list and when this will happen?
Ms Campbell: The Australian apprenticeship priority list, which is also used for the trade support loan, which is now known as the Australian apprenticeship support loan program, identifies priority occupations based on the Jobs and Skills Australia skills priority list. To be on that list, they need to have been determined by JSA as being in national shortage and be classified as being in ANZSCO major group 3, trades and technicians, or ANZSCO group 4, care and community workers, and to have the use of an apprenticeship pathway as a key form of entering that qualification.
Senator ROBERTS: So I take it the answer is no.
Ms Campbell: I’m assuming—but I would need to check—that it’s not in national skill shortage.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, do that on notice, please.
I asked the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force (IGADF) about some decisions from Defence that I believe warrant investigation.
I was under the impression that the IGADF would have some jurisdiction over complaints if Defence bureaucrats had a perceived conflict of interest.
In this session, they seem to wash their hands of all responsibility of inspecting this potential breach of integrity. Could it be something to do with the fact that the document in question was critical of the Brereton Report, which the IGADF created?
I will continue to make sure soldiers are given due process and generals are made accountable. If anyone is going to be put in jail for war crimes, the first ones locked up should be the politicians and generals that sent our men there.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Gaynor, for being here. I understand you’ve received a complaint in relation to the decision-maker on Defence freedom of information application 577/23/24. Are you in a position to confirm that you have received that and you’re processing it?
Mr Gaynor: No, I can’t answer that question, because I don’t understand which case it might relate to with just that number, but I can take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Catherine Wallis was the person who decided to block the release of the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel report. She is the Director-General of the Afghanistan Inquiry Response Task Force. The panel report is highly critical of the taskforce Catherine Wallis leads. I must say that the defence department pulled out some quotes that were favourable to Ms Wallis or to the oversight panel, but there are many, many other quotes that Defence neglected. So the panel report is highly critical of the task force Catherine Wallis leads, and she’s the decision-maker on whether to release that report under freedom of information. On the face of it, that would be a conflict of interest that you would be able to investigate, wouldn’t it?
Mr Gaynor: These questions would be better directed to the Afghanistan Inquiry Response Task Force or to the Department of Defence. If freedom of information application 577 refers to a freedom of information application for the oversight panel’s report, then my office has had nothing to do with that report or with that freedom of information application. The role of my office is principally threefold. It’s an integrity, inquiry and assurance agency. My statutory role is to examine failures in the military justice system, to inquire into the deaths of ADF members where those deaths appear to have arisen out of or in the course of their service, and also to superintend the statutory Redress of Grievance complaints scheme, which is available for all ADF members.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your response. It would seem to me that under the first one, ‘integrity’ and ‘inquiry’, this would be perfectly placed, because there appears to be a massive conflict of interest with Ms Wallis signing off and, in fact, signing off on a previous FOI application but not signing off on this one.
Mr Gaynor: Yes. I say ‘yes’ not to indicate agreement, but I understand your question. But my role is to examine matters affecting the military justice system. What you’re talking about here is an administrative decision that’s been made under the FOI Act. There are other ways of seeking review of such decisions, both internal and external to the Department of Defence.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any information on why Catherine Wallis deleted her position title on the taskforce from her signature on this decision, despite including it on a different decision only days earlier?
Mr Gaynor: My office conducted the IGADF Afghanistan inquiry. We delivered the report to the Chief of the Defence Force in November 2020. Noting that my office is an independent statutory office within the Defence portfolio that’s otherwise separate from the administrative functions and the department’s functions, I don’t have any visibility or oversight of freedom-of-information decisions that are made within the Department of Defence.
Senator ROBERTS: With your familiarity with the Defence systems, presumed on my part, I’m wondering how someone with such a conflict of interest could be allowed to make the decision of blocking the release of the report which is critical of her work. Could you tell me who you think would be the best avenue for us to go to?
Mr Gaynor: No, Senator, I genuinely cannot. There would be an official within the department who is responsible for freedom of information, but I don’t know who that individual is. Freedom-of-information decisions that are received by my office are made within my office. I don’t have visibility of the department’s decision-making.
Senator ROBERTS: Your duties as inspector-general don’t cover scrutiny of freedom of information from Defence?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/fBPxA_SMC_k/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-06-10 15:37:112024-06-26 12:30:13Who Will Hold the Department of Defence Accountable?
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), an independent industry-funded agency, handles complaints concerning financial losses due to actions by banks, insurance companies, or superannuation funds. While AFCA has a reputation for avoiding complaints rather than addressing them, their recent accomplishment of collecting $300 million for members of the public affected by financial misbehaviour is a good result.
My questioning of AFCA didn’t start smoothly, as CEO David Locke seemed unaware that the AFCA website explicitly asks that individuals with concerns about a code of practice to submit them via the form provided, as part of their role overseeing the Banking Code of Practice review body, the BCCC.
It took until around the 2 minutes 52 seconds mark to receive a response to what, I thought, was a straightforward opening question. Subsequently, I pursued questions regarding AFCA’s success rates. A significant portion of their response was taken on notice, so I look forward to receiving their answers.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Your website invites consumers to lodge a complaint regarding the operation of a code of practice. How many such complaints have you received on the Banking Code of Practice?
Mr Locke: We receive complaints where a consumer has a contract with the bank and they have suffered financial loss. Then they can bring a complaint through to AFCA. So the matter is really if, for example, the bank has failed to comply with its legal obligations or they’ve suffered loss through some misconduct or inappropriate action on the part of the bank. We have to determine what’s fair, and, in looking at that, we have to have regard to the banking code. That’s how the banking code comes into effect. We had 56,000 complaints about banks and other credit lenders last year. In terms of a freestanding complaint about the banking code, though, that would normally go through to the Banking Code Compliance Committee, which is a separate body, and their role is to enforce the banking code. The banking code is relevant to us in our jurisdiction and we do look at it, but, if it’s just about a financial firm breaching the banking code obligations on its own, then that would be a matter that would go through to the Banking Code Compliance Committee.
Senator ROBERTS: So you would only field the complaint if it was a breach of the banking code?
Dr Smith: We can take complaints about breaches of the banking code if the consumer can show that there has been a financial loss suffered as a result of that breach or indeed that they have suffered non-financial loss as a result of that particular breach. For example, a breach of the provision under the banking code related to guarantees and whether or not the guarantor was fully informed of their rights before they entered into that guarantee might be a matter that we would take as a complaint.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if someone was just concerned about a potential change or a possible change in the banking code, which is coming up, they would not be lodging a complaint with you?
Dr Smith: The conduct needs to have occurred. But, in terms of future issues, there has obviously been a recent review of that code and no doubt that person could also voice those concerns to the Banking Code Compliance Committee.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you had any communication with the Australian Banking Association regarding their review of the banking code?
Mr Locke: Yes. We were consulted in a fashion by the Australian Banking Association in the course of their review. They commissioned an independent review of the banking code, which was carried out, and then they undertook an informal consultation process with a number of bodies, including us. Following that, they approached the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for approval to change the banking code. This is a code that has been approved by ASIC, so any changes need to be approved by ASIC. ASIC decided to undertake its own consultation, and we participated in that and made a submission to it as well. So we’ve engaged with the ABA and we’ve engaged with ASIC with regard to the ABA’s review.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could I get a copy of your comments to the ABA and ASIC, please.
Mr Locke: Certainly. We’ll take that on notice. We have made a public submission, and it’s available on our website, but we can certainly send the link through to your office.
Senator ROBERTS: From the data on your website, for the year 2023, the number of complaints resolved in favour of the complainant was only 31 per cent, with 69 per cent in favour of the bank or financial institution. However, only five per cent of complaints reached the decision stage. Some were rectified early on and some were refused process. Of the complaints over banking disputes—just banking—how many complaints were received, how many were resolved in favour of the complainant and how many were withdrawn for 2023?
Mr Locke: I can provide all those details on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine.
Mr Locke: What I can tell you is the way our process works. A consumer will have gone through an independent dispute resolution process with the bank and then come through to AFCA. AFCA sends it back to the bank for them to have one last opportunity to resolve the matter before we otherwise start working on it. What we’re finding is that about 65 per cent of the time the banks resolve the matter at that point.
Senator ROBERTS: Once you step in?
Mr Locke: Yes. Obviously we would prefer for that to have been done and for people not to have to come to AFCA, but we’re finding that 65 per cent of the time there. What we then find is that we are able to resolve the majority of cases through our case-working process—through mediation, through recommendations and through negotiation. Only about five per cent of matters actually go through to decision. What you will see is that the matters that resolve when we go back to the bank or the matters that resolve through our processes—that is a situation where the consumer is effectively happy with the agreement that they’ve reached with the bank. So you would expect that the small number that go through to determinations are probably the ones where it’s more contentious, more of a binary decision. You would expect that, where the consumer had a better claim, the banks would have resolved the cases earlier in the process. But I can set all of that out on notice so you’ve got that.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you also break down the information into value groups so that I can see the success rate at progressively higher amounts of claim. My feedback is that AFCA are great at getting back $1,000 but not so good at getting back $100,000. The banks’ clutches are maybe a bit stronger.
Mr Locke: I’ll certainly provide you with whatever we have in terms of the breakdown. Last year our work secured $304 million in compensation and refunds for consumers and small-business owners, but we can give you the amounts that relate to that. I don’t think it is the case that it’s just lower value amounts that have been settling. We do settle a number of matters where the settlement is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. We’ll provide you with some information on that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m hearing settlements are a fraction of the claim but the complainant accepts something rather than nothing. On notice, of all complaints settled on behalf of the complainant, what was the value of claim verses the settlement accepted or awarded?
Mr Locke: I don’t think we would have that information, but I can certainly let you have the information that we have available.
Mr Untersteiner: The challenge with that is: if something is settled between the parties before it goes to determination, there’s no obligation for them to disclose to us what the settlement was, so we typically won’t have visibility. We have some visibility, and, on notice, we can share with you what we do have, but it will be a small cut of the overall data.
Mr Locke: There are three cohorts that I talked about. The first cohort, when we go back to the financial firm, is given an opportunity to resolve. We don’t normally know what the resolution of that matter is. We just know the consumer’s happy and doesn’t want us to do anything further. That is what we call IDR data, internal dispute resolution data. The firms have, since January, had to report that through to ASIC, so ASIC would have some of that data. The data that we will have are those cases that don’t resolve and that are then resolved through our caseworking process or the matters that go through to decision, which you have mentioned. With regard to that, I can certainly provide that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, if you could do that. When AFCA were set up, you were allowed to go back to 2012 to take on older cases. On notice, of all banking cases referred to you for the period 2012 to 2018 for an amount over $200,000, how many were resolved in favour of the complainant, and what was awarded as opposed to what was claimed?
Mr Locke: I will take that on notice. I think, in total in that look-back jurisdiction, if I recall right we had just under 1,500 cases. A majority of those did relate to banking and credit matters. We will certainly take that on notice and provide you with what information we can.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Finally, for that group of claims, are there any claims still outstanding from 2012 to 2018?
Mr Locke: No. They’ve all been dealt with.
Senator ROBERTS: Great. Thank you. The next question is about your administration. Are you still closing your office at 2 pm on Wednesdays so the staff can go home in the name of productivity?
Mr Locke: We don’t close the office, but we do give staff—it’s effectively a bit like compressed hours—three hours to spend on wellbeing or to use for their time. This was an initiative we trialled during COVID, when we were seeing a lot of burnout and stress amongst our people. We discussed it with our people. We didn’t change any of our productivity measures, so the same amount of work had to be completed within the five-day week as was completed with this three-hour period. What we actually found was that productivity increased, and we’ve found that’s continued to be the case. We actually have higher levels of productivity now than at any time in the operation of the organisation, by caseworker. We found giving people that small amount of flexibility has actually made sound business sense. The initial intent behind it was about wellbeing, particularly when we were seeing a lot of and stress and challenges during lockdowns. Of course the majority of our staff are Melbourne, and they had prolonged lockdowns at that time. But what we’ve actually seen is that productivity has increased and continued to increase. So that is something that we do, but we don’t close the phones. It is an optional thing. Many staff work during that period but use it just for quiet time without interruption, but some staff use it to pick up the kids or to look after older relatives or to arrange appointments. As I said, the same amount of work has to be done during the working week.
Mr Untersteiner: I’ll just add that we did measure and we saw our attrition rates drop, we saw absenteeism drop, we saw productivity go up, we saw cost per complaint go down and we’ve seen employee engagement go up. Just from a general business initiative and a cost perspective, it’s been cost positive.
Chair: I need to share the call, Senator Roberts. Do you have another question?
Senator ROBERTS: I can put two on notice, but I’ve got one final question. Are financial institutions afraid of AFCA, or do they see you as another pesky bureaucracy that needs to be surmounted or brushed aside?
Mr Locke: Well, I hope—
Senator ROBERTS: I know you said 65 per cent of complaints are resolved.
Mr Locke: I can’t speak on behalf of—there are 44,000 members. About three-quarters of those are people who have ACRs, and the remainder are different firms with Australian financial services licences. I don’t think there’s any unified view with regard to that. What I hope, Senator, is that financial firms recognise that we play an important role. We do our utmost to act independently and fairly to determine intractable matters that otherwise people would presumably be coming to their elected representatives for or going to the media about. We seek to give people closure on matters, whether that goes in their favour or not. We act in accordance with the rules, and we apply our fairness jurisdiction in accordance with the way that we articulate there. I don’t seek for anybody to be afraid of us. I hope that industry see us as playing a constructive and useful role and recognise our legitimacy, but I hope that they also recognise that we will call matters as we see them and we will treat all parties fairly and independently. That’s our role as an alternative to the court system.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take on notice if there’s any sign, evidence or statistic that reflects that the financial institutions respect what you’re doing.
Mr Locke: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a difficult one.
Mr Locke: It’s a difficult one for us to answer really.
Senator ROBERTS: It is; I accept that.
Mr Locke: We hope that parliamentarians, financial firms and people who act on behalf of consumers, whether that’s law firms or consumer bodies, respect the role that we play and believe that we do that to our utmost ability.
General Angus Campbell will retire as Chief of the Defence Force in just a month, leaving behind a mess of morale and military disasters.
Under his watch our special forces have been decimated, morale has been destroyed, the navy is facing the worst outlook in 50 years, the entire force is in a recruiting crisis and he refuses to accept responsibility for what happened, all while wearing medals for “distinguished command and leadership” and earning $1 million a year.
On behalf of the many soldiers, sailors and aviators that have contacted me over many years, farewell General Campbell – you do not go with our thanks and you will not be missed.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again, General Campbell. Looking at the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel report, Defence tried to keep this report secret, blocking freedom of information requests. It was only when the Senate, on my motion, ordered it to be produced that we’ve seen it. In my opinion, General Campbell, we can see why you wanted to keep this a secret, given what it said about your response to the Brereton inquiry. I’m going to read quite extensive quotes from it. It’s important to have this information on the record, given your previous denial of command responsibility. Quote:
Looking through an organisational lens, the assessment of accountability and responsibility starts at the top. More senior officers have to take some level of responsibility for what goes wrong in their organisation or at least for any circumstances or policies that permitted or facilitated it. If no-one at an appropriate level of authority knew anything about this misconduct, that is an organisational failure in itself.
Next quote:
The Panel considers that the failure to look closely at the collective accountability and responsibility of Defence’s most senior leaders continues to generate resentment and anger amongst veterans, soldiers and their families which is likely to last for a long time.
I can vouch for that. We’ve had many servicemen, current and former, contact us. Next quote:
… it is a misuse of their [Special Forces’] capability to employ them on a long term basis to conduct what are essentially conventional military operations.
Next quote:
The history and legacy of former Special Forces members is unjustifiably tarnished.
That’s by the Brereton report. General Campbell, you have refused to accept command responsibility or accountability for allegations, despite wearing a medal for your command. You are a senior officer, at one point commander of all forces in the Middle East. Will you ever take responsibility for your organisational responsibility, instead of just throwing loyal soldiers under the bus?
Gen. Campbell: Thank you, Senator. Let’s start at the beginning of your comments. You’re incorrect to suggest that in some way I or Defence attempted to withhold the oversight panel’s final report to the minister. The oversight panel had, throughout its duties, access to an unredacted view of the Brereton report. That meant that its work needed to be referred to the Office of the Special Investigator to ensure that, in their work, there were no concerns by that office that anything in their report might in any way impinge upon their investigations and considerations for the potential for further legal action. Once that was done, the report was able to be provided to the minister with confidence that the Office of the Special Investigator had no concerns for its public release, and the report was publicly released. So I guess that’s conspiracy No. 1 out of the way. With regard to command accountability—
Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, General—
CHAIR: Senator, let the witness finish their answer first, and then you’ll have an opportunity to ask a followup question.
Gen. Campbell: With regard to command accountability, as has previously been given in testimony here by me and a number of my colleagues, the consideration of command accountability has been developed and completed at the level of Defence and my responsibilities and has been passed to the minister for his consideration. That remains under consideration by the minister and, in due course, the minister will advise of decisions in that regard. The oversight panel’s report was very much appreciated and well received by Defence. It has reflected on the experience and provides some very useful insights into the events that occurred, the manner of its response and the efforts we have gone to in reform and in delivery of now 139 of the 143 recommendations of the Brereton inquiry. Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, given what General Campbell said, why did the government withhold that document, withhold senators access to that document, the oversight report?
Senator McAllister: As has already been indicated to you, it was necessary to seek advice from the Office of the Special Investigator as to whether or not the release of that report would in any way compromise their work. When that advice was received, the material was provided to the Senate.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. General, you’re still wearing bars on your chest and the Distinguished Service Cross that you claim for either being in action, which you never were, or for your command of troops in the Middle East. You’ve previously tried to strip 3,000 soldiers of their citation. You’re still trying to strip other soldiers of their medals. Why do you get to keep Afghanistan medals while you try to have them stripped from soldiers?
Gen. Campbell: I make no claims with regard to the Distinguished Service Cross, which was awarded to me for service in Afghanistan and the Middle East more generally.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I just want to close the chapter on your responses to my questions in the past about the search and rescue operation of the MRH90 Taipan crash in the Whitsundays. You’ll recall I first asked about this in October. We had an exchange in February about whether the answers were satisfactory. Missing from the information you gave me was that, after the crash, around 11 pm, HMAS Adelaide continued to sail in the opposite direction towards a photoshoot 140 nautical miles away. When I produced a photo that the Defence Force deleted from the website, General Campbell and Vice Admiral Hammond tried to tell me that HMAS Adelaide would be unable to help due to its size and too many vessels already at the search and rescue. You eventually later clarified that it actually was tasked to do the search and rescue. Why did you delete the images of the photoshoot from your website? Why have we gone through this back and forth for eight months now? Was it just too embarrassing for you to admit that you let a useful boat with helicopters on board sail away to a photoshoot instead of immediately helping with the search and rescue mission when it was assumed those men were still alive?
Gen. Campbell: Thanks, Senator. I’ll have to take the bulk of your question on notice. With regard to the photoshoot, I neither directed nor have knowledge of the claim you’re making that photographs were deleted from the Defence website. I will need to take that on notice to understand whether or not and under what circumstances any photographs were or may have been removed.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. I’m happy to have that taken on notice. What about the circumstances around the deployment of Adelaide.
Gen. Campbell: Yes; I’ll take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. On to your combined special forces selection process, reports from the ground indicate, from 270 candidates, only 13 per cent, or 37, were selected for all special forces groups. Is it time to admit this ridiculous idea of yours, that the troops don’t like, for combined selection has been a massive failure at the expense of millions of dollars with worse outcomes?
Gen. Campbell: Thank you again, Senator. I’d like to correct the record. You speak of it as my ‘ridiculous idea’. It is a well thought out approach being developed by the Army. I don’t lay claim to it, Senator. In terms of the outcomes of it, I would refer to the Chief of Army.
Lt Gen. Stuart: Senator, could I just confirm what your specific question is.
Senator ROBERTS: On your combined special forces selection process, reports from the ground indicate, from 270 candidates, only 13 per cent, or 37, were selected for all special forces groups and you’re having trouble recruiting for the special forces groups—you’re having trouble recruiting for the Army in general. Is it time to admit that this is a failure? The troops are telling us it is.
Lt Gen. Stuart: That may be someone’s characterisation; that’s not our experience. It’s true that there are high attrition rates in any special forces selection. That’s a characteristic. What we’re much better at doing now is understanding the reasons for that. The preliminary assessment that I received just last week on one of the key contributing factors was the physical preparation. We need to lean in and help our people to follow the physical preparation to give them the best chance of completing successfully or not being withdrawn at our own request because they can’t meet a particular physical standard. Of course, there is a whole range of other aspects for assessment as well. So, yes, you’re correct in terms of the low numbers that were selected. That was characteristic when there were separate selection courses. This was the first of the common selection courses. We’re going through an after action review process now to understand what worked, what didn’t work and how we need to adapt it in the future. If I can just add a final point: the reason why we’re doing this goes to some of the points that were in the independent oversight panel’s report to the Deputy Prime Minister that you referred to in your earlier questioning. It’s to address some of the outcomes that we’ve been working on for the last 10 years in terms of the findings from the Brereton inquiry, and, in particular, role clarity among units and also making sure that we have good working relationships between the units in the command.
Senator ROBERTS: The Chair is giving me the wind-up. You’re not lowering standards? You’re just giving soldiers an opportunity to meet the standards?
Lt Gen. Stuart: No; they’re quite high standards, as you’d appreciate.
Senator ROBERTS: But your response is not to drop standards; your response is to help soldiers meet the high standards.
Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes. That is the approach right across the board, not just for special forces selection. So for anybody who puts their hand up for special forces selection—whether that’s as an operator, an integrator or an enabler—they have a thing called a special forces entry test which tests a whole range of things, including some physical standards. To set those people up for success, we’ve provided them with a physical training preparation program that is specifically designed to ensure that they can have the best chance of meeting the standards that are required in that Special Forces Entry Test.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what we’ve seen recently under General Campbell’s command is that the SAS regiment has been decimated, with huge numbers of discharges after it was thrown under the bus. The combined special forces selection has been an abysmal failure, according to troops we’ve listened to. The MRH90 helicopter was kept flying until four men were killed in a crash. General Campbell is wearing a Distinguished Service Cross, which is probably illegal from what we’ve highlighted in previous estimates. The OSI has spent $100 million to lay a single war crimes charge, and there were no convictions. The force is in a recruitment crisis, going backwards. We’re 5,000 personnel under strength. The Navy will have the least capable surface leaders it’s had in more than 50 years for the next 10 years. What will you do to restore defence capability?
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, there are so many misinformed statements in that question that it’s hard to know where to begin. Perhaps I can say that there is very little of your characterisation of the current state of things that I accept. But I will tell you what it is that we are doing. This institution was subjected to a circumstance where there were many, many defence ministers on and off during the last government. There was chaos and dysfunction, and we are working to resolve that. We are taking defence seriously, unlike the coalition. We will see spending in defence reach 2.3 per cent of GDP over the next decade beyond the trajectory that we inherited. We’re investing $330 billion through the new Integrated Investment Program. We are developing a comprehensive workforce strategy to improve recruitment and retention. We have put in place the pathway to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. We are buying the guided weapons that we need to hold adversaries at risk. We are investing in the surface fleet. We have handed down the 2024 National Defence Strategy. I understand that, in the period I have represent the government in here, you have consistently come here and levied attacks on senior personnel. I am surprised that that is the approach that you have adopted—to personally attack officials. We are happy to discuss the policy settings and will always answer questions in relation to that. My preference would be that we stick to the policy settings and perhaps refrain, just a little, from the very personal attacks that are too frequently offered towards staff and officials.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/WGQGBoBqBR8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-06-06 10:05:002024-06-26 08:03:54Retiring Defence Chief Campbell Leaves Military in a Mess
Last week (May 27 to June 1, 2024), the World Health Assembly (WHA77) of the World Health Organisation (WHO) debated two matters. The first was a new Pandemic Treaty designed to expand the powers of the WHO beyond pandemics, to include any health issue related to human, plant, or animal health, granting them the power to compel nations to comply with its directives. After two and a half years of negotiation, the Treaty was not brought to a vote and has been delayed for another year. This is a black eye to the nations, including Australia, that tried to subjugate Australian sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva and who are owned by pharmaceutical companies.
The second matter that passed involved changes to WHO’s operating manual, known as the International Health Regulations. The proposed changes would have granted the WHO similar powers to the Pandemic Treaty. These changes were also opposed by member states. The outcome were minor changes that take on board lessons learned from COVID and contains no loss of sovereignty. These changes will reduce the chance of a nation infecting the world with a virus while pretending nothing was wrong, as happened with COVID.
There are legal objections to the amendments passing. For instance, the notice given of the changes breached the WHO constitution, which poses a significant problem.
Yesterday at Estimates, I asked the officials who attended WHA77 about the comments made by Health Minister Mark Butler, where he called for stronger binding powers. Instead of addressing Minister Butler’s comment, their response focused on the measures that were passed, thereby avoiding the topic of “binding”. Let me help the bureaucrats out: binding (adjective) that which must be obeyed.
This is what they were avoiding saying: Minister Butler is calling for Australian sovereignty to be ceded to unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats on the other side of the world, as if they know better than our own health workers, here on the ground, what is best for Australia.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are in regard to Minister Butler’s comments at the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in Geneva last week and, following on from that, the World Health Organization’s attempts at pandemic treaties and international health regulation amendments. Minister Butler, at the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in Geneva last week, made the following comments: We are fully committed to concluding the World Health Organization pandemic agreement. Together, we have made considerable progress in our shared ambition towards a set of binding international commitments for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Could you please explain to me what he means by the word ‘binding’?
Prof. Kelly: I was present in the room in Geneva when the minister made that statement that you’ve quoted. I must say it was one of the proudest moments I’ve ever had as an Australian to hear our own minister for health at such an assembly defending and encouraging the world to think about multilateralism to protect us from the next pandemic. That’s what the changes to the International Health Regulations that went through the assembly by the end of last week and the continued work on the pandemic agreement represent. If we think about a global pandemic, the only way to protect Australians in the best way is to be part of a global approach to preparing for the next pandemic, for putting in place things that can respond quickly and appropriately and for the whole world to have the same direction. I’ll pass on to my colleague Mr Ross Hawkins, who will be able to give more detail on the specifics of your question.
Senator ROBERTS: Can someone answer that specific point about ‘binding’?
Mr Hawkins: Within the formation of the IHR, there are elements that are binding on nation states, and we can go to the process that this would need to go through in terms of its adoption within Australia and what that looks like in terms of JSCOT processes. It’s important to note there are certain elements in there that we would look to commit to. These are things that Australia is already doing. But largely, this is around the kind of multinational approach that Professor Kelly took us through there and getting a sense of commitment across the globe on how we deal with global health issues. With the notion of the binding elements within the IHR, there’s elements regarding the establishment of an IHR authority, which Australia has in its interim CDC. It talks about the strengthening of frameworks—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me? Could you explain that, please—’which Australia has’?
Mr Hawkins: Yes. Professor Kelly will take us through the interim CDC that we have, and that will be—
Senator ROBERTS: CDC being the Australian CDC?
Mr Hawkins: Centre for Disease Control, correct.
Senator ROBERTS: But Australia’s?
Mr Hawkins: Correct. I think it’s really important for us to establish that there is no change in the IHRs to the way that member states adopt within national legislation what this would look like. There is no power grab by the WHO. This is actually around how we will adopt this within Australia, or what we’re already doing in Australia to strengthen our surveillance and prevention and preparedness for a global pandemic.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand there’s no power grab. It started off as an enormous power grab, but it got watered down because the African nations told them to go to hell, basically.
Mr Hawkins: I would—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, that’s not parliamentary and not appropriate for this committee.
Senator ROBERTS: The African nations said they wouldn’t be supporting it.
Mr Hawkins: I would not agree. We’ve seen the various iterations of this. Let’s be honest, the IHRs have existed since 1969. They had an iteration in 2005, and this is the latest iteration in 2024. They are there in place to protect us with respect to trade and travel across the globe. These are things that protect Australians. It’s not a power grab by the WHO. There is a genuine sense that from a multilateral perspective all nations take a similar approach to how we deal with surveillance and preparedness.
Senator ROBERTS: So, what does ‘binding’ mean?
Mr Hawkins: As I’ve described to you, there are various elements within the current form of the IHRs that Australia would look to comply with.
Senator ROBERTS: So we would cede our sovereignty on those issues?
Mr Hawkins: As I’ve reiterated, let me please read to you what sits in article 3, which is really clear, within the IHRs that ‘states have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies’. It is enshrined in here that we are not ceding sovereignty.
Senator ROBERTS: So ‘binding’ denotes penalties for noncompliance, I assume. What penalties should be applied to countries that refuse to do as the WHO tells us in the event we don’t agree the instruction is in our best interests? Where are you drawing the line on penalties?
Mr Hawkins: There’s no penalty.
Senator ROBERTS: So what makes them binding?
Mr Hawkins: This is under international law and this is part of that broader international framework. But sitting within the current formation of the IHR there is no penalty.
Senator ROBERTS: Within the current formation of the IHR?
Mr Hawkins: Within the formation that’s just been agreed within the World Health Assembly.
Senator ROBERTS: So we have an initial IHR that goes back to 2007. I note the earlier ones—
Mr Hawkins: 2005
Senator ROBERTS: but it goes back to 2007. Then they tried to bring in very strong amendments, and the Africans and other nations said no, and they’ve watered it back almost to the same as in 2007 is my understanding.
Mr Hawkins: No, that’s not my understanding. We would go by what is an official document. The 2005 IHRs were accepted and agreed. There have been amendments historically to the IHR that have taken place over time. It’s just that with the nature of COVID and with the work that Helen Clark did in terms of broader preparedness—
Senator ROBERTS: Helen Clark, the former New Zealand Prime Minister?
Mr Hawkins: Correct, working for the WHO. This is all work that’s taken place in terms of the broader approach to the IHRs and to the pandemic agreement around what’s needed to strengthen the global response to COVID. This is the work that’s clearly taken place over that time, and the formation through this process two years ago. This is the kind of process that people have gone through over a significant amount of time in order to ensure that we’ve got robust global controls in place.
Senator ROBERTS: If I have time at the end, perhaps we can come back to the World Health Organization’s process, because it’s not as you said it is; it’s not innocent. Health is constantly—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I do need to allow the official a chance to respond to that, please. Mr Hawkins.
Mr Hawkins: I’m sorry. I’m giving you the information that’s available to me. The majority of this is available on the World Health Organization website. I’m trying to respond to you. I’m not trying to hide from you anything that doesn’t or—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not accusing you of doing that.
Mr Hawkins: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Not at all. I’m just saying we differ in our opinions. I’ve had other advice that’s very solid on the process. We’ve been monitoring the process for the last two-and-a-bit years.
Prof. Kelly: Senator, if I could also correct the statement you made about the African nations? As my colleague has said, this process has been going for the last two years specifically around the IHRs. It is a negotiation. Many views have been placed on the table. On Saturday, 194 member states of the WHO—and it’s a member organisation—voted unanimously to adopt those changes by consensus, plus the Holy See and Liechtenstein. So there were 196, actually. There was a block of African nations who were concerned about some of the issues related to the proposed changes, but in the end it was adopted by consensus.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll come to that later, but my understanding is that some months ago, even a year ago, the Africans said, ‘No way.’ The UN World Health Organization requires consensus. As a result of the African bloc and some European countries and a lot of people around the world being upset, the World Health Organization trimmed its demands and now we’ve gone back to something that’s fairly simple. As I said, let’s get into that at the end.
Senator Gallagher: It’s an agreement, and it’s not unusual in multilateral forums for negotiations to land in a particular way. In my experience, that is prevalent in every single international negotiation.
Senator ROBERTS: Agreed, but what happened here was the Africans told them they would not agree to the previously very strong changes, and they’ve watered them back as a result of that. Health is constitutionally a state matter. External affairs powers allow the Commonwealth government to make certain treaties. Was there any attempt in the minister’s rush to sign away our sovereignty to get agreement from the rights holders from the states?
Mr Comley: Can I just intervene for a moment here. Responsibility for dealing with the technicalities of international law and all constitutional advice is actually a matter for the Attorney-General’s Department.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I just said.
Mr Comley: I’m respectfully suggesting that if you have a detailed question around that it should be put at the estimates for Attorney-General’s Department. We can help you with what we understand by the current state as we’ve advised. If I just go back a step, as to the point that I think Mr Hawkins was trying to make at the start—and it goes to language—’binding’ is often used in international conferences, but no international instrument or treaty can change Australia’s Constitution nor prevail over Australian laws without it being adopted into Australian law. When it gets adopted into—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the key point.
Mr Comley: That is the key point, which I don’t think we are disputing. This comes to the point of sovereignty and comes to the point that, if we were going through a process of adopting an international law, the standard process goes through a consultation process, including through JSCOT and engaging with relevant stakeholders. On your observation about constitutional responsibility for health—there is a mixed responsibility in the Constitution because there are powers that allow Commonwealth health benefits for individuals. I don’t want to go much further into that because I think I’m straying into what is a constitutional interpretation of the roles. The fundamental point here is that international agreements have to be adopted into Australian law. They go through a process, including JSCOT. If they’re adopted through that JSCOT process they become binding in that country. When the minister says we want a binding agreement, he is urging the international community to follow through with the commitment they’ve made in the conference to adopt those into their domestic law. Some countries may ultimately choose not to, and then that will come back to that body. This is not unusual in international law. In my previous lives doing climate change, there were times when there’s been a change of administration in countries that have led them to decide whether they would stay as a ratified member of a treaty. The process is quite clear. At the point in time they were in the agreement that was the intention of all the parties, to make the binding commitment. My experience in international negotiations is that countries do not make a commitment lightly, even though there may be domestic processes to give effect to it.
Senator ROBERTS: What you’ve done just then, Mr Comley, is actually reinforce my comment that it is an external affairs power, but the states are involved in health. My question was very simple: have the states been consulted on these changes? Are the states involved in the process? That was my only question. Is there an answer?
Mr Hawkins: There is. We’ve consulted the states and territories. I’ve personally been on two teleconferences with them to talk them through the broad approach, noting that obviously, as already outlined by Senator Gallagher and Mr Comley, these things often form part of a negotiation that took place at the WHA. But we’ve been talking with states and territory officials around this process.
Senator ROBERTS: The minister also said: We have a strong basis on which to finalise important amendments to the international health regulations this week. I urge all member states to redouble their efforts to agree on critical reforms to our global health architecture, because we simply cannot afford to fail. Why can’t we afford to fail? Is he saying that our Australian health department is incapable of running a pandemic response in Australia all by itself without the big daddy World Health Organization telling us what to do?
Senator Gallagher: Senator ROBERTS, I wasn’t there; perhaps Professor Kelly is better placed to answer. The way I understand those comments is to say that protection of the Australian people relies on a global response to pandemic management. We’re not immune from what happens in other parts of the world, as we have experienced in the last pandemic.
Senator ROBERTS: And the World Health Organization—
Senator Gallagher: So it’s around national security and national safety and protection of the Australian population.
Senator ROBERTS: The World Health Organization, in the last outbreak with COVID, was telling us there was no human-to-human transmission and that there was nothing to see at first. That delayed the response in other countries. The World Health Organization is guilty of that. They’re a corrupt criminal organisation.
CHAIR: You have your views on that, Senator ROBERTS, and I don’t seek to convince you otherwise, but we—
Senator ROBERTS: You’d be going against the facts.
Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t agree with you on that.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re two factually correct statements.
Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t agree with the comments you’ve made about the World Health Organization. I think the minister for health has represented Australia’s national interest at that international forum, and for good reasons. It’s about the protection of the Australian people.
Prof. Kelly: What was agreed on Saturday morning—and Australia was one of 194 countries member states of the WHO, being a member state institution; it’s not a big daddy, as you suggested, it is guided by the member states—under the WHO and other UN arrangements we have a year to go through all of those processes we’ve talked about in terms of Australian legal requirements. We are not safe unless everyone is safe. An infectious disease has no borders. As we know from our experience in the COVID pandemic, we closed our border and it caused a lot of disruption in other ways. We had to reopen our border and, as soon as we did, the virus appeared. It can only be by working internationally with all other countries that we can deal with a pandemic like that, and we will have other ones in the future. These amendments that were made through long negotiations right up to and including last Friday night were successful in getting those things over the line. I’m very happy that’s the case. I’ll reiterate my statement that it was one of my proudest moments as an Australian witnessing that Australian leadership at ministerial level, at officials’ level, to get those negotiations completed.
CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, at this point I am due to rotate the call. If you wish to seek another call in this section, I will come back to you.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/5eF3gK9_398/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-06-06 10:04:002024-06-26 08:13:02Minister Butler Remains a Puppet for WHO
The government is in complete denial that migration has fuelled the housing crisis, keeping Australians out of affordable houses.
518,000 net overseas migrants arrived to Australia in the 2022-23 financial year. In October 2022, the government predicted net migrants would be 283,000 less than that. That means an additional 110,000 homes are needed just for the extra 283,000 arrivals that weren’t forecasted alone, plus all of the other arrivals.
There are 2.3 million visa holders likely to require housing in the country right now, yet the government won’t accept responsibility for causing the housing crisis.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Going back to my questions on immigration numbers—and I acknowledge the Treasury secretary admitted quite clearly that Treasury had made a mistake—specifically, do you realise that the number of people who arrived here above your forecast meant that 100,000 extra homes were needed? You basically got the immigration forecast wrong by 100,000 homes and now we’re in a housing crisis, Minister.
Senator Gallagher: Sorry; I thought that was to Treasury. Please repeat it.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you realise that the amount of people who arrived here above the Treasury forecast error meant that an extra 100,000 extra homes were needed? You got the immigration forecast wrong by 100,000 homes, and now we’re in a housing crisis and working families are sleeping in their cars.
Senator Gallagher: I think the housing crisis and the challenges in the housing market have been coming for some time. I don’t think it’s happened overnight, and so fixing it does not happen overnight.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that, but why did you get the immigration so wrong? You’re still getting record immigration when you’re adding 100,000 new houses to the demand.
Senator Gallagher: I think Treasury has explained about forecasting, the fact that it wasn’t foreseen and that many other countries have experienced a similar phenomenon in terms of population and pressure on population coming from migration and from people remaining in country. I think that was explored earlier in the day. So we have to do two things One is to get the numbers back to a more sustainable level. That’s happening through a variety of interventions. The other thing is that we have to build more houses—and that is happening as well—to take the pressure off the housing situation in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: The number was wrong. It means 100,000 more houses needed just in one year.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t know that you can just say that that is the number. I accept there is absolutely not enough housing at the moment and that that is placing people under enormous pressure and we have to fix that. That’s why a big focus of the budget is on homes for Australia.
Recently, I spoke in the Senate regarding the impact of this summer’s flooding on the coral reef. Coral polyps are saltwater creatures. When floodwaters impact the reef, it introduces fresh water, cold temperatures and sediment, all of which cause coral bleaching. El Niño (ENSO cycles) causes a reduction in clouds, resulting in higher solar radiation, higher temperatures, and coral bleaching.
Both of these are cyclical and not caused by human activity. Yet the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) appear to be focusing solely on the “climate change is causing warming temperatures and coral bleaching” argument instead of presenting the broader picture.
I was reassured that the GBRMPA accepts that ENSO cycles play a role in coral bleaching. I look forward to more honesty and transparency on this issue from the BOM, CSIRO and the globalist controlled Australian Institute of Marine Science.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Let me start with a simple question: can floodwaters entering the reef from the 28 river systems that discharge onto the reef in a rain event, such as a tropical cyclone, cause coral bleaching, either through fresh water itself, through very low floodwater temperature, or through high nutrient levels or turbidity or sediment?
Mr Thomas: There can certainly be initial freshwater bleaching from flood events.
Mr Quincey: And we did see some of that this year with the cyclones in the north.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s true that corals also bleach from water that is too cold, isn’t it? I can remember that in June 2008 that there were record cold temperatures in various parts of Queensland and the Northern Territory, including southern Queensland, and the southern Great Barrier Reef bleached because of the cold weather.
Mr Thomas: I’m not sure of that particular example. But, yes, bleaching is certainly a stress response that can be triggered by a range of different things. Most recently, though, our biggest concerns have been about warmer waters, not colder waters.
Senator ROBERTS: Was any of the coral bleaching that was evident on the reef in the first quarter of 2024 caused by freshwater and salt intrusion?
Mr Thomas: Yes, as Mr Quincey said. Probably because of flood events prior to and post Christmas in in the north, there would have been some initial freshwater bleaching. I don’t have specific details of that in front of me, though.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Was any of the coral bleaching in the first quarter caused by pesticides or other chemical run-off from farming areas?
Mr Thomas: Direct attribution of those impacts would be difficult for me to provide here today, but we could take some of that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Please. According to a paper from the University of Queensland, simplified: The most devastating mass coral bleaching has occurred during El Niño events … However, El Niño itself does not cause SSTs— sea surface temperatures— to rise in all regions that experience bleaching. Nor is the upper ocean warming trend of 0.11°C per decade since 1971 … sufficient alone to exceed the thermal tolerance of corals. This paper shows that a major contributing factor is El Nino reducing cloud cover, causing ‘higher than average air temperatures and higher than average atmospheric pressures’ and playing ‘a crucial role in determining the extent and location of coral bleaching’ on the reef. Is that a fair statement?
Mr Thomas: I’m not aware of that particular paper. Did you say it was the University of Queensland?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Thomas: I’m not aware of it. I’m sorry. But we would be very interested to read more about it.
Senator ROBERTS: We can get it to you.
Mr Thomas: Yes, please.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you accept natural, cyclical ENSO events play a crucial role in coral bleaching?
Mr Thomas: We would have to defer to climate scientists around the particular localised impacts and how they’ve played out on the Great Barrier Reef.
Senator ROBERTS: Localised impacts, not global?
Mr Thomas: For how those significant meteorological phenomena impact the Great Barrier Reef in particular, I would need to consult with other relevant experts.
Senator ROBERTS: According to the Bureau of Meteorology document ‘124 years of Australian rainfall’, there’s no trend. There’s no pattern. It’s just cyclical. There’s no trend whatsoever, down or up. It’s just natural variation, influenced by cycles. In the last five years, we’ve had three La Ninas. Your website, under the heading ‘What causes coral bleaching?’, makes the comment: The biggest cause of coral bleaching in the past 20 years has been rising water temperatures. On notice if you wish, please provide how much water temperature has increased in the last 20 years, including average and range, showing any spikes that may have occurred.
Mr Thomas: Thank you. We will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Something like that, maybe?
Mr Thomas: I’m not sure I can reproduce that exactly, but we’ll certainly take that—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I wouldn’t expect you to reproduce it.
Mr Thomas: We will certainly try to take an—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Have you tested those spike temperatures that may have led to bleaching against the ENSO cycle? Have you correlated them?
Mr Quincey: I couldn’t answer now, but we would most likely consult with our colleagues not only in the Bureau of Meteorology but in the CSIRO and the Australian Institute of Marine Science, who do some of that work.
Mr Thomas: We’re not the authors of some of these reports. We work with those relevant institutions. We pull that information together. We try to synthesise it and make the best assessments we can on how we can hone our programs and better manage the Great Barrier Reef into the future. With some of the specificity and science you’re referring to, we really would need to speak to some of our experts.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. This is the last question. The bleaching impact statement on your website, which you describe as ‘a framework to describe and categorise coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef’, only includes one factor: heat stress, which you attribute to climate change, ignoring these other crucially important factors. Is this about blaming bleaching on climate change, which is well-funded, and ignoring the role of natural cycles, which carries no funding? We’ve heard the United Nations say that the planet is now boiling.
Mr Thomas: Is your question about whether our framework for understanding coral bleaching is limited to heat stress?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it seems that it’s only limited to heat stress.
Mr Quincey: It has it there as heat stress, but the exposure blocks the subtleties of exactly what you’re talking about—about light intensity and exposure and cloud cover. Also, on our website, we really try to convey that local and regional weather in particular places has a large bearing on the outcomes that we see each summer, and those factors play into that.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/K_nVTjOJQus/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-06-06 10:02:002024-06-10 15:33:54Natural Cyclical Events Impact More Than Human Activity
I questioned the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) about their claims that almost every company in Australia is paying women less than men. Their data doesn’t compare how much a man and a woman working the same job at the same company gets paid. Its completely misleading and doesn’t account for choices, preferences, hours worked, overtime, danger, or the fact that paying women less than men has been illegal for decades, as the WGEA admitted to me.
With 78% of the workforce at the WGEA being female, it sounds like they shouldn’t be lecturing anyone in the country on gender equality while they completely fail to achieve it themselves.
Transcript
CHAIR: Yes. Senator ROBERTS.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My questions are fairly simple. It is illegal to pay men and women differently because of their sex in Australia, isn’t it?
Senator Gallagher: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: How long has that been the case?
Senator Gallagher: It has been since the late sixties.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the data you publish on comparing male pay versus female pay on a like-for-like job basis?
Ms Wooldridge: No, it very clearly is not and it doesn’t intend to be.
Senator ROBERTS: So you could, for example, publish airline employees. The majority of pilots are men at the moment—women are increasing—and the majority of hostesses are female, so it would show it skewed towards the men, because pilots are paid more than hostesses.
Ms Wooldridge: That’s absolutely right; that is the gender pay gap.
Senator Gallagher: That’s the point.
Senator ROBERTS: How is that the point?
Ms Wooldridge: That is what the gender pay gap calculates. It is not seeking to calculate a like-for-like comparison. The definition is—let’s say we are doing an average gender pay gap—the average salaries of all men and the average salaries of all women and a comparison between the two. That is the simple, clear definition of the gender pay gap.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s not a like-for-like basis. It doesn’t accommodate hours. Men tend to work more hours and tend to be in more dangerous jobs, generally.
Ms Wooldridge: Our calculation annualises part-time or part-year earnings to an annualised full-time equivalent basis so that it does account and allow for the differences and make a fair comparison for people who are working non-full-time versus full-time—that is very clear—but it is not a like-for-like comparison, and it doesn’t seek to make that comparison.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it then misleading?
Ms Wooldridge: Not when the definition of what we are calculating is very clear. We are very clear on what the gender pay gap seeks to calculate. As I said earlier, it is not a perfect measure; it is a proxy for gender equality. With the clarity of what the definition is then people can understand what the percentage reflects.
Senator ROBERTS: So if a male pilot and a female pilot had similar experience—number of years—similar qualifications, they would be paid the same; they would have to be.
Ms Wooldridge: Well, certainly that is the law and our expectation. I’m sure the government’s expectation is that companies do fulfil that requirement of equal pay for equal work because it has been the law for more than 50 years.
Senator ROBERTS: Right, so where is the gender pay gap?
Ms Wooldridge: The gender pay gap is driven by a combination of the composition of the workforce and the relativities of the pay for that composition.
Senator ROBERTS: But isn’t it erroneous to say that women are paid less than men if, in fact, for equivalent jobs on a like-for-like basis and hours worked, they are paid the same?
Ms Wooldridge: We are very clear in our communications that we will say women are paid less on average than men by an employer, in an industry, in an occupation, when we describe the gender pay gap.
Senator ROBERTS: I have been to some pretty advanced statistics classes, but you don’t have to do that to realise that averages can hide a lot. Averages can misinform and mislead.
Ms Wooldridge: Absolutely, so, once again, the gender pay gap is a proxy that commences a conversation about what is driving those differences. We talked earlier with Senator Hume about how the employer statement gives employers a mechanism by which they can then say what is driving the differences in their composition or in their pay and remuneration rates, and what things they are undertaking to address those differences.
Senator ROBERTS: So are you trying to drive more female pilots and more male hosts?
Ms Wooldridge: I don’t usually comment on individual companies, but Qantas, after the publishing of its gender pay gaps, did announce a policy to attract more female pilots into its ranks as a reflection of those very high-paying roles being currently very male dominated.
Senator ROBERTS: So the gender pay gap name-and-shame list that you publish doesn’t account for the amount of hours actually worked or overtime, does it?
Ms Wooldridge: As I said, Senator, what we published was the median salary for women and the median salary for men or total remuneration and base salary—we did two calculations and the per cent differences between the two. That was the data that was published for each employer.
Senator Gallagher: It is not a name-and-shame list; it’s the data that is available to WGEA. People choose to use it how they choose to use it, but it’s information that we believe is an important to support the work that’s being done to narrow the gender pay gap in the country.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s really a tool to use to push an agenda? That’s a-g-e-n-d-a not ‘a gender’.
Ms Wooldridge: It’s an internationally used measure around the world. As I said, the UK government six years ago started publishing gender pay gaps of their employers using a similar methodology. It’s one that has been used in Australia for the last 15 or 20 years in terms of its calculation. It’s a reflection of the relationship between what men and women earn and their responsibilities in the workforce.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, it will only be that—a reflection of what men and women earn and their responsibilities—if it were like for like, and it’s not like for like. It’s misleading.
Ms Wooldridge: I suppose I don’t agree with that, Senator.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t either.
Ms Wooldridge: The calculation is very clear—the methodology used for the calculation—and we are very clear that it doesn’t seek to do a like-for-like. In fact, one thing that we’re very pleased about is that the conversation has moved from a like-for-like comparison—because that is the law, and it has been the law for 50 years, and companies should be complying with the law—to actually get to the differences about the structural inequalities that are driving the fact that we have a gender pay gap, as calculated and as described, across both the nation and in every industry across Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Do we have a gender pay gap, which implies that we are paying women less than men for the same job, or do we have a gap in skills and preferences for work?
Senator Gallagher: Well, women workers do earn less on average than men, the male workers.
Senator ROBERTS: Not like for like in Australia.
Senator Gallagher: Nobody other than you is suggesting that we are measuring like for like. Nobody is.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the way—
Senator Gallagher: Ms Wooldridge and I, when we do media on this, make it very clear what the gender pay gap consists of. Nobody is saying that equal pay is not being offered to women—although in some cases we’ve got rid of pay secrecy clauses and some of the other arrangements that did, I think, disadvantage women in that regard. This is about giving a snapshot in industries, in business, about what is actually happening with their workforce. The facts are the facts. And yes, we are pushing an agenda. The agenda is to make sure that women get the same opportunities as men through the work that they do, including dealing with the very gender segregated nature of our labour force.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you concerned that if you actually published real comparable data about how much men and women working the same job at the same company get paid, it would show there is no gender pay gap, because it’s illegal and there would be no need for your agency, so you’d be wound down? I’m serious.
Ms Wooldridge: No.
Senator Gallagher: Nothing would give me more pleasure.
Ms Wooldridge: I’m not the slightest bit concerned about that. In fact, what companies say to us is that they do work hard on the like-for-like pay, and they have to remain vigilant each and every year because discrepancies arise. It’s not a set and forget, and they do work hard on it. That’s absolutely fundamental. It’s a component of the gender pay gap, but it’s not the whole gender pay gap. We need to look beyond like-for-like pay to understand what else is driving the inequalities that mean men and women have a 21.7 per cent differential in their average total remuneration.
Senator ROBERTS: Right, so give me a hand here. You would agree that men and women are not the same and that their differences are things to cherish. If you are a company that employs only men, you are missing out on the talents of women. So isn’t it better, rather than distort the figures, to somehow encourage companies to employ women for the same job?
Senator Gallagher: Nobody is distorting the figures—
Senator ROBERTS: But it’s not like for like.
Senator Gallagher: The figures are the information that’s provided by the employer to WGEA, which WGEA then publish. Nobody is distorting figures. I think employers on the whole, including some I’ve spoken to since their data being published, are interested in this because they see the benefits that come from a more genderbalanced workforce, for sure. But we’re also dealing with a lot of history and choices made about what jobs suit what gender. There’s a whole range of things going on here that WGEA’s publication of this information supports further action on so that we are able to deal with the different components that lead to the gender pay gap in the country.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the gender breakdown of your agency’s workforce?
Ms Wooldridge: At the moment, we’re 78 per cent women and 22 per cent men. We continue to seek to improve that balance in our recruitment processes.
Senator ROBERTS: You are familiar with the gender pay gap. Why is it so difficult, Minister, for men’s groups and shelters—this is not to do with welfare payments or mental health and such—to get support for mental health for men? Men are stigmatised in that field.
Senator Gallagher: In the area of mental health?
Senator ROBERTS: Mental health support, shelters—it’s almost impossible to get the money for men.
Senator Gallagher: I think that’s probably a question that we can deal with in health when we get there, because they would be the providers. I absolutely agree that responses and support for mental health need to be targeted to particular demographics. Men certainly experience mental health concerns at very high levels. I think there are targeted supports and interventions tailored to men, but health would be the obvious area for that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll be asking Health and other places. It’s just that I know men’s groups find it very, very difficult to get support, whereas women’s groups find it very easy to get support.
Senator Gallagher: I think both women’s and men’s groups would argue that they are after more support. We’ve been going through that with Senator Waters this morning.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/A0rVyBaB0hg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-06-06 10:01:002024-06-06 15:48:20The Gender Pay Gap is a Myth – Only Exists in DODGY Statistics
The woke and under-fire boss of Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) has installed 58 electric vehicle chargers at Parliament House, using $2.5 million of your money. This is despite only 2.8% of the vehicles in Canberra (the wokest city in Australia) being able to use the chargers.
I find it concerning that I needed to remind DPS Secretary, Rob Stefanic, that the money he’s using for these chargers belong to Australian taxpayers, not a pot of money that replenishes magically. His “out of touch” attitude regarding the chargers he’s installing and the origin of the funds is troubling.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Let’s move on to electric vehicle chargers. I’d like to return to the 58 electric vehicle chargers—that’s 58—that you’ve installed, Mr Stefanic, at Parliament House. Can I confirm you haven’t installed any petrol or diesel pumps?
Mr Stefanic: No, we have not.
Senator Roberts: So 2.8 per cent of the vehicles registered in Canberra are electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids. It seems to be a weird policy priority to spend $2.5 million on installation of EV chargers. Do you think your policy is out of touch with the reality of the types of vehicles that are in use in the ACT and Canberra?
Mr Stefanic: Sometimes planning for a future state is important, and, given the take-up of electric vehicles within the country and particularly the rate of take-up within the ACT, I would have thought it to be prudent planning.
Senator Roberts: What is the mix of seven-kilowatt and 22-kilowatt chargers? How many of each are installed?
Mr Stefanic: I’d have to take that on notice. I’m not across the technical aspects of it.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. As to question on notice 114, your cashflow statement is anticipating $160,000 in employee expenses and nearly $170,000 in the following year. Why do Australian taxpayers need to pay $330,000 in employee wages over the next two years for these EV chargers?
Mr Stefanic: The business case for the chargers is a cost-recover over the long term. So, while it is an initial investment of Commonwealth funds, there is a recovery anticipated as part of that.
Senator Roberts: So Commonwealth funds come from taxpayers, or loans.
Mr Stefanic: They come from consolidated revenue, yes.
Senator Roberts: Which comes from taxpayers. It’s a bit of a concern that it seems to be awkward to actually admit that it comes from taxpayers. Charging lithium batteries is a fire safety risk. Who did the assessment of the fire safety risk and mitigation for these chargers? Can you please provide those details on notice.
Mr Stefanic: I know that all the appropriate engineering approvals were obtained, but I can get that detail for you on notice.
Senator Roberts: I’d like to know who did the assessment in particular of the fire safety risk and mitigation. What is the plan if a charging station charging vehicles catches fire? Firefighters are telling us, all over the world, that they are nearly impossible to extinguish.
Mr Stefanic: I believe all relevant risks were considered during the engineering assessment of the charging facility, but otherwise I’d have to take the detail of that question on notice.
Senator Roberts: Yes, please. Are you introducing a fire risk by installing 58 of these chargers into Parliament House, given the difficulties of putting out lithium fires? Perhaps take it on notice.
Mr Stefanic: Yes, I will take that on notice.
Senator Roberts: Given that only 2.8 per cent of the vehicles in Canberra can use these chargers, I think it is completely out of touch to spend $2½ million of taxpayers’ money on 58 of them at Parliament House. There are far more important things to be spending money on.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/otNhoGiYhvs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-06-06 08:39:082024-06-06 08:39:11$2.5 Million EV Chargers Installed at Parliament House, Serving Just 2.8% of Vehicles
For years, I’ve been trying to get the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to admit responsibility for allowing vaccine mandates on pilots, and the risk of injury that comes with that. I’ve been shocked at how evasive, argumentative and secretive CASA has been over this simple issue, that there is a risk of injury from vaccines, therefore making them mandatory introduces a level of risk into the cockpit.
CASA has lied, refused to answer questions they could have answered, and hidden witnesses from inquiry. As you can see from this session, there is a protection racket in place for this failure of an agency and Australian pilots are suffering hugely as a result.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Could I have Dr Manderson to the desk, please. Dr Manderson, I asked you previously about the risk of myocarditis because you claimed to pilots that there was a higher chance of getting myocarditis from COVID than from the vaccine. I provided you with a systematic review that refutes that. It’s entitled, ‘COVID-19—associated cardiac pathology at the postmortem evaluation: a collaborative systematic review’. It was published in the Clinical Microbiology and Infection journal on 23 March 2022. I asked you to provide me with the evidence you had to base your previous statement about myocarditis on. That was in SQ23-004809. You undertook to provide the evidence that you had, but in the answer you simply referred to the TGA, not to evidence you had assessed to make the comment you made. I’d like to ask: did you write the answer to SQ23-004809 or did CASA officials?
Ms Spence: I think we provided a follow-up answer to that and we advised that the response was provided consistent with the requirements of the standing orders around responding to Senate estimates questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Who did you provide that to?
Ms Spence: That was the answer to 00268 from committee question No. 254.
Senator ROBERTS: Who wrote the first response?
Ms Spence: The question was directed to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority provided that response. That’s consistent with the guidelines for officials.
Senator ROBERTS: So who wrote the response?
Ms Spence: I approved the response.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that the guideline to responses that the government has just put out?
Ms Spence: No. These date back to February 2015. I can table that response if that would be helpful for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. In the interests of time, we won’t go through it now. One of the studies provided by the TGA in what you reference was from Anders Husby et al. It’s entitled ‘Clinical outcomes of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in four Nordic countries: population based cohort study’. Do you still stand behind that evidence to say that the incidence of myocarditis is lower?
Dr Manderson: Yes, I do.
Senator ROBERTS: When you actually read that study, it says nine of the 109 patients were readmitted to hospital with myocarditis after COVID, while 62 of 530 were readmitted with myocarditis after receiving the vaccination. That’s eight per cent for COVID myocarditis and 12 per cent for the COVID vaccine myocarditis. Fifty per cent more people were readmitted to the hospital with myocarditis after getting the jab than after getting COVID. The evidence you cited doesn’t appear to support your statement that there’s a higher chance of myocarditis from COVID than from the vaccine. Can you explain your contradiction?
Mr Marcelja: I’d like to make an important point before Dr Manderson answers that question. We have tried to explain to the committee on a number of occasions that CASA’s role, when it comes to vaccinations, is purely related to aviation safety. I can tell you again today that there is no link to aviation safety from the matters that you’re talking about. So, while Dr Manderson can express her medical view about the questions you’ve asked, they actually have no bearing on CASA’s role and CASA’s remit when it comes to vaccinating the population.
Senator ROBERTS: They have enormous bearing on Dr Manderson’s integrity.
Ms Spence: I find that commentary quite disappointing coming from a Senator, but we’ll allow—
Senator Carol Brown: The questions do appear to be out of order. Senator ROBERTS’s questions do not seem to be for CASA. They’re not part of CASA’s core duties. So they really need to be asked in another committee. He’s asking about— Senator McKENZIE interjecting—
ACTING CHAIR: Let the minister finish.
Senator Carol Brown: I’m asking the chair to rule whether Senator ROBERTS’s questions are in order for CASA.
Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I would point out that we have received hundreds of calls from pilots. We’ve received emails and letters. We’ve had person-to-person conversations. Pilots from both Qantas and Virgin are absolutely terrified by what the injections are doing to some of their pilots. This is a fundamental thing, and it goes back to Mr Marcelja some time ago and also to Dr Manderson.
ACTING CHAIR: Do you want to make a quick comment, Senator McKENZIE?
Senator McKENZIE: Yes, I do. Nothing the minister has mentioned goes to the standing orders and whether anything that Senator ROBERTS has asked is in breach of the standing orders. Therefore he has the right in this committee to ask public officials, who earn a lot of money—more than most of the people around this table—to answer the questions on behalf of the constituency that he represents in this place. I would expect that the officials are very experienced and are very patient and will be able to respond to Senator ROBERTS’s questions.
ACTING CHAIR: We will keep going with the line of questioning. I was also going to say that, if there are any particular areas that you, as experienced officials, feel are better answered by another agency or another department, please flag that with us here. I don’t think it’s our role to tell senators what they can and can’t ask, but we’re going to leave it to your judgement too. I think the minister’s concern is that maybe some of these questions may be more appropriate in another committee throughout this fortnight of estimates. Anyway, let’s continue. Senator ROBERTS, you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Regardless of what’s in that study, is it your academic opinion, Dr Manderson, that a collaborative systematic review can be completely nullified by a single population based cohort study?
Dr Manderson: A single population based cohort study is one piece of evidence within many thousands of pieces of evidence that have been published around COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis related to that. It would be scientifically and academically incorrect to rely on a single study or even a single piece of information within a single study to be selectively reported and base an entire policy decision or clinical opinion on that cherry-picked small piece of information. It’s a really fundamental part of research and critical analysis that you understand the breadth and the depth of clinical information that’s reported in the literature, how the reporting is done and even the fundamentals of analysis of individual articles relating to things like sources of bias and sources of statistical significance and relevance in that sort of thing. So a single study should never be relied on and a single piece of data within a single study should never be relied on. It is the breadth of information from a range of clinical literature as well as its interpretation and application—it’s called the concept of generalisability and applicability—to a population, as it applies to a group, when you’re forming an opinion, using that information, as to how it applies to your cohort.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I understand all the terms you use, believe it or not. You didn’t answer my question. You went around it with a lot of terms. Is it your academic opinion that a collaborative systematic review can be completely nullified by a single population based cohort study? Which would you put more credence in?
Dr Manderson: A collaborative systematic review—sometimes we call those meta-analyses—is given more weight in terms of evidentiary power, I suppose, than a single study. The more data points you get from the more studies that are published and analysed, the more reliable the evidence will be.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t think a systematic review, which I provided, trumps a cohort study in the hierarchy of research?
Dr Manderson: A systematic review is as good as the review process and the way in which it’s done. So there are important academic guidelines on the way systematic reviews should be done. That goes to the inclusion criteria for the articles that they refer to, the way they analyse the data within the articles that they’ve referenced and that they’ve selected to include, and the way that they have controlled for selection bias in choosing those articles. So there are systematic reviews that are—
Senator ROBERTS: Single article-to-article comparison: which is more valid and carries more weight?
Dr Manderson: Unfortunately it’s not as simple as that. A poorly conducted systematic review is not as good as a well conducted cohort study.
Senator ROBERTS: Given equal quality, which one carries more weight?
Dr Manderson: If they’re both conducted with great quality and equivalent quality, then a meta-analysis and systematic review of multiple data points is better than a single analysis—if they are done with the same level of quality.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll move to my next question. None of the studies you referenced from the TGA were actually published at the time you made your statement to pilots about the risk of myocarditis. Did you actually have any evidence at the time you made the statement to pilots in February 2022? That’s what I asked. What evidence did you have? Nothing in your question on notice was available at that time—nothing. So what did you rely on?
Dr Manderson: By 2022, there had been tens of thousands of research articles published into COVID vaccines and the relationship between those and any adverse cardiac events. In particular, there were very large studies coming out of the countries that adopted COVID vaccination quite early. In particular, Hong Kong and Israel published a lot of data. That research was published in globally—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Dr Manderson—
ACTING CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, sorry, but we should allow the witness to conclude her answer.
Senator ROBERTS: She’s not answering the question.
ACTING CHAIR: It doesn’t matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Keep going.
ACTING CHAIR: Just hear her out, and then you’ll have an opportunity to ask her another question.
Dr Manderson: That evidence was published in globally highly regarded journals: the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal cardiology edition, the Lancet and the publications from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—the CDC. Those source articles formed the basis of the advice that was provided to medical practitioners in Australia by the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the advice from the chief health officer of Australia and the public health authorities of each state. In 2022, all of that information was available, and all of that information leading up to when I did that webinar was what I based that on.
Senator ROBERTS: Your diversion is classically known as an appeal to authority. You put so many appeals to authority, and that’s very, very clever, but I asked you a question—’at the time you made the statement to pilots’. That’s what I asked. You gave me a reference that was not available at the time you made that statement. I asked you just now: what evidence did you have, specifically, when you made that statement to pilots? Secondly, nothing in your question on notice was available at that time. Why?
ACTING CHAIR: I think Ms Spence wanted to add something before too. Ms Spence?
Ms Spence: Again, it goes to the direction that we’re going in with the conversation. I totally respect the importance of you being able to ask the questions, but I would like to put it on the record that every other country, every other national aviation authority, took the same approach that Australia did. We did not work in isolation in this space. I hear you’re talking about the information and discussion that Dr Manderson had with the pilots, but I’m struggling to understand what specific issue there is around the actions that CASA took during COVID, which, to me, would seem to be a far more important issue to get to the heart of. If you thought we’d done something wrong, something different or something unacceptable, I’d like to have that conversation, rather than a very detailed academic conversation around which of the thousand articles that were available at the time Dr Manderson relied on.
Senator CANAVAN: Chair, I would like to stress Senator McKENZIE’s point here. The witness is fine to raise a point of order, but any claim not to have to answer a question has to be grounded in the standing orders, precedents and practices of this Senate. Nothing you spoke about then, Ms Spence, did that. Otherwise, we’re just giving opportunities for people to cover themselves to avoid answering questions. I think Senator ROBERTS questions are perfectly fine. They’re about public statements made by witnesses, and that is definitely able to be asked about at Senate estimates inquiries.
ACTING CHAIR: Not to summarise, but I’m mindful of time, and I don’t want to spend too much time on this. I think the point Ms Spence was trying to make was that they’re happy to keep answering questions from Senator ROBERTS. I don’t think that’s in dispute. I think she was just trying to see if there was more available time, with the time we have, to help Senator ROBERTS answer his other questions. Can we just keep continuing? I don’t know where we left to. Senator ROBERTS, do you have another question for the witnesses before us?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I do. I have lots of questions. Ms Spence, you, Mr Marcelja and, I think, Dr Manderson have all said that the ultimate responsibility for aircraft safety in this country is with you three. With the COVID injections—that’s where this all started—it’s with you too. Specifically, Mr Marcelja, you told me in one of the Senate estimates responses that Dr Manderson is the chief medical expert. That’s where I’m going. Is that clear?
Ms Spence: Is there a question there, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: I’m responding to your comment. Was I clear?
Ms Spence: I’m sorry. I still really don’t understand the direction that you’re going in. I’m happy to keep answering questions.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t understand safety? Alright. Well, let’s continue. Ms Spence, I asked CASA in November 2023 to do a search of the medical record system in question SQ23-004943 for key conditions, and you told me that was not possible. That’s not true. CASA can do a free tech search of your medical records system for key terms, and report the amount of times a word appears. In fact you did exactly that in a February 2023 question on notice SQ23-003267, where you told me: During 2022 … there were 27 instances where pericarditis or myocarditis was mentioned in the clinical notes for a medical certificate assessment. Have you misled the committee on whether CASA can do a search for the terms I’ve asked for in the November question, given that you actually did that in February?
Mr Marcelja: If I recall, I answered that question. And what I told you, and I stand by today, is that our medical record system is not designed to capture those specific conditions and diseases in a way that reporting would be meaningful. While we could search the free text comments of our medical record system for those terms, those terms can appear in free text because a patient mentions them in a consultation because they believe they might have it, because of an actual diagnosis. We stand by the evidence we gave, which is that our medical record system doesn’t capture information on those specific diseases in a way that can be reported meaningfully. If you’d like to give me the reference of your question, I can reiterate the answer that we gave.
Senator ROBERTS: It is possible to do a search in your database for the words I’ve asked for in SQ23- 004943, like you did in SQ23-003267? I understand your comments. And you can provide an answer for how many times they are mentioned in the clinical notes from medical certificate assessments in 2022 and 2023. I’d like you to take it on notice and to provide it.
Ms Spence: If we do that it won’t be meaningful. Again, we’ll take it on notice, but what Mr Marcelja was saying was that any reference would be picked up, but it doesn’t mean that it’s actually related to that particular condition.
Mr Marcelja: I’ve got 4943 in front of me, and at the end of that question we say: Providing the information requested would require a … collation of free-text information from tens of thousands of records and would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Senator ROBERTS: Has CASA been provided with the guidebook circulated by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet giving advice on how to answer questions on notice?
Ms Spence: Not that I’m aware of. It’s certainly not been drawn to my attention. I did hear the questioning yesterday, but I haven’t seen the circular that was referred to.
Senator ROBERTS: If we go back to my first question of Mr Marcelja, I asked on what authority did Qantas and Virgin inject their pilots with an untested gene therapy based treatment that had not been approved by the TGA and that had not had testing done by the TGA or by the FDA in America. You said you relied upon experts. I said, ‘Which experts?’ You said, ‘Experts.’ I said, ‘Which experts?’ You said, ‘Experts.’ And when I said, ‘Which experts?’ for the fourth time, I think it was, you said, ‘International experts.’ Dr Manderson, which experts’ advice did CASA rely upon for turning an eye away from the mandated injections of healthy pilots with the COVID injections?
Mr Marcelja: I’d like to correct the statement you’ve made, because what I recall—and if you tell me the date I’ve the Hansard in front of me—telling you we had no role in intervening in the Australian government’s public health response to COVID. We did not intervene to prevent the vaccination of pilots, just like we do not intervene in the prevention of any other administration of any medicine or any vaccination. So if a pilot was to have an adverse reaction to a vaccination, the aviation safety response to that is that that pilot excludes themselves from flying. So that’s what our procedures are based on. We have no role in intervening in public health responses, mandating or not mandating the administration of vaccinations or any medicine, for that matter.
Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister at the time, Scott Morrison, said every night for about a fortnight, ‘There are no vaccine mandates in this country.’ That was a lie. But what I’m asking you is not whether or not you’re going to interfere in a vaccine mandate. What I’m asking you is: what were your reassurances that these vaccines—these injections—would not be unsafe to pilots? Did you do any high-altitude testing? What are the results of that?
Ms Spence: Senator—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking Mr Marcelja.
Ms Spence: Being responsible for the organisation, we treated the COVID vaccinations the same way that we treat all vaccinations. We do not do our own independent testing. What we do ensure is that the system works such that if there was an adverse reaction the pilot would not fly. I’ll be very clear here: as we’ve said at, I think, the last five hearings, there has not been, internationally, any evidence of any pilot being incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination while on duty.
Senator ROBERTS: There are 1,000. I was told by a lawyer working with Southwest Airlines in America that 1,000 pilots have not been able to pass their medical since getting their COVID shots.
Ms Spence: That’s not what I said.
Senator ROBERTS: There are lots of them.
Ms Spence: What I said was that there has not been a single example of a pilot being incapacitated on duty as a result of a COVID vaccination.
ACTING CHAIR: Senator, do you have more questions? I need to move the call around.
Senator ROBERTS: I do have some more questions, but if you move it round and come back to me that’s fine.
