At the May/June Senate Estimates I asked questions of the Coal LSL Board to establish that a person working under an Enterprise Agreement contract cannot receive benefits less than the agreed award for the same category.
Under the Black Coal Award there’s no category for casuals because casuals are not allowed to be employed under the Black Coal award.
The Board confirmed that they do not check which category a coal miner works when calculating long service entitlements, merely accepting what the employer tells Coal LSL.
All this contributes to coal miners being exploited in not getting their entitlements.
Ten medical professionals have had their registrations suspended by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) simply because they spoke out about the COVID injection risks — 4 doctors, 5 nurses and 1 pharmacist.
Even now, AHPRA officials remain in denial about the risks that these injections pose, despite the growing body of evidence that contradicts the marketing slogan of safe and effective.
Australians forced against their will into getting these shots to continue their job, education or see family and loved ones did not have the benefit of ‘honest advice’. Although they should have been able to freely discuss their needs, they were not given this opportunity because the statement AHPRA put out to clarify existing health advice and media coverage around it served to effectively muzzle healthcare providers through fear.
At no time did the agencies involved in providing public health advice reassure medical professionals or their patients that they still had the right to privacy and confidentiality. Patients receiving medical advice before undergoing treatment were entitled to be warned of risk.
Let’s not forget these injections were only provisionally approved due to the experimental nature of the mRNA and vector technology. If our best and brightest medical professionals are feeling silenced by government bodies that will punish any criticism of novel medicines, what have we become?
We now know the jab roll-out is a military/health response which is why it by-passed the usual safety protocols. These were products that were not ready to be injected into the arms of people and yet the only ones protected are the manufacturers.
It’s time for the Health Minister, AHPRA, TGA and ATAGI to loosen the stranglehold they have on our healthcare professionals and let them be free to do their jobs. Australians deserve nothing less.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing today, Mr Fletcher. How many health practitioners has AHPRA suspended for being outspoken, contrary to the joint statement of 9 March 2021?
Mr Fletcher: In relation to concerns that we’ve received about any aspect of the conduct of a practitioner related to COVID-19, 31 registered health practitioners have been suspended since the commencement of the pandemic, and 10 of those suspensions were solely with reference to a breach or an alleged breach of the code of conduct related to the vaccination statement. Just to complete that: that’s four medical practitioners, five nurses and one pharmacist.
Senator Roberts: How many health practitioners have had their registration cancelled because of being outspoken contrary to the joint position statement of 9 March 2021?
Mr Fletcher: I might ask the general counsel, Dr Jamie Orchard, to join me, because, just to remind you, neither AHPRA nor the Medical Board nor any of the boards have the power to cancel the registration of a health practitioner. A suspension is an interim measure while we investigate the concerns.
Senator Roberts: Who has the power to cancel it?
Mr Fletcher: That’s done by the independent tribunal within each state and territory. If we have a concern that there is professional misconduct, which is the most serious finding we can make, we then have to refer that to the tribunal, and it’s only the tribunal who can make a decision about cancellation. We’ve got five tribunal outcomes to date, but I’ll just ask Dr Orchard to give you the details.
Dr Orchard: So far a number of matters have been referred to tribunal in respect of practitioners relating to COVID related issues. We have five decisions so far from the tribunals. We can’t go into the details of the other matters because they’re still pending before the tribunals. Those matters relate to one dentist whose registration was suspended and a registered nurse who was disqualified. There was another registered nurse who had been the subject of suspension from the board but was not suspended by the tribunal. There was an enrolled nurse whose registration was suspended for 11 months. There is one final matter, where the tribunal has found professional misconduct but hasn’t yet decided on the sanction.
Senator Roberts: All five are associated with COVID?
Dr Orchard: All related to COVID in some way, but not necessarily solely in relation to making antivaccination statements.
Senator Roberts: How many health practitioners have either been suspended or had their registration cancelled because they made statements that supported the use of ivermectin in the context of treatment of COVID-19?
Dr Orchard: We’d have to take that on notice and have a look.
Senator Roberts: In the 9 March 2021 position statement, it threatens regulatory action for criticising the COVID-19 injections and/or the national immunisation campaign. Is that still in effect?
Mr Fletcher: Senator, the statement you refer to, just to remind you of the context, was issued by all of the 15 national boards with AHPRA.
Senator Roberts: It’s a joint statement.
Mr Fletcher: So it’s a joint statement. Essentially, it was issued in response to queries from practitioners about their obligations in relation to COVID-19 and vaccination, and the statement essentially aims to make clear how existing obligations on a registered health practitioner, through codes of conduct and the like, applied in the context of COVID-19 and vaccination. That statement is still in force.
Senator Roberts: When can we expect this statement to be amended or removed in light of the best available medical scientific advice, which now shows the COVID-19 vaccines, the injections, to be unsafe and not effective? The risk-benefit is undoubtedly terrible.
Mr Fletcher: The statement has always been aligned with the public health advice at the time. We look to jurisdictional health departments, the TGA and ATAGI as the primary sources of public health advice. We will certainly be consulting with them in the near future about the current status of that public health advice and whether any amendment to that statement is needed.
Senator Roberts: Health practitioners like the GPs I’m about to mention—they’ve given me permission to use their names—Dr Mark Hobart, 19 months; GP registrar Dr William Bay, nine months; and emergency department registered nurse Beulah Martin, 11 months, continue to have their health practitioner registration suspended for allegedly engaging in conduct not supportive of the COVID-19 injections. Why are they still being punished?
Mr Fletcher: We’re going to need to be a bit careful about what we say publicly about individual matters, but I’ll just ask Dr Orchard to comment about what we can say publicly about at least two of the practitioners you’ve named there.
Senator Roberts: The context is why they are still being punished in regard to what’s now emerging about the injections?
Mr Fletcher: Let me ask Dr Orchard to explain what we can say publicly.
Dr Orchard: Senator, the action in respect of any practitioners—including those that you’ve mentioned—that was taken by the relevant boards at the time to suspend those practitioners was taken pursuant to the provisions of the national law, either for the purpose of preventing serious risk or in the public interest, and that’s the basis on which they were suspended at the time. Those matters are currently still before the courts because there are appeals going on in respect of each of them, so we can’t really go into further detail while the matters are still being considered by the courts.
Senator Roberts: Let’s come back to national law in a minute. Despite lengthy delays in investigation and AHPRA’s commitment to the Senate to achieve timely investigations and keeping in mind that the section 156 suspension powers under so-called national law are meant to be only an emergency and temporary measure for the most serious of threats to the health and safety of the public, how long can we expect AHPRA to keep maintaining the suspension of doctors, nurses and medical professionals around Australia who have expressed concerns regarding these vaccines, these injections, when now, in light of the best available evidence, those concerns are well justified? You have been suppressing medical professionals giving their honest advice and forcing them to go against the Hippocratic oath or to surrender.
Mr Fletcher: I reject the assertion you made that we have in any way been censoring practitioners. What we have said in that statement is that we expect that people dealing with patients use the best available evidence and their clinical judgement. That is an obligation that has been in the code of conduct for health practitioners that predates COVID-19. There is no change in that. Suspension is an interim measure while we investigate, and it has to meet a legal threshold under that national law. Sometimes one of the reasons that suspension is extended or takes a period of time is because a practitioner exercises the right to appeal their suspension, either to a tribunal or a court. Obviously, while those appeals are underway, we put our work on hold. Essentially, the suspension is there, as I say, on the one hand to allow us to ensure there is appropriate public protection meeting a legal threshold under the national law while we investigate each case.
Senator Roberts: Are you aware that some of the country’s best medical people, best specialists, are telling me that they are silent and changing their behaviour because they are suppressed by AHPRA? Are you aware of that?
Mr Fletcher: I have read the commentary on that, yes.
Prof. Murphy: I’ll make a comment. Senator Roberts keeps asserting that there’s new evidence that the vaccines are not safe or effective. We completely refute that suggestion.
Senator Roberts: I knew you would.
Prof. Murphy: There is no credible scientific evidence that the vaccines, other than—
Senator Roberts: That’s a false statement.
Prof. Murphy: No, I’m going on the best available scientific evidence, and I do not think you should be able to make that statement continually.
Senator Roberts: I will keep making the statement based on science.
Senator Gallagher: It cannot be left unchallenged.
Senator Roberts: He can challenge it, but I’m not going to quit.
Chair: Senator Roberts, I was listening carefully. Before you ask your last question, I am going to remind you that it is important that you put these as questions rather than as statements. I believe you did that with your last question, but the question before was a sentence without a question at the end of it. I think it is appropriate in that case for the witnesses at the table to respond, but the best way is to put questions and then we can hear answers.
Senator Roberts: I am happy to show you my questions.
Chair: Senator Roberts, I was listening carefully. I am happy to have a discussion if I have misheard, but in the question before your last question I didn’t hear a question; I heard a statement. You have a supplementary question, and I remind you that it assists the process of the committee if we frame questions for answers, as I’ve said from the start.
Senator Roberts: Many health practitioners have been suspended under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. Is it not true that such a singular national law does not exist, and that the national law is not a Commonwealth law at all but a collection of state based health laws such as the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria)?
Mr Fletcher: I defer to my general counsel to talk about the legal construct of the national scheme.
Dr Orchard: You’re correct in saying that it’s not a Commonwealth law; it’s not. It is a cooperative piece of legislation amongst the various states and territories of Australia. The legislation was initially passed, and any amendments that are passed are passed through the Queensland parliament and then the various states and territories have different mechanisms by which they apply both the original law and any amendments to that law in their own jurisdiction.
Senator Roberts: Thank you for confirming. If so, how can AHPRA accurately and lawfully enforce one national law across Australia, when in fact it is not a national law but many state laws, each with its own amendments, across each state and territory of this Commonwealth? We have state laws being enforced by a national body that’s responsible to the states.
Dr Orchard: I will say, when you talk about the differences, there are very limited differences across the various jurisdictions. It does operate largely as a single national law across the country, subject to some exceptions of course. We ensure that, in the course of our regulatory role in applying that law, we do so consistently across the country so that it operates in a sense in a seamless way and practitioners who operate in one jurisdiction are able to move into another jurisdiction and continue their profession without having to worry about the difference in the state laws that might apply to them.
Chair: Senator Roberts, I’m passing the call to the opposition.
In the May-June Senate Estimates, I asked David de Carvalho, CEO of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) why the National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) will no longer report progress through the NAPLAN ban system so that parents can see how their child is progressing relative to others?
In light of the latest disappointing NAPLAN results, which shows one in three children failing literacy and numeracy, I thought you’d be interested to hear his response.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing again. Why will NAPLAN no longer report progress through the NAPLAN bands so parents know how their child is progressing relative to other children?
Mr de Carvalho: Ministers decided on 10 February this year to move to a much better reporting system, which actually provides more meaningful information for parents. They will now be getting information that indicates where they are in terms of proficiency standards, which were agreed would be introduced as part of the national school reform agreement. The bands, if you go back to 2008, when they were set up, are essentially a statistical construct. We had a scale of around 1,000 points. The mean we set at 500. It was essentially divided into 10 bands. That number was relatively arbitrary. It could have been more. It could have been less. It’s a kind of a goldilocks number, if you like—a nice round number. The cut points in the bands themselves, unlike the new system, which we are introducing, didn’t have inherent educational value other than simply to be kind of marker points on a scale. It’s bit like telling a parent about their child’s height. They’ve moved from the zero to 20-centimetre band into the 21- to 40-centimetre band. Or, with weight, they’ve moved from the zero to 10-kilogram band into the 11- to 20-kilogram band. What parents really want to know is: is my child actually progressing at the normal rate or do they need additional support? These new standards—
Senator Henderson: I would disagree with that, actually.
Mr de Carvalho: The teacher view has been used to say, ‘What questions should children be able to answer to meet a challenging and reasonable expectation?’ We’ve used professional teacher judgement as opposed to a statistical or arithmetical division to identify the standard expected. That’s the one that we road-tested with parents. We asked them, ‘Would you prefer to see an individual student report with the numerical bands or this more meaningful information?’ They were quite unequivocal about it. They preferred the latter. It’s also not correct to say that parents won’t see their progress. Each individual student report has never reported progress. You need to keep the previous reports. Even if you are in year 3 and then year 5 under the new system, you may increase your NAPLAN score, say, from 250 to 300. You may still be reported in year 5 as strong whereas you were also strong in year 3 but the descriptors associated with ‘strong’ will indicate a higher level of capability. Parents will still be able to see that their child has progressed into a higher skill set. There will be more detailed information, more meaningful information, for parents through the new system.
Senator Roberts: Thank you for that. There are things in there that sound attractive, but I don’t understand it well enough. Perhaps you could tell me what is wrong with this description. Instead of providing a reading score in band 3, 4, 5 or 6, giving parents an idea of exactly where their child is in terms of progression, all of those bands will be replaced by the word ‘developing’. ACARA has said parents found the bands confusing. Isn’t that just an indictment on your failure to explain the more accurate band reports? Could you go into more detail? Tell me what is wrong with that.
Mr de Carvalho: I will go back to the point I was trying to make at the start. Those bands were simply arithmetically derived.
Senator Roberts: So a child was placed in there numerically?
Mr de Carvalho: There is a scale of, say, zero to 1,000. You set the mean at 500 and then you have your statistical categories, your differentials, set just by picking 100 or 200 or whatever the scale is to deliver 10 categories. But what we’re doing this time is using teacher professional judgement. We’ve consulted professional expert teachers about where on the scale they expect children to be based on what they’ve learned in previous years. We have asked which questions they should be able to answer to be able to say, ‘Yes, they’re meeting expectations.’ That was not the case under the previous 10-band regime. Parents will be able to see at a glance. What is really important about the new system is that particularly those children who are genuinely struggling will be identified as needing additional support. That is crucial, because under the old system, we had a category called the national minimum standard. It was broadly recognised that the national minimum standard was set too low. There was a relatively small percentage of children below the national minimum standard. It wasn’t really a call to action. Now we will have more students identified in that bottom category and it will be clear through the name of the category or the name of the level that those children need additional support. It will be a prompt to parents to have a discussion with their teachers about what needs to be done. I think that is a real, important change.
Senator Roberts: So the parent will be able to see the areas in which the child is deficient or strong?
Mr de Carvalho: The descriptors will also be part of the individual student report. It is a paper based report, and you can only put so many words on a paper based report. There will be high-level descriptions for each domain—that is, reading, writing, numeracy, spelling and grammar—and what it means if you are in each of those levels. If you want more fine-grained information, you will be able to go to the ACARA website and get more and more fine-grained information. With that, teachers will be able to have good conversations with parents about what needs to be done.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. It looks like there is more understanding to be gained on my part.
Parents contacted my office with concerns they had about a National Assessment Program (NAP) science quiz survey, which targeted children in Grade 6 (11 and 12 years). One of the survey questions was about families ‘compliance’ with the government’s COVID guidelines/regulations.
In Senate Estimates, I asked how relevant this line of questioning was with the stated NAP science objectives and whether the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) believes this is appropriate questioning for school children, who authorised the questions and who sees the results of the survey.
The COVID response has eroded many people’s faith in the government. Asking children to judge matters of civil compliance does not help build back trust in the wake of the last three years of hell that many families have gone through.
We have yet to receive responses from #ACARA to our questions, but hope to have them before the next Senate Estimates in October.
The BRICS member states are abandoning the United States’ dollar and other nations are seeking to join the BRICS bloc, which accounts for 25% of world trade and is expected to grow to 50% by 2030. The US dollar is now just 58% of all world trade. As the world moves away from the US dollar its value may fall.
Our Reserve Bank holds AU$35 billion in foreign reserves and half of that is in US treasuries securities. I asked the Governor whether the RBA had modeled the probability of that fall on Australia’s US holdings and whether they intended to invest in more US treasuries. The governor expects Australia’s economy to grow and foreign holdings to increase — as part of risk management however they are looking at other currency markets in line with the RBA’s key bench marks, but without speculating on any future currency fluctuations.
The BRICS group of major emerging economies — Brazil, Russia, India, China (the four founding members of the bloc) and South Africa is holding its 15th heads of state and government summit in Johannesburg on 22nd August. Founded as an informal club in 2009, it was initially created as a platform to challenge a world order dominated by the US and its allies with a focus on economic cooperation and increasing multilateral trade and development. As many as 23 countries have now formally applied to join the group and many more are said to be interested.
With more countries investing in and accumulating greater gold reserves and widespread reports that the BRICS alliance is working on creating a new gold-backed trading currency, I asked the Governor if Australia is planning to increase our gold reserves.
The answer was no. “We’ve got our gold reserves and we haven’t bought and sold for a long time, and we have no intention of changing that.”
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I have a question about the Reserve Bank’s reserves. Let me get to it by giving some background. At the BRICS meeting in Cape Town on 2 and 3 June, 13 nations will formally apply to join BRICS, which is currently Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa—and Saudi Arabia, with an each-way bet. Candidate nations include Mexico, Argentina, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Indonesia and Iran. BRICS is now the world’s largest trading bloc, accounting for 25 per cent of world trade which is expected to grow to 50 per cent by 2030. And it’s big in oil.
BRICS member states are abandoning the US dollar in favour of using their own currency or the Chinese renminbi in an environment where other countries, including Australia, are doing the same thing. Pakistan is now buying Russian oil and renminbi. The US dollar is now denominating just 58 per cent of all world trade. The United States has printed $10 trillion over the last seven years, doubling their M2 money supply. That increase has been absorbed in part by an increase in international trade. As the world moves away from the US dollar the value of the US dollar may fall. The Reserve Bank holds United States treasuries and dollars. Have you modelled the effect on your balance sheet from that probable fall in the value of US holdings.
Mr Lowe: Not as a result of these other global changes you’ve talked about. We spend a lot of time and part of our risk management processes looking at volatility in currencies, because currencies move around all the time, don’t they? That affects the value of those assets on our balance sheet, so we model that from a risk-management perspective. Despite the developments you’re talking about, most countries still hold the bulk of their foreign reserves in US dollars. There’s diversification going on, which is good, but the US dollar is going to remain the dominant currency for some time.
Senator Roberts: What is the value of Reserve Bank holdings of US dollar and US treasuries in Australian dollars?
Mr Lowe: Our total foreign reserves at the moment I think are the equivalent of U$35 billion. What’s the share, Brad?
Dr Jones: I think it’s 55 per cent.
Mr Lowe: Roughly half of that $35 billion is allocated to US dollars, and then we have holdings of yen, Korean won, euros and rmb.
Senator Roberts: What about treasuries?
Mr Lowe: When we hold US dollars we invest it in US Treasury securities. We don’t invest in bank deposits or any other securities. We invest in US government securities.
Senator Roberts: What’s the reverse holding of Australian government currency and bonds held by the US government or their agencies?
Mr Lowe: We don’t have data on that.
Senator Roberts: Could you get that on notice?
Mr Lowe: No.
Senator Roberts: You don’t have it?
Mr Lowe: We don’t have data on specific holdings of other countries.
Dr Jones: If I understood your question correctly, Senator, the US holds euros and yen, from recollection, but not in large quantities.
Senator Roberts: While that arrangement helps with international stability across holdings, it is a method for backdoor quantitative easing. Does the Reserve Bank expect to increase your holding of US treasuries in the next 12 months?
Mr Lowe: We’ve just done an exercise where we were looking at how much of our balance sheet should be held in foreign assets. We said we’ve got $35 billion at the moment. As the size of the economy grows you would expect that to gradually increase. But, no, nothing dramatic. As the economy grows and the nominal value of the Australian economy gets bigger, then you would expect a bigger portfolio in US dollars and foreign currency.
Senator Roberts: The Reserve Bank has a mission to anticipate movements in major trading partners and in world markets. As it affects your provisioning and portfolio, does the Reserve Bank anticipate being affected by any out of the ordinary moves in financial markets in connection with the US economy or the US dollar over forward estimates?
Mr Lowe: We’ve recently been focused on the US debt limit issues in the US. If an agreement had not been reached there, that would have had implications for currency markets and economies around the world. So that’s one thing that we’ve looked at carefully. It looks like that has been resolved, thankfully. And, just as part of our general risk management exercise, we’re looking at developments in other economies and their implications for currency markets in own economy.
Dr Jones: As a general rule though, the way the bank has operated its reserves has changed quite a bit over the last, say, 25 years, and now the bank effectively sets key benchmarks and sticks to them. There are not big discretionary decisions going on every day. There’s wild speculation going on at the Reserve Bank, I can assure you, about the future value of exchange rates.
Senator Roberts: I wasn’t implying that. Worldwide purchases of US treasuries by central banks has fallen $600 billion in 2022 as compared to a baseline year of 2013. That’s just arbitrary—2013. Purchases of gold have increased $300 billion. So something is going on that Australia would be prudent to hedge against. Is the Reserve Bank increasing its gold reserves as an each way bet against BRICS introducing a gold brick currency of some form?
Mr Lowe: No, we’re not. We’ve got our gold reserves. We haven’t bought and sold for a long time and we have no intention of changing that at the moment.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/lS0PPHlP8xA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-08-22 15:31:452023-08-24 15:48:57RBA’s Ties to US Dollars Leaves Australia Exposed
This is a case of the Ombudsman adding insult to injury.
In the May 2023 Senate Estimates I asked the Fair Work Ombudsman how their office decided that Ready Workforce could be a person’s employer when payslips, PAYG summaries, employer Super contributions and all ATO records indicated that the true employer was Chandler MacLeod, a labour hire company.
Apparently the investigation is continuing.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Ms Parker, is it true that, prior to your position at the Fair Work Ombudsman, you were the assistant secretary for the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations?
Ms Parker: I was Deputy Secretary, Workplace Relations Group.
Senator Roberts: In your role as a deputy secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, were you aware of the appropriation monies that the department sent to Coal Long Service Leave?
Ms Parker: Yes, I was.
Senator Roberts: Were you involved in the production of documents table for the annual financial reports for the department whilst in that role?
Ms Parker: In terms of the Coal Long Service Leave, that agency provide its own reports and its own financial reports.
Senator Roberts: But, given that you were the deputy, wouldn’t you have taken an interest in something that was worth a few hundred million dollars?
Ms Parker: We’re going back a way, but it was part of the overall reporting, for example under the annual report. But they were independent, in that sense. They were an agency that managed their own resources, so we didn’t have—
Senator Roberts: But you compiled the report.
Ms Parker: No, not for their own financial—
Senator Roberts: Not for their part, but you compiled their report into your department’s.
Ms Parker: That’s generally speaking. I’m just trying to think back. Our own finance area within the department looked at every single outcome, so, while they sat under the workplace relations auspice, if you like, the financial arrangements and et cetera were done through our finance and corporate areas in the department.
Senator Roberts: Is it true that the Fair Work Ombudsman reported Simon Turner to New South Wales Police recently about a document?
Ms Parker: I’ve not heard that.
Senator Roberts: He was contacted by the police. He wondered what was going on, and the police said it was in regard to an email he sent. I think it was to Robert Evans, Fair Work Ombudsman investigator. Mr Turner then read the email to the police. The police then said he’d been through the wringer and ended by saying there was no need to see him. Why did the Fair Work Ombudsman involve the police?
Mr Scully: I recall the email. I looked at it. I haven’t got a copy of it here, but I was concerned about the language in it, and I was concerned about Mr Turner’s welfare based on that language. So I asked for a welfare check to be done by the New South Wales police on that person.
Senator Roberts: Given what he’s been through, I have the utmost admiration for Mr Turner. He’s very, very solid.
Ms Parker: He is, but there are times when we get aggressive, abusive emails—
Senator Roberts: I’m not criticising Mr Scully.
Ms Parker: That was this occasion. I take those things very seriously, and it’s not acceptable. I understand he has had some stress—
Senator Roberts: Stress? Wow.
Ms Parker: I understand, but it doesn’t entitle him to be aggressive towards Fair Work Ombudsman staff.
Mr Scully: If I can clarify, that was for a welfare check. I asked for a welfare check on Mr Turner to be arranged by the New South Wales police.
Senator Roberts: Thank you.
Mr Scully: To clarify that further, it wasn’t in respect of any interactions he had had with the Fair Work Ombudsman. It was the language within his email. I was actually concerned about his welfare.
Senator Roberts: How long has this investigation been going? I understand it’s been underway since 2018.
Mr Scully: I haven’t got the exact date in front of me, but it has been ongoing. Mrs Volzke might have some more information.
Mrs Volzke: There have been a number of inquiries or requests for assistance made by Mr Turner. The initial one, as I understand it, was subsequently completed, but then there are other concerns that he has more recently raised about pay slips, as you know. That investigation is still ongoing, but we hope to be in a position to finalise it shortly.
Senator Roberts: I hope so.
Chair: I’m a bit reluctant to be talking in detail about an individual. If it’s helpful, Senator Roberts, maybe we can talk about the particular case you’re taking forward, rather than the individual. I also might have a bit of a discussion with the committee. I don’t think this should be on—
Senator Roberts: Mr Turner has given me his permission to divulge his name so that the case is clear.
Ms Parker: I would say that I know that you may not agree but the Fair Work Ombudsman staff have put an enormous amount of time and effort into this matter and have taken it very seriously. It’s a complex issue—
Senator Roberts: Very complex.
Ms Parker: and I hope you’d appreciate we have been doing a lot of work to try to assist. It has been going on, as you said, for some time, but it’s not a simple matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could ask that question of yourself after I ask the next few questionsinvolving one of your Fair Work Ombudsman investigators. Mr Robert Evans has a—
Ms Parker: Sorry, Senator; I thought we had agreed we wouldn’t talk about individuals. I’m very happy for you to talk about an inspector. I’d really prefer you didn’t name him. There have been some issues, as I mentioned before, including some aggressive behaviour towards my inspector.
Senator Cash: Chair, I don’t think Senator Roberts deliberately did that—
Chair: Absolutely not.
Senator Cash: but I think you are right, going forward, given the nature of the issues.
Chair: Yes. Given the nature of the issues that have been raised and the answers that have been given, can we be very mindful of the appropriateness of going into any details.
Senator Roberts: Is it true that a Fair Work Ombudsman investigator has an ATO document that states Ready Workforce was not the aggrieved miner’s employer?
Mrs Volzke: As I said, there is still an ongoing investigation in relation to the tax documentation and how that goes to the true employing entity of a particular individual. As you know, we’ve been looking at those issues and trying to engage not only with Mr Stephens and Mr Turner but also with the ATO. I’ll have to take on notice the question about that particular document that you refer to. I have to say I have no knowledge of it.
Senator Roberts: Is it true that the Fair Work Ombudsman investigator has been given a copy of a court decision that states that Chandler Macleod was the true employer of the aggrieved miner and not Ready Workforce?
Mrs Volzke: The name of the case escapes me at the moment, but what I would say is that that was a case that was particular to the individual in that matter. It’s not necessarily the case that you can extrapolate from those findings in that matter about a particular person and say that that must mean the same conclusions will be made in relation to—
Senator Roberts: I would strongly disagree with you. You’re entitled to your opinion. It’s quite clear tome. Can you explain how a Fair Work Ombudsman investigator could come to a decision that Ready Workforce, ABN 037, was the aggrieved miner’s employer?
Mrs Volzke: Again, talking at a broad, general level, whenever we’re trying in one of our investigations towork out who the employer is, the first place to start is always: what is the contract of employment that is enteredinto? It is from that that we work out where the entitlements flow. That’s on the basis of a number of High Courtcases—Rossato, Jamsek, Personnel—but even the current definition of casual in section 15A of the Fair WorkAct essentially gets you to the same place.
Senator Roberts: I understand you have to check, but the Fair Work Ombudsman’s decision is in direct conflict with all the evidence documents given to the Fair Work Ombudsman investigator, which showed payslips, PAYG summaries, tax documents, employer super contributions, Coal LSL contributions and all ATO records held by the aggrieved miner, who was paid his wages by Chandler Macleod using ABN 052.
Mrs Volzke: Again, we obviously don’t want to get into details, but you start with the proposition that, on the basis of the documentation at the time, that employment was entered into. Unless there’s a variation or some other sham or estoppel mechanism that casts doubt on that, those other matters don’t necessarily displace that. You’ll also know that we have made inquiries with the relevant employer in this case, as well, to seek an explanation about the discrepancy in relation to their ABN being on those pay slips.
Senator Roberts: The court ruling also stated that Chandler Macleod, ABN 052, was the true employer. The court affidavit showed that the mine contract was with Chandler Macleod and all payments from invoices from the mine went to Chandler Macleod, ABN 052. On this basis, I can’t see how it’s possible at all for your Fair Work Ombudsman investigator to arrive at a decision that is in direct conflict with all of this evidence.
Mrs Volzke: Again, Senator, I think you’re quoting that particular court case, which was in relation to another individual, and drawing conclusions. I would reiterate what Ms Parker has already said. We are doing the most thorough investigation that we can. We understand the concerns that have been raised. I don’t really know—
Senator Roberts: They’ve been raised, alright—with the Fair Work Commission; with the Fair Work Ombudsman; with the CFMMEU in the Hunter; with the local Labor MPs, state and federal; with the Attorney-General’s Department twice; with senators; with coalmines insurance; with Coal LSL; with state departments looking after safety, reporting injuries, workers compensation—
Mrs Volzke: It may well be in those—
Senator Roberts: He’s taken it up with me, and I’m the only one who has persisted. And it’s taken me four years to get to this point.
Mrs Volzke: It may well be that, in terms of what you’ve described, particularly in labour hire industrieswhere there are complex employment and corporate arrangements, it may be easier for there to be complexity inworking out who the employer is. I think these are issues that the government is looking at also, in the context of’same job, same pay’.
Senator Roberts: A hell of a lot of government departments have looked at it, and they just don’t do anything. They don’t come back with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’. They just don’t do anything, and yet they’ve given him assurances along the way. There have been so many parasites who’ve made money off these people along the way.
Mrs Volzke: Senator, as I’ve told you as well, it’s our job as the regulator to apply the law, and that’s what we’re doing our very best to do here.
Senator Roberts: Well, it’s a bloody slow process. This man and one of his mates, who’s in a similar position, have been to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations recently and had two briefingswith their senior people. The last was two weeks ago, and they still haven’t got back to him—not even anything.They were impressed with what he said and what he gave—but nothing. So I’d like to table this document, Chair.It’s a letter from Chandler Macleod to the CFMEU in the Hunter Valley.
Chair: You have another four minutes, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: That should do it. This is a letter from Chandler Macleod to the CFMEU Northern Mining and New South Wales Energy District. That’s Hunter Valley CFMEU, if you like, with a few mines outside the Hunter Valley. I’ll read out clause (c), which is at the top of the second page:The CFMEU and Chandler Macleod would present this EA—that’s enterprise agreement—to employees for their consideration, noting that both parties support the approval of the proposed EA and a vote would beheld as soon as possible, and as early as 7 May 2015 seeking employees to endorse the proposed EA—There’s an understanding of an agreement between the CFMEU in Hunter and Chandler Macleod, the employer. Clause (d) states:The CFMEU would agree—this is what the employer is saying, in their understanding—to cease from any current and future actions and claims (in its own right or on behalf of members) directed towards ventilating and agitating its view that employees currently engaged by Chandler Macleod companies as casuals to perform black coal mining production work may be entitled to “leave and other entitlements” associated with permanent employment or that Chandler Macleod is not paying employees their “lawful terms and conditions”. The union obviously agreed with this, because it went further. The union and Chandler Macleod are clearly colluding to strip entitlements and pay off workers at Mount Arthur mine. If it is the case that unions, purporting to represent miners, are actually colluding with employers and if all these government agencies are not doing their job over many years, what the hell does this man do?
Ms Parker: I have not finished, and we have been—
Senator Roberts: I certainly haven’t. I’ve got three aims. I’ll tell you about them later, if you like.
Ms Parker: We anticipate being in a position to finalise these in the near future, as we’ve said, and we’re still working on this. I’m sorry it’s so frustrating, but we have not stopped looking at it.
Senator Roberts: It’s more than frustrating. It’s damn painful. It’s hurting a lot of people in Central Queensland and in the Hunter and elsewhere.
Ms Parker: We understand, but we do have to apply the law as it stands, and that’s what we’re trying to do.
Senator Roberts: Are you aware of the many connections between various involved entities? For example, the lawyer representing the CFMEU in a case was Jennifer Short, who’s on the Coal Long Service Leave Board. She was employed as the CFMEU lawyer. These are just some of the interactions. There are many interactions between mining industry groups, mining companies, labour hire companies and the CFMEU in the Hunter. Are you aware of the many interconnections? You are now.
Ms Parker: Well, I think so. Certainly it’s not particularly relevant to our investigation, but it’s context.
Mrs Volzke: Certainly. Senator, the two clauses that you read out from that Chandler Macleod letter—when an agreement has been approved by the Fair Work Commission, which I’m assuming is what occurred here, then we take it as a given that it’s gone through the processes that need to occur within the commission. I know that Mr Furlong—
Senator Roberts: Mr Turner’s evidence shows that it hasn’t gone through correctly. It could not have gone through correctly, because it doesn’t comply.
Ms Parker: We heard our evidence this morning with the Fair Work Commission on that, which is theirresponsibility. We did listen to that.
Senator Roberts: Minister, quite clearly, the Fair Work Act has failed. It needs not just comprehensive reform; it needs replacement. We need something that is short, simple and clear, that workers can understand, that small businesses can understand and that is actually useful not to the industrial relations club but to the actual workers who need to be protected. Workers like these guys that we’re protecting in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley are without any protection right now. What’s going on with these people is stuff that would come from a Third World country or Australia 100 years ago. It’s unfathomable. I was shocked when I saw it. What is even more shocking now is that no-one can address it. That’s the Fair Work Act and its systems.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, you’ve heard from Ms Parker that the ombudsman is investigating thesematters. But, as I said to you before, the government agrees that the Fair Work Act needs a major overhaul tobetter protect the rights of workers and to close loopholes that exist at the moment, many of which you havetalked about. I think, Senator Roberts, you know that I’ve spent a fair bit of time in coalmining regions inQueensland where we’ve seen a lot of exploitation of coalminers, and that was allowed to go on under the formergovernment. So we hope that we can count on your support when it comes to the amendments that we’re puttingforward.
Senator Roberts: You’ll get my support for amendments that actually fix the issue, not prolong it and add more complexity. The problem with this Fair Work Act is its inherent complexity. That’s what has enabled the IR club, some union boss, some large unions, industry groups, employers, consultants, HR practitioners, lawyers and bureaucrats to feed off this monster. It’s the loopholes in the details. If you keep addressing loopholes, you’ll just create more loopholes. We need something that’s gutting the Fair Work Act and replacing it with something for workers and industrial productivity.
I asked questions of two Army generals as to the viability of military EVs in the field. They spoke of the challenges of recharging in the field, considering factors such as solar charging and the use of hybrid vehicles.
I was told that the technology was not there yet but the hope was that technology would have matured by 2030-35 when the fleet of vehicles may be transformed to EV status and technological problems be overcome.
Transcript
Chair: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: My questions are to do with the Army’s electric vehicles. Since the publicly released information of electric vehicle conversion of the Australian designed and built Bushmaster, has the Australian Army progressed to test the operational feasibility of other Australian electric military vehicles in the field? I understand from Minister Conroy, who gave us a crossbencher briefing, that this is at concept stage at the moment, nothing more.
Lt Gen. Stuart: I’ll begin, and then I’ll hand to my colleague Major General Vagg for any further comments.The concept demonstrator that you referred to was part of our power and energy work, which involves some studies to understand how we can use alternative sources of fuel (1) to ensure an operational capability and (2) to reduce the logistic footprint that is created by bulk fuel. There are a couple of important points to note. Firstly, we were able to produce an electric Bushmaster, but that was to really test the parameters of power generation and how that work would translate into the design of the vehicle and to really test the art of the possible.
Of course, the operating environment would probably require us to have a hybrid approach, similar to a hybrid passenger vehicle, with both solar panels and also the fuel that would be required. So it is on a path of development to determine how we can continue to operate vehicles and reduce the logistics footprint and, obviously, the output of those vehicles.
Senator Roberts: What progress has been made? What stage are you at right now?
Major Gen. Vagg: As the chief has alluded to, we produced the capability demonstrator with Thales. One of the limitations is power generation and storage and the distribution — which I think you’d appreciate —
Senator Roberts: Easy to understand that.
Major Gen. Vagg: for operational use. We’ve got a number of studies underway to look at power generation and electrification of various sizes of wheeled and tracked vehicles. Those studies are indicating that the technology won’t be in a mature state until about 2030. We have plans from 2035 onwards to look at how we’ll transition the broader Army fleet as we move across.
Senator Roberts: So the time frame is you’re hoping to put something into operation by 2030.
Major Gen. Vagg: That’s the time when the studies are indicating the technology will be mature enough so we can field it as an operational capability.
Senator Roberts: So at the moment there’s no real understanding based on anything concrete—it’s just studies at the moment. You haven’t got a plan or deadline or date.
Major Gen. Vagg: As I said, from about 2035 we’ve got plans to look at starting to convert Army’s fleets across to electric vehicles.
Senator Roberts: What are your findings on energy density? One of the advantages of hydrocarbon fuels like petrol and diesel and gas is that they have very high energy density—not as high as nuclear, but very high energy density. Sunlight is incredibly low.
Major Gen. Vagg: That’s a good observation. To inform some of that work, we’ve got trials with electric vehicles that are occurring this year. We have 40 electric vehicles—civilian—that are operating in the ACT. From 2024 we’ll look at a series of small, light commercial vehicles that will use hydrogen cells. We’ll use those capability demonstrators to inform further work and how we’ll look to operationalise that.
Senator Roberts: To what stage has the thinking gotten in terms of replacing the current diesel powered vehicles?
Major Gen. Vagg: Again, I go back to my first point. Looking at the levels of maturity for those technologies, we don’t expect that to mature to where we can deploy it as a legitimate operational capability until about 2030.
Senator Roberts: Is there any way in which our concrete operational plans assume electric vehicles, say, by 2035? Are we going to be reliant upon these things being developed?
Major Gen. Vagg: I don’t think we’d be reliant on them being developed, but that’s a goal where we’ll look to do that transition.
Senator Roberts: So it’s a goal, not a plan yet.
Lt Gen. Stuart: If I can describe the approach, there are a whole range of emerging technologies that we need to understand, and then we need to test their application to the set of tasks that we need to provide for the integrated force. In some cases, I expect, those will be successful; in other cases they may not be. What we want is to be informed and take advantage of the developments in technology as they’re developing. We work with both academia and industry to explore the art of the possible. We’re not making any presuppositions about exactly when, because we just don’t have the evidence or the data to support exactly where that technology may be. What we’re working on at the moment in the case of electrification is that we think, based on the advice we’ve received, that technology—noting your point about energy density and the requirement to operate vehicles in operational situations—is probably toward the end of this decade. That is our estimation based on the work we’ve done so far and the advice from experts that we’ve been working with.
Senator Roberts: Have you deployed the vehicle in the wet or in the north or in the desert or put it through any arduous tests, or is it still very much a concept?
Major Gen. Vagg: It’s still very much a concept.
Senator Roberts: What about battery charging? You mentioned that as one of your challenges. I think, from memory, on Friday afternoon the Minister for Defence Industry, Mr Conroy, said that you had some concepts for fast charging. Is that correct?
Lt Gen. Stuart: We’ll have to take that one on notice. As I say, as part of the power and energy work we’re doing, we’re looking at a whole range of things, which include both power generation and power storage—which includes battery technology.
Senator Roberts: What would power generation involve—what sort of concept?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Solar, hybrid engines—
Senator Roberts: Solar panels?
Lt Gen. Stuart: and those sorts of things.
Senator Roberts: Hybrid using hydrocarbon fuelled engines?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes.
Senator Roberts: You’re not far enough advanced, then, to discuss the recharging question for field operation?
Major Gen. Vagg: No. As I alluded to before, we’re still looking at how that technology matures. That’s one of the principal challenges that we need to overcome.
Senator Roberts: What’s your early gut feeling? Much of the science on this and the application of the science on these technologies is still hypothetical—wish.
Lt Gen. Stuart: I don’t think my gut feeling is particularly relevant. We’ll follow the science and what can be demonstrated and how that can be applied to the work that we are required to do. But we think it makes a lot of sense to be understanding and to be working with experts on how we can apply new and emerging technologies to the business of Army in this instance.
Senator Roberts: I’m reassured now. Initially, I wondered if we were going to be dependent on something happening in the next few years, and I had visions of extension cords all across North Queensland and the Territory. That has put that to rest. Thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/2vJqvwZZIXM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-07-07 16:00:232023-08-24 15:50:32Does the ADF really think electric vehicles can defend our nation?
During the recent Senate Estimates, I questioned the Reserve Bank about the effect of the ascendant BRICS alliance on the Reserve bank’s holdings of US Dollars (USD) and US Treasuries (UST). I also asked Mr Lowe about his expectations of the US Economy’s movement in the next few years and how this may affect Australia. Mr Lowe avoided any pessimistic projections regarding the US economy.
I then asked if the Reserve Bank was increasing its gold reserves as a precaution against the BRICS group releasing a gold-backed currency. The RBA has actually reduced our gold reserves from a peak of $5.2 billion to $3.9 billion now. The answer I received was also negative.
I think this is a mistake. Australia should be increasing our gold reserves as a hedge against international currency fluctuations in the uncertain times ahead.
Transcript
Chair: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: I have a question about the Reserve Bank’s reserves. Let me get to it by giving some background. At the BRICS meeting in Cape Town on 2 and 3 June, 13 nations will formally apply to join BRICS, which is currently Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa—and Saudi Arabia, with an each-way bet. Candidate nations include Mexico, Argentina, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Indonesia and Iran. BRICS is now the world’s largest trading bloc, accounting for 25 per cent of world trade which is expected to grow to 50 per cent by 2030. And it’s big in oil. BRICS member states are abandoning the US dollar in favour of using their own currency or the Chinese renminbi in an environment where other countries, including Australia, are doing the same thing. Pakistan is now buying Russian oil and renminbi. The US dollar is now denominating just 58 per cent of all world trade. The United States has printed $10 trillion over the last seven years, doubling their M2 money supply. That increase has been absorbed in part by an increase in international trade. As the world moves away from the US dollar the value of the US dollar may fall. The Reserve Bank holds United States treasuries and dollars. Have you modelled the effect on your balance sheet from that probable fall in the value of US holdings.
Mr Lowe: Not as a result of these other global changes you’ve talked about. We spend a lot of time and part of our risk management processes looking at volatility in currencies, because currencies move around all the time, don’t they? That affects the value of those assets on our balance sheet, so we model that from a risk-management perspective. Despite the developments you’re talking about, most countries still hold the bulk of their foreign reserves in US dollars. There’s diversification going on, which is good, but the US dollar is going to remain the dominant currency for some time.
Senator Roberts: What is the value of Reserve Bank holdings of US dollar and US treasuries in Australian dollars?
Mr Lowe: Our total foreign reserves at the moment I think are the equivalent of U$35 billion. What’s the share, Brad?
Dr Jones: I think it’s 55 per cent.
Mr Lowe: Roughly half of that $35 billion is allocated to US dollars, and then we have holdings of yen, Korean won, euros and rmb.
Senator Roberts: What about treasuries?
Mr Lowe: When we hold US dollars we invest it in US Treasury securities. We don’t invest in bank deposits or any other securities. We invest in US government securities.
Senator Roberts: What’s the reverse holding of Australian government currency and bonds held by the US government or their agencies?
Mr Lowe: We don’t have data on that.
Senator Roberts: Could you get that on notice?
Mr Lowe: No.
Senator Roberts: You don’t have it?
Mr Lowe: We don’t have data on specific holdings of other countries.
Dr Jones: If I understood your question correctly, Senator, the US holds euros and yen, from recollection, but not in large quantities.
Senator Roberts: While that arrangement helps with international stability across holdings, it is a method for backdoor quantitative easing. Does the Reserve Bank expect to increase your holding of US treasuries in the next 12 months?
Mr Lowe: We’ve just done an exercise where we were looking at how much of our balance sheet should be held in foreign assets. We said we’ve got $35 billion at the moment. As the size of the economy grows you would expect that to gradually increase. But, no, nothing dramatic. As the economy grows and the nominal value of the Australian economy gets bigger, then you would expect a bigger portfolio in US dollars and foreign currency.
Senator Roberts: The Reserve Bank has a mission to anticipate movements in major trading partners and in world markets. As it affects your provisioning and portfolio, does the Reserve Bank anticipate being affected by any out of the ordinary moves in financial markets in connection with the US economy or the US dollar over forward estimates?
Mr Lowe: We’ve recently been focused on the US debt limit issues in the US. If an agreement had not been reached there, that would have had implications for currency markets and economies around the world. So that’s one thing that we’ve looked at carefully. It looks like that has been resolved, thankfully. And, just as part of our general risk management exercise, we’re looking at developments in other economies and their implications for currency markets in own economy.
Dr Jones: As a general rule though, the way the bank has operated its reserves has changed quite a bit over the last, say, 25 years, and now the bank effectively sets key benchmarks and sticks to them. There are not big discretionary decisions going on every day. There’s wild speculation going on at the Reserve Bank, I can assure you, about the future value of exchange rates.
Senator Roberts: I wasn’t implying that. Worldwide purchases of US treasuries by central banks has fallen $600 billion in 2022 as compared to a baseline year of 2013. That’s just arbitrary—2013. Purchases of gold have increased $300 billion. So something is going on that Australia would be prudent to hedge against. Is the Reserve Bank increasing its gold reserves as an each way bet against BRICS introducing a gold brick currency of some form?
Mr Lowe: No, we’re not. We’ve got our gold reserves. We haven’t bought and sold for a long time and we have no intention of changing that at the moment.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Br6XLHZsdN8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-14 16:28:132023-06-15 17:26:51Is the Reserve Bank in Denial?
At Senate Estimates I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics about the accuracy of the data they publish.
Many Australians, politicians, government officials and media should be watching the ABS data for signals that there could be a problem with our COVID response. Births and deaths would be the main indicators.
The ABS are slow in producing this data and don’t appear to understand that these datasets should be produced faster than pre COVID times.
In addition, the ABS has been loading incomplete data and not labelling it as such. After this was pointed out to them during our last senate estimates, the dataset referenced was changed to include the label “incomplete”.
How many other datasets are labelled as final when in fact they are incomplete?
The answers showed that the data for Provisional Mortality only includes doctor-certified deaths (which we knew) but that the comparison baseline includes ALL deaths, including coroner-certified deaths (which we didn’t).
This means the ABS has not been comparing apples with apples, and the figure for Provisional Mortality understates actual deaths by 15%.
What this means is that unexplained deaths in Australia is over 30,000 in 2022. Around 10,000 of those are attributed to COVID.
What are the other 20,000 deaths?
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you all for appearing today. My first questions go to accuracy of data. In the last estimates session, we had a conversation around the accuracy of one of your datasets. I want to follow up on that. The dataset is births by year and month of occurrence by state. It’s available in your Data Explorer. The conversation was around the reduction in births shown towards the end of 2021, and that reduction was quite dramatic. I accept your position that this effect is caused by delays in reporting of birth, and a lot of December’s reports came through in January. Is this correct so far?
Dr Gruen: That is correct. There’s a pattern, which is repeated every year, which is that the first unrevised estimate of births in December is of the order of 6,000 or 7,000, and then, once you have the final numbers, the final numbers are of the order of 22,000 or 23,000. So, there is an enormous revision for precisely the reason you just mentioned—namely, not everyone has recorded the birth of their child. I think they have other things on their mind than making sure that the ABS gets its numbers right.
Senator Roberts: The dataset is titled ‘birth by month of occurrence’, not ‘births by month of reporting’. 2021 data was not available until 19 October 2022. Why was 10 months insufficient time to completely compile the full 2021 calendar year? I note that December is still showing 6,600 births against an expected 20,000 in your Data Explorer, as you’ve just said. Why is this data still incomplete 17 months later—and still wrong?
Dr Gruen: It’s unrevised; I wouldn’t use the word ‘wrong’. The answer is we have a schedule of births which has been the same schedule for an extended period. We haven’t yet got the revised numbers for 2021, but, when we do, we have a pretty good idea of the order of magnitude that they’ll be. This hasn’t changed. We’ve be doing it on this timetable for many years.
Senator Roberts: The database now carries a warning—thank you for this—’incomplete data’. Have you made a note of where else incomplete data is being loaded into your Data Explorer and ensured incomplete data warnings are attached as you load that data?
Dr Gruen: We provide preliminary data for a range of series, and we did more of that during COVID because we thought it was important for people who were making decisions to have the most up-to-date data that they could possibly have. So, we brought forward some releases, understanding that they would not be complete, and we were transparent about that. It is certainly the case that revisions are part of producing statistics, whether it’s births or the national accounts. The national accounts also get revised. It’s a common feature. We do not revise the quarterly CPI because there are legislative indexation arrangements. Again, it’s a longstanding practice that we do not revise the CPI, but, for many other series, revisions are a standard practice.
Senator Roberts: I don’t think anyone would complain, Dr Gruen, about data needing to be revised. Maybe the speed of it might be something we might inquire about, but what I was getting to was: are there any other datasets on your Data Explorer that need the words ‘incomplete data’ as a warning? Bad decisions are made off bad data, and it becomes misinformation.
Dr Gruen: I don’t think it’s misinformation. We are as transparent as we can possibly be about the nature of the data. For instance, we put out provisional data for deaths, which we have actually discussed in previous estimates hearings.
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Dr Gruen: That is based on the available information two months after the end of the reference period, and those are also revised subsequently. When we first started producing that data, again, that was during the early phase of COVID. We did it purely on the basis of doctor certified deaths, which is about 80 to 85 per cent of overall deaths. We’ve managed to include some coroner certified deaths in that series, but it’s still incomplete when it’s first published two months after the period. So there are several datasets where we are very clear about the fact that they’re not the final data and that extra data will come in for the period that we’re talking about.
Senator Roberts: I’m advised that the incomplete data warning arrived after our session last time.
Dr Gruen: That is possible.
Senator Roberts: So I’m just wondering if there are any others. The dataset ‘Causes of Death, Australia’ for calendar year 2021 was released in October last year. Can you confirm that 2022 will be released no later than October this year?
Dr Gruen: I’m sure there’ll be someone here who can tell you for sure. Around October is when we publish the annual data for the previous year, but we can take that on notice and give you an answer, for sure.
Senator Roberts: The provisional mortality figure is still showing that deaths are running above the previous known range. Has the ABS received any request from any minister or department—federal or state—for an explanation of where the increase is or what data the ABS has which could cast light on that substantial increase in mortality?
Dr Gruen: We do talk about provisional deaths, and we do talk about what proportion of those are people who died with, or of, COVID and from other causes, so I don’t think there’s a mystery about what is happening. We get lots of requests for our data, so I can’t answer the question. Since it’s on the website—
Senator Roberts: They wouldn’t need to ask you.
Dr Gruen: That’s right.
Senator Roberts: I was just wondering, in particular, whether Health had asked, but, as you said, they don’t need to. Do you send reports routinely, or do you just publish on the website?
Dr Gruen: We publish, and we answer media inquiries. We have outposted people in many of the departments in Canberra, and we have continuing discussions with them. If a department had a specific request, it would be straightforward for them to ask us.
Senator Roberts: There’s a disparity between datasets that I would like to ask about. Starting with the publication ‘Provisional mortality statistics, Jan 2020-Dec 2021’, which was released on 30 March 2022, the key statistic is that 149,486 doctor certified deaths occurred in 2021. If I then go to your Data Explorer, the figure for ‘Deaths and infant deaths, year and month of occurrence’, shows deaths in 2021 to be 160,891.
Dr Gruen: Is the subsequent number published? The number you first quoted is the number that was available from doctor certified deaths up until the end of March, and then the second number you quoted comes from more recent data. Is that correct?
Senator Roberts: I don’t know when that was published, but it shows deaths in 2021 to be 160,891, which is higher. So, I understand the difference in deaths because some would be autopsy certified and take time to come through; is that correct?
Dr Gruen: Yes, that’s right. As we say when we publish those provisional death numbers, they are provisional. They are the data that we have available on the date at which we finalised the numbers. As I said earlier, doctor certified deaths are something like 80 to 85 per cent of all deaths, so the number goes up when you add the coroner certified deaths.
Senator Roberts: It includes the autopsies. Is the figure on this graph for the baseline average calculated using provisional mortality or using final data from the ‘Causes of Death, Australia’ dataset?
Dr Gruen: We can check, but I’m pretty confident that it’s final.
Senator Roberts: Would that then include autopsy deaths?
Dr Gruen: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Provisional mortality is a widely shared dataset that informs much debate around our COVID response. It’s running well above our historical range. From today’s exchange, we know that the figure for provisional mortality understates actual rates of mortality. Your dataset does make that clear, so this isn’t a criticism.
Dr Gruen: No.
Senator Roberts: What I would like to know is: by how much does provisional mortality understate actual mortality in percentage terms on average? I think you’re saying 85 per cent?
Dr Gruen: I think the number that we get two months after the reference period is about 85 per cent of the final number.
Senator Roberts: I’d like to go briefly to data collection. A constituent of mine in Queensland has contacted me in person during a listening session in Rockhampton just recently. This elderly lady, who is single—widowed—and lives alone had a terrifying interaction with the Australian Bureau of Statistics that raises questions about either the staff training or your understanding of the fair exercise of power. The ABS maintained a dataset called the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey, which apparently involves Australians being selected at random to participate. The survey consists of an Australian Bureau of Statistics officer visiting the selected person’s home and taking their height, weight, blood pressure and waist measurement, which is compulsory. Then the citizen has the option of submitting a voluntary blood and urine sample. Is that correct?
Dr Gruen: I think so. I think that is correct.
Senator Roberts: The constituent in this case advised the ABS worker that she lives alone. After receiving a series of letters they thought was a joke, an ABS field worker came by her home in the dark at 6.30 pm, showed her credentials, asked for her by name and advised that the constituent must submit to the government mandated physical. When the constituent declined, she was threatened by your worker with a fine of $220 per day until she submitted to this physical examination by a complete stranger. Is that how the ABS runs its survey?
Dr Gruen: Well, I can’t comment on a specific event. We obviously do our best to treat people in a dignified way. It is true that the surveys that we run are compulsory, but we also allow for the possibility that people who have extenuating circumstances can apply not to be part of the survey, and people do do that on occasions. It is important, in order to be able to collect data that is representative, that we can indeed choose a representative sample, but it is also true that, for people who are in circumstances in which they find it particularly difficult or who are in the circumstances that you described, we are understanding.
Senator Roberts: That goes to my next question. Why can’t you get this information from hospital records for admitted patients with de-identified data? Why pull names out of a hat, knock on their door, call out for them by name and terrorise them into submission? It seems like a massive overreach when there are alternative ways of doing it. Maybe the alternative ways are not entirely random, but they could be made so, couldn’t they?
Dr Gruen: Just to make it clear: our aim is not to terrify people.
Senator Roberts: This lady was terrified.
Dr Gruen: Well, I’m sorry about that. We obviously train our interviewers to be sensitive to people. On the general issue of being able to find alternative ways to get the data, we are very much alive to those possibilities. What you’re talking about is an example of using big data instead of surveys, and there’s a worldwide move from national statistical offices to do precisely that both because the big datasets that are becoming available—there are increasing numbers of them. For instance, early in COVID we started using single-touch payroll from the tax office to be able to give high-quality, up-to-date information about employment. That’s an example of a big dataset. But it is also true that response rates around the world are falling because people are, for whatever reason, getting less happy to respond to the surveys of the national statistical offices. That’s another push factor to lead us to do precisely what you’re suggesting. Now, we haven’t accessed the particular dataset that you have talked about, but the general proposition that we are moving in the direction of using big data and taking the burden off individuals and businesses is very much a journey that we’re on.
Ms Dickinson: For some of the surveys that we run, there are not alternative sources that we could avail ourselves of, and the survey that you referred to—the nutrition survey—has quite a range of questions that we ask people before we come to the physical measurements. It’s things like diet. We ask people to recall what they have eaten and sometimes do a food diary. That’s the type of thing that we can’t get from big data and in which there’s quite a range of interests from users, including the Department of Health, Treasury and so on.
Senator Roberts: By big data you mean data that can be automatically collected or harvested from existing datasets?
Ms Dickinson: Yes, such from the example that you gave, such as hospital data.
Senator Roberts: Okay. Have you ever fined someone for refusal?
Dr Gruen: Yes. And we fine a small number of people for not filling in the census.
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Dr Gruen: But not a large number. We have 10 million households fill it in and the number of people we fine is very small.
Senator Roberts: Minister, are you happy that this elderly widow was terrified?
Senator Gallagher: I’m sure the ABS and Dr Gruen would be very happy to follow up an individual matter, if you’re able to support your constituent to raise that—if she felt vulnerable over that. I think that resolving these issues is important and there are ways to do that. I’d certainly encourage you to think about how you could facilitate that. I also totally support the need to seek this information, because it helps in so many ways to understand what’s going on. Currently, for example, I’ve been selected for one of the household surveys—I think it’s for nine months. Do you get selected for that—
Ms Connell: Eight.
Senator Gallagher: Eight months—
Chair: You can—
Senator Gallagher: It was made very clear to me when I inquired about having to do it—the compulsory nature of it—and the consequences for not filling things out every month—
Senator Ruston: They didn’t believe you when you said you were too busy, did they?
Senator Gallagher: I had very helpful advice from the ABS when I rang to try to get out of it! I was told, politely, that those were not grounds for getting out of it. But that’s how we get information about what’s happening across the country.
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Senator Gallagher: And I don’t think that anyone who’s sitting here would say that they took any comfort in thinking that an elderly woman felt terrified by it; that’s not the intent, and I’m sure there are ways to work through that.
Senator Roberts: I applaud your comments about the need to use data in government but I don’t see much of it—and I’m not talking about this government on its own, I’m talking about previous governments as well. One of the sad things is that government doesn’t use data when making policy and legislation, in my view.
Senator Gallagher: But it’s not just for government. So many people rely on the ABS datasets for their work.
Senator Roberts: Dr Gruen, you mentioned something that I took to mean people are becoming more reluctant to share data—
Dr Gruen: More reluctant to participate in surveys.
Senator Roberts: Is that due to the pushback because of—well, what is the cause? Is it due, partly or maybe majorly, to the intrusion into people’s lives during COVID?
Dr Gruen: It’s a phenomenon that predates COVID, and it’s global. It happens in all countries. I’m aware that there has been a gradual decline in response rates to surveys. We have higher response rates than most advanced countries for many of our high-profile surveys, like the Labour Force Survey, which I think must be the one the minister is enrolled in.
Senator Gallagher: Mine is the household one.
Dr Gruen: Oh, can I—
Senator Gallagher: They want to know how many people in my house, what we’re doing and how hard we’re working. I’m skewing the statistics!
Dr Gruen: That’s the Labour Force Survey.
Senator Gallagher: Is it?
Dr Gruen: We have the labour force expert behind us.
Senator Gallagher: Okay!
Senator Roberts: In which way are you skewing the statistics?
Senator Gallagher: Because I work so much! I’m off the scale!
Senator Roberts: Oh, off the scale.
Senator Gallagher: And it’s, ‘Why are you working so hard?’ I fill it all out.
Dr Gruen: On the web?
Senator Gallagher: Yes.
Dr Gruen: Good, I like to hear that.
Senator Roberts: Because a pesky senator is asking questions in Senate estimates! Thank you, Chair.
Chair: I’ve got distracted and entirely lost control of the committee!
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ktfHpyahicM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-13 17:36:192023-06-14 15:23:57Incomplete data leads to incomplete conclusions
I have many constituents email me their concerns about mRNA vaccines for cattle.
In the recent Senate Estimates I shared their concerns with Meat and Livestock Australia, who are project managing the development of mRNA vaccines for cattle in Australia.
I asked them about the project and MLA responded saying that mRNA vaccines for cattle are in the early stages of development in Canada, but not Australia.
They do not know if they will work and if they can be used without altering the health or the genetics of the animal. These are the things the MLA are watching out for.
If an mRNA vaccine is developed, then the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicine Authority will have to put the vaccine through its own safety testing before approval.
I can also add that the stories on the internet about death of cattle after mRNA vaccines are wrong. The video being used is from other incidents, including the use of poison feed.
mRNA vaccines are not in use in cattle in Australia, and as far as I am aware, anywhere in the western world.
Although we don’t need to worry immediately about these gene shots in our cattle, we will keep an eye on how this unfolds overseas.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing tonight. I refer to questions on notice dated 28 February 2023. Question SQ23-0002000 is going to be distributed. It is from February estimates regarding the development of mRNA vaccines. A copy will be coming. Do you agree with this answer as it was written at the time?
Mr Strong: This is a question to us and an answer we provided?
Senator Roberts: I’m not sure if you were in the room at the time. Maybe Mr Metcalfe took it.
Mr Metcalfe: Sorry, Senator. I wasn’t paying attention.
Senator Roberts: That’s alright. You undertook to take this question on notice for people who weren’t in the room. I think you did it for two or three groups last time.
Mr Strong: The highlighted piece that you are asking about on this first one?
Senator Roberts: Yes. Do you agree with this answer as it was written at the time? Has anything changed since then?
Chair: Which one are we on, Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: It is SQ23-000200.
Mr Metcalfe: I think MLA is being asked whether there is any update to the reference to 200, Jason. I think we are being asked about 128. Senator, I will undertake to see whether there is any update to 128. I don’t have the relevant staff here because they’ve all gone home. I am not sure whether MLA can assist you in relation to the question.
Mr Strong: Yes is the short answer, Senator. We would still agree with the answer that has been provided here. It is a research project that is still going through the research process now.
Senator Roberts: You are involved?
Mr Strong: Correct.
Senator Roberts: In supporting the development of mRNA vaccines for cattle? It’s under development at the moment, but it hasn’t been approved?
Mr Strong: So involved. I’m absolutely not trying to be cute. We are involved in the research to look at the potential use and development of mRNA vaccines. There is not the commercial use of an mRNA vaccine for a veterinary purpose at this stage.
Senator Roberts: That’s right.
Mr Strong: This research project is looking at that. Can it be done? Can it be done in a safe way? Can it be done in a way that produces a vaccine that provides a level of efficacy we need? Can it be done in a commercial way?
Senator Roberts: I think the third criteria you had was that it doesn’t contaminate the food.
Mr Strong: Of course. And it has to be commercial.
Senator Roberts: I want to unpick the whole third paragraph. Firstly, this answer indicates that a lumpy skin vaccine will undergo testing in Canada. Is it still being tested in Canada and not Australia?
Mr Strong: The research is being conducted in Canada to develop the mRNA type vaccine. For any vaccine to be approved here, it would have to go through an approval and testing process here. But the research is being done in Canada. We probably could have been clearer in the way that was written.
Senator Roberts: The TGA, which did not do live patient testing in this country, relied on the FDA. The FDA in turn did not do any testing; it relied on Pfizer. Unlike them, you will do thorough testing?
Mr Strong: We’re very confident of the standards in place and the requirements we have to comply with for veterinary medicines in Australia. We will absolutely comply with them. I think we all have a level of concern and confusion in this space from what we have seen and heard in the last few years. Luckily, in Australia, we have a very sound and detailed approval process. Absolutely we will make sure any research we do in this space is connected to that process.
Senator Roberts: I would like to get into that. The TGA admitted, in answering my questions at the last Senate estimates, that they did not do testing with live patients. They relied upon data from the FDA in America. The FDA also admitted that they didn’t do live testing. They relied upon data from Pfizer, the producers. Do our testing requirements require proper testing in this country?
Mr Strong: Yes, they do. I think there are some big differences between what we all experienced over that two or three-year period and what we are doing here. The main one is that we have more time and human lives aren’t at risk. If we don’t get positive results out of the tests with the research that is being done on these mRNA vaccines, we can stop. If there are different paths we have to take, we can do that. If we need to take more time, we can do that. I think the two examples are sufficiently different that we can have confidence that we will be able to stick to a very disciplined research and development and then testing, pre-approval and approval process for any potential new vaccine.
Senator Roberts: It is good to know that the mRNA technology is still new. It hasn’t been tested properly in humans at all. What makes you confident that your test will pick up any problems in cattle?
Mr Strong: Nothing is the short answer to start with. The follow-on from that is that it is exactly what you just said; it is new technology. A very important part of this research is to learn about that. If it has the utility that we think it should have and the ability to manufacture the type of vaccine which is actually safer for animals and easier to use and more effective, it provides a fantastic potential opportunity and we absolutely should explore that. But we absolutely have to do that in a way that protects the safety of the animals and the food chain and, obviously, the consumers.
Senator Roberts: Because the reputation of mRNA now has been tarnished well and truly. People will be wary about eating something that has mRNA in it and eating that meat.
Mr Strong: We will be very conscious of those consumer and community views in the space.
Senator Roberts: Will the meat be labelled?
Mr Strong: I don’t know the labelling requirements for what would happen with an animal that has been vaccinated. Like I said, that hasn’t existed previously. Labelling requirements is something that absolutely would be part of the approval process. Of course we would rely on the Australian authorities to make those rulings.
Mr Beckett: It is a bit early in the consideration. Those things will all be dressed.
Senator Roberts: What is that, Mr Beckett?
Mr Beckett: I said it is early in the consideration of the whole research. Those things will certainly be considered in the process.
Senator Roberts: Overseas experts with regard to the COVID injections for humans say this new technology should have had 15 years of testing, not 15 months or nine months, and not rely just on Pfizer itself. Now we are finding out that the efficacy is negative for these injections. It doesn’t stop transmission. The authorities have acknowledged that. It needs to be very well tested over an extended period with cattle to make sure there is efficacy and to make sure it is safe and it is safe for humans. The mRNA vaccine for foot and mouth is also being tested in Australia, though, isn’t it?
Mr Strong: No. Not yet.
Senator Roberts: No, sorry. It will be tested in Australia. The testing will be in Australia at the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute located in the middle of a large dairy production area in Menangle. Is that right?
Mr Strong: No. Not necessarily. Before anything can come into Australia, it has to go through a very controlled and specific quarantine process. Nothing would actually be brought in and tested or released without appropriate controls.
Mr Metcalfe: Our department has to approve the import of such a virus. We would give extremely careful consideration to any application such as that for obvious reasons.
Senator Roberts: You would have to bring foot and mouth virus in?
Mr Metcalfe: Absolutely. We would probably need the chief veterinary officer and others to provide evidence to you about the management of that issue.
Senator Roberts: They are up next, I think.
Mr Metcalfe: No. I am only here because I am supporting the minister. The department is formally no longer here.
Senator Roberts: Will you be involved in that test, MLA?
Mr Strong: It’s too early to say. The research that we’re investing in is whether it is possible to produce vaccines using mRNA technology that would allow the treatment of diseases such as lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. That is the research.
Senator Roberts: So it’s very early days?
Mr Strong: Very early days, absolutely, yes.
Senator Roberts: Are you aware that the testing on mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease includes ensuring that the vaccine does not alter the DNA of the animal, thereby destroying generations of genetics? Australian farmers, whether dairy or beef, should be very proud of the genetics they’ve developed over the years. We don’t want the genes altered.
Mr Strong: Absolutely we don’t. Again, it’s too early in the process. I am sure those things will be part of the consideration if there’s any potential risk from that.
Senator Roberts: The answer to question SQ23-000128 precludes the precautionary use of an mRNA vaccine for foot-and-mouth disease or lumpy skin disease as it would remove our status as being disease free. Can you reassure the committee that this is still the position of Meat and Livestock Australia?
Mr Strong: I don’t think that was our position in that question. Wasn’t that a department question? Isn’t that what you were saying?
Mr Metcalfe: That was actually advice from the department to you, Senator. I have indicated that we’re happy to update. If there are any changes, we’re happy to update it. It was only provided a couple of months ago. I would be surprised if there is anything to update.
Senator Roberts: If you could just let us know.
Mr Metcalfe: We’ve taken that on notice already.
Senator Roberts: Let us know if it remains constant or if it has changed.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/q2gP9au7gpo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-13 14:45:192023-06-13 14:45:24Is there an mRNA Vaccine for Australian Cattle?
