Spy agency ASIO not aware of secret Sydney Communist China police station

Reports last year indicated that the China has set up police stations across the world including one in Sydney.

Chinese authorities have said the stations, sometimes called “contact points”, provide services to citizens, such as renewing national identification cards, passports and drivers licences, by using facial recognition technology.

But human rights groups fear overseas police offices could also be used to target dissidents abroad or compel people to return to China where they could face potentially politicised trials.

Despite this potential National Security Breach, our spy agency ASIO doesn’t appear worried and claims to not know anything about it. China must be laughing at our government.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Mr Burgess, you said in your opening statement that

Australia is the target of sophisticated and persistent espionage and foreign interference activities from a range of hostile foreign intelligence services. I take it they use a range of means of doing so.

Mr Burgess: Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a Chinese Communist Party supported contact point in Sydney?

Mr Burgess: I’m not aware of that.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s been reported in the media, I understand.

Mr Burgess: I see many things in the media, but I let the data that we have available to us determine that. I wouldn’t comment on operational matters, but I’m not aware of that in the context of that media reporting.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not aware of how long it’s been in operation or what its purpose is?

Mr Burgess: You’re assuming it’s true.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Burgess: We will investigate things that are associated with acts of foreign interference, but I won’t bring colour to them in a public hearing.

Senator ROBERTS: Are there Chinese police officers working out of premises in Sydney?

Mr Burgess: Not that I’m aware of.

Senator ROBERTS: Are their operations of interest to our security agencies?

Mr Burgess: If anyone here were engaged in acts of espionage or foreign interference, that would be of concern and something that we would investigate.

Senator ROBERTS: What about potential breaches of Australian national sovereignty?

Mr Burgess: Again, my agency will investigate anything that’s a threat to security.

Senator ROBERTS: What about Chinese citizens or Chinese people living here in Australia? Should they be concerned? You would protect them, even though they may not be Australian citizens.

Mr Burgess: Anyone in this country is free to be here, assuming they’re on a valid visa, of course, or they’re a citizen or permanent residence, and they’re of no concern to us unless they’re engaged in matters of prejudicial security, in which case we would show an interest in them.

Senator ROBERTS: Individual security as well as national security?

Mr Burgess: Threats to security are what ASIO worries about.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re not aware of people operating from this contact point, so you wouldn’t know whether or not they have any contact with or influence on Australian Chinese residents or Chinese visa holders.

Mr Burgess: Again, I don’t comment on specific operational matters, but I will say this because I’ve said this publicly before: the threat of espionage and foreign interference is a real threat in this country. It is our principal security concern. It comes from a range of countries, and I think it’s unhelpful for me to call out specific countries and in particular when we talk about the vast range of diaspora communities in this country, the members of those communities are not the problem. It’s the foreign government and the foreign intelligence services that will be the focus for me and my agency.

Senator ROBERTS: The Chinese Communist Party itself has belted our country economically. What Australian overview of agencies that operate in this country is there for premises like the supported contact point in Sydney?

Mr Burgess: Again, I don’t comment on specific matters, but if we have a need to investigate things that may be of concern in relation to security, things that could be used as platforms for espionage or foreign interference, I can assure you my agency will be on it and investigate it. And I can assure you we had a very productive year last year, removing espionage and foreign interference problems from this country.

Senator ROBERTS: And you may or may not be able to tell us about those operations, depending upon the circumstances. Is that correct?

Mr Burgess: I wouldn’t talk about them publicly in detail.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to a series of very short questions on a topic that was underway in last Senate estimates in this room, as I was asking the questions, but it was denied. That was the ISIS brides that were brought back. What are the costs to Australia of bringing these women and children to Australia?

Mr Burgess: The repatriation was not a matter for ASIO. We gave advice on the individuals, but beyond that you’d have to pass that question to others.

Senator ROBERTS: What security measures are to be taken to keep Australian community members safe, because these people have been part of some radical terrorist groups and associated with them?

Mr Burgess: The only comment I’d make there is that ASIO gave security advice to government and, in particular, gave security assessments on all the individuals that returned. That was our job.

Senator ROBERTS: What was that again? You assessed them?

Mr Burgess: We did security assessments on returning individuals, and they returned, and that’s okay.

Senator ROBERTS: Are any of these women currently wives or partners or sisters of terrorists?

Mr Burgess: I won’t go into specific matters.

Senator ROBERTS: Are they genuine refugees?

Mr Burgess: They’re Australian citizens who have returned home.

Senator ROBERTS: Given their recent social circumstances, are any of these people going to need

deradicalization programs?

Mr Burgess: Again, I wouldn’t comment on that publicly, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: How many of the women have been charged with terrorism related offences?

Mr Burgess: I’m not law enforcement. I’m aware of one charge.

Senator ROBERTS: One.

Mr Burgess: You should speak to the AFP about that.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, if it assists you, we do have the AFP a little bit later today. They can answer some of those questions for you.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Given that most of the husbands and children’s fathers have been

killed by Western soldiers, how traumatised and angry were they when you assessed them?

Mr Burgess: I can’t speak for how they’re feeling.

Senator ROBERTS: No, but you would be aware, surely, of their potential threat?

Mr Burgess: As I said, we did security assessments on all the individuals, and anyone who falls into that

category that believes that violence is the answer would be subject to my agency’s inquiry and investigation.

Senator ROBERTS: Is ongoing support to be provided, and what is it?

Mr Burgess: Again, that’s not a matter for my organisation, other than to say that we will continue to watch anyone that is a threat to security, but I’m not making any comment on these individuals.

Senator ROBERTS: You may not be able to answer this, but I’m guessing you would know the answer

because it would form part of your assessment of terrorism threat. Given the children’s exposure to violence, either as victims or perpetrators, what are the plans for their assimilation, and did you make any comments about what was needed?

Mr Burgess: Again, that question is best put to others in Home Affairs and more broadly.

Senator ROBERTS: Does your agency work in providing a diagnosis and recommendations?

Mr Burgess: On individuals or children?

Senator ROBERTS: On treatment of people to make sure that they don’t violate our standards of behaviour.

Mr Burgess: No, we’re not involved in that. We talk about the security threats people might face, and others worry about what treatments, if any, might be needed.

Senator ROBERTS: So, you do interact. If you can see a potential threat, you pass it on to someone. You

don’t just—

Mr Burgess: We’re part of a broader apparatus that helps counterterrorism in this country, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I see Mr Pezzullo nodding in agreement. Have the communities where these people are to be housed been fully consulted? I guess that’s for other people to comment.

Mr Burgess: It’s not a question for me, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Does your assessment of the threat include any consideration of family members here in Australia whose friends or family members have been killed by ISIS terrorists? Do you consult with the community in which they’re going to be placed?

Mr Burgess: No, we’re not involved in that consultation of where they get placed.

Senator ROBERTS: Will the families be housed together or apart?

Mr Burgess: Again, I can’t answer that question.

Senator ROBERTS: I was thinking more from a security point of view.

Mr Burgess: No, that’s irrelevant. They’re Australian citizens; they’re entitled to be where they want to be

unless there’s some legal condition on them. But I’m not law enforcement, so I’m not part of that.

Senator ROBERTS: So, would you be monitoring them more closely if they’re living close together in an enclave?

Mr Burgess: We will monitor anyone that we deem to be a threat to security.

Senator ROBERTS: So, it wouldn’t be part of your recommendations to keep them separate in this country?

Mr Burgess: No, we were not in that space.

Senator ROBERTS: I just have a final question, Chair, on violence. Does ‘violence’ include destroying

artworks, interrupting everyday Australians and destroying roadworks? I note that left-wing extremism in the 20th century killed 120 million people. I presume you monitor all types of extremism?

Mr Burgess: We’ll monitor any individuals that have an ideology that thinks violence is the answer.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much and thank you for your clear statements opposing violence.

CHAIR: Thanks, Senator Roberts.

/4 Comments/by

Fair Work and Coal LSL at Senate Estimates

The Industrial Relations system in this country is a mess. One Nation is committed to untangling the web of over-regulation.

The Fair Work Ombudsman

The Fair Work Commission Part 1
Fair Work Commission Part 2

For three years I have been raising the issue of casual coal miners being fraudulently dudded out of Long Service Leave entitlements. Finally, I was able to secure an audit into the Coal Long Service Leave Scheme from the previous government. Yet, exactly how much needs to be paid back to casual coal miners is still unclear. We’ll be following this up again at next estimates and ensuring casual workers receive the leave payments they are entitled to.

/by

The Narrative continues to fall apart – TGA at Senate Estimates

,

With each new day we find more evidence of conflicts of interest, lies from the supposed “experts” and none of these bureaucrats want to acknowledge it. We need a Royal Commission to bring their lies out into the daylight.

Transcript (click)

Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me how many medicines were approved under the provisional approval pathway during the COVID period 1 July 2020 to date? My numbers are 13 vaccines and six drugs; is that correct?

Dr Skerritt: Are you talking specifically about COVID treatments and COVID vaccines?

Senator ROBERTS: No, any vaccines or drugs that have been approved using the provisional pathway.

Dr Skerritt: I will start with COVID vaccine treatments. There have been seven COVID vaccines and eight COVID treatments. I’ll just check whether I’ve got the numbers for other medicines during that period. You’re talking about the provisional approval pathway?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Dr Skerritt: From 1 July this year there have been five provisional approvals. From the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022 there have been 23. That would include those COVID treatments. What it does show is a lot of other medicines, such as cancer medicines, such as medicines for rare conditions, have also been approved. In the financial year 2021, from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022, there were five. Over the period you’re talking about, that would add up to 33.

Senator ROBERTS: How many drugs have been approved under the normal process during that same period?

Dr Skerritt: During the same period? I will add the three financial years and I’ll check my mental arithmetic. So 36 this current financial year, and 117. These are either new approvals or new indications approved. And 95 the year before. So, it is a significant percentage, but not most of them.

Senator ROBERTS: Is the maximum provisional approval period six years because it can take that long to get drugs approved under the old approval system?

Dr Skerritt: A provisional approval is only valid for two years and then the company either has to come back and show why they cannot obtain all the data within the period and apply for an extension.

Senator ROBERTS: No, the maximum provisional approval?

Dr Skerritt: They can apply for further lots of two years.

Senator ROBERTS: Is the maximum provisional approval—

Dr Skerritt: Overall the maximum period is six years, but it’s not six years off the bat.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s two years with extensions.

Dr Skerritt: They are possible extensions; they’re not guaranteed.

Senator ROBERTS: How much money do you save pharmaceutical companies by switching from full approval to express approval? I understand it’s hundreds of millions per approval?

Dr Skerritt: It actually costs the pharmaceutical companies more in regulatory fees for provisional approval.

Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t say regulatory fees. How much are you saving the pharmaceutical companies by giving them express or provisional approval rather than going through the six-year period for getting proper approval?

Dr Skerritt: No, you’ve misinterpreted the system. It’s not a six-year period to get full regulatory approval.

Senator ROBERTS: It varies. I accept that.

Dr Skerritt: Most of our approvals are submitted as a standard approval, especially, for example, if it wasn’t a public health emergency or it’s a drug that already has others in the same category. They’re submitted as a standard approval.

Senator ROBERTS: Dedicated trials for their drugs, I understand, can be hundreds of millions of dollars. How much time and money would they save by going express?

Dr Skerritt: We would not give a provisional approval to a medicine unless there were clinical trials.

Senator ROBERTS: How much money does it save if they do a provisional without doing a formal or normal approval process? How much money does it save the drug company?

Dr Skerritt: I don’t believe there are necessarily savings. The situation would be different for every drug. It’s really important to emphasise there were very extensive clinical trials for the vaccines and treatments that have been through provisional approval.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to get the full approval process. Without the dedicated trial, they could save hundreds of millions of dollars per drug?

Dr Skerritt: I don’t necessarily agree with you.

Senator ROBERTS: When does the provisional approval for Pfizer expire?

Dr Skerritt: The two-year period will be two years from the anniversary of the first approval. I would emphasise that in certain countries—

Senator ROBERTS: What is that date?

Dr Skerritt: The products are now fully approved.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the date of provisional approval expiry?

Dr Skerritt: For the very first approval, for 16 years and over, the two-year period finishes on 25 January 2023.

Senator ROBERTS: I have in front of me a document called the Australian Public Assessment Report for Tozinameran, from Comirnaty (Pfizer), dated December 2021. Is this the approval application for the paediatric version of the Pfizer vaccine?

Dr Skerritt: No, it is not. An Australian Public Assessment Report is a summary of the assessment that we did of the application. You mentioned Pfizer. The actual application is over 220,000 thousand pages of paper from Pfizer for that particular group of vaccines.

Senator ROBERTS: I reference page 61, which states:

Limitations of the current application data. Safety follow-up is currently limited to median 2.4 months post dose 2 in cohort 1, and 2.4 weeks for the safety expansion cohort.

What is the safety expansion cohort?

Dr Skerritt: Remember, also, this was going back to the time of approval. We now have hundreds of millions, actually more than a billion, people who have been vaccinated with that vaccine and experience going on since December 2020, when the first vaccination was done. The safety expansion cohort is in a clinical trial where individuals are monitored closely and the data reported back to regulators for periods of months, leading to years, after their vaccination.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you recommend this substance based on 2.4 weeks of safety testing or did you get more in? If so, over what period? How many months?

Dr Skerritt: Remember the initial approval from TGA was based on that two months of follow-up, but we also had the experience of other countries that had more than a month before starting mass vaccination campaigns. When we approved Pfizer on 25 January2021, we were in almost daily contact with the British, who by that stage had vaccinated millions of British people by 25 January 2021. Real-world evidence played a very important role in both the approvals and in the ongoing safety monitoring of these vaccines.

Senator ROBERTS: So you relied on data from other countries and you relied for periods of months, merely months. It can’t be more than six months, because there’s a gap between application and approval and to give time for collection of data and analysis. There should be years of data before we start putting this stuff into our children, yet it’s months.

Dr Skerritt: I disagree in the context of a pandemic and a public health crisis. Regulators globally felt that it was appropriate to do initial approvals—

Senator ROBERTS: You’re the Australian regulator.

Dr Skerritt: As the head of the Australian regulator, I would do precisely the same if I had my time again. The alternative would have been to leave Australians unvaccinated through the course of 2020, 2021 and 2022, and there would have been tens of thousands more Australian deaths.

Senator ROBERTS: Can I reference a letter from the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, signed by Radha Khiani, Director, Governance and Coordination section, in which the department makes this claim. The letter from 4 November 2022, just last week, states:

A large team of technical and clinical experts at the TGA carefully evaluated the data submitted by the sponsor. A treatment or vaccine is only provisionally approved if this rigorous process is completed.

This document concerned the use of Pfizer stages 2 to 3 cynical trial data in support of their application for provisional approval. Did the TGA check the stage 2 and stage 3 clinical trial data from Pfizer? Did you check it?

Dr Skerritt: We did check the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data from Pfizer and we also took it to independent external medical experts as well as consumer representatives.

Senator ROBERTS: Referencing Freedom of Information No. 2289, in which the applicant requested a copy of the stage 2 and stage 3 clinical trial data, the TGA responded that the ‘TGA does not hold any relevant documents relating to the request’. That was a request for stages 2 to 3 clinical trial data.

Dr Skerritt: Without seeing what’s in your hand, I believe that you asked for individual patient data rather than the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data. I can give you my word that we assessed the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data; otherwise, what else did we do? Look at the colour of the label on the bottle? That is the main thing our team of several thousand clinicians look at in reviewing a new vaccine, the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data. It is the centrepiece.

Senator ROBERTS: The freedom-of-information request then asked for ‘any documents confirming the process of analysing this data to a decision, including meetings, notes, dates and times’. Again the TGA replied, ‘We have no relevant documents.’ Did you review the stage 2 and stage 3 data or not, and, if you did, why did you tell this freedom-of-information applicant you did not have these documents? Which document is the lie? One of them is.

Dr Skerritt: I don’t have that document in front of me. We can review it on notice. But we reviewed the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data at length.

CHAIR: This really needs to be the last one so I can share the call.

Senator ROBERTS: I just want you to think about this and confirm it or otherwise: and ‘the trail data contained sufficient proof the vaccines were safe and effective, sufficient to meet the criteria for provisional approval’; is that correct?

Dr Skerritt: Correct. Yes.

Transcript (click)

Senator ROBERTS: I asked a question earlier, Professor Skerritt, about the number of drugs approved under the full approval process, the normal process. If you exclude the number of drugs that you said were new uses for existing drugs and medical devices, what is the figure for new drugs approved under the full approval process in the last three years?

Dr Skerritt : It will be about 90, but I’ll give you the exact answer on notice. We approve between 30 and 40 new drugs a year.

Senator ROBERTS: You also confirmed your view that ‘the trial data contained sufficient proof that the vaccines were safe and effective, sufficient to meet the criteria for provisional approval’. Yet after 18 months and analysing the data, some of the world’s leading virologists and pharmacologists from UCLA, Stamford and here in Australia found that the ‘Stage 2 and Stage 3 trial data showed the vaccine was associated with a 36 per cent increase in serious adverse events’ and ‘out of every 10,000 people injected, 18 will experience a life-threatening or altering complication, and the vaccine should not have been approved, as it caused more harm than it prevented’. That’s what they said. One of the papers—there are several papers—is titled ‘Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomised trials in adults’. How could ATAGI review the data and conclude that everything was fine, with the world’s leading experts on the subject, in a peer reviewed and published paper, then finding the exact opposite? Did you approve the vaccine in a deal with colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry?

Dr Skerritt : I think that’s an offensive allegation, and we certainly did not.

Senator ROBERTS: You had colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr Skerritt : We did not approve the vaccine in a deal with colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry.

Senator ROBERTS: You had colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr Skerritt : I wouldn’t say that they were colleagues; we work with people. We also work with—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I mean: you worked with them.

Dr Skerritt : people in terms of the courts, including the criminal court. So, we work with people in the pharmaceutical industry and we work with other government people, but they’re not colleagues in the sense of working for the same organisation.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you do a deal or come to an arrangement with the—

Dr Skerritt : No.

Senator ROBERTS: It could have been just provisional approval to get it through. Did you do that with the pharmaceutical industry?

Dr Skerritt : No. No, that’s an offensive and unfounded allegation, and I’d like you to withdraw it.

Senator ROBERTS: There are thousands of people who are dead, and we’ll get on to that in the next session.

Dr Skerritt : I disagree with you. There are 14 deaths associated with vaccines in Australia, all—

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get on to that in the next Senate estimates.

Dr Skerritt : I look forward to it.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, so do I.

/24 Comments/by

Coal miners still being dudded out of entitlements

For three years I have been raising the issue of casual coal miners being fraudulently dudded out of Long Service Leave entitlements. Finally, I was able to secure an audit into the Coal Long Service Leave Scheme from the previous government.

Yet, exactly how much needs to be paid back to casual coal miners is still unclear. We’ll be following this up again at next estimates and ensuring casual workers receive the leave payments they are entitled to.

/4 Comments/by

Fire Ant eradication failure costing hundreds of millions

I had a simple question for our bio-security officials, are they winning in their war against fire ants in south Queensland? The answer I get from people on the ground is definitely not.

There’s a lot of questions about how the State Government is spending the hundreds of millions and whether it’s just a money spinner while fire ants continue their march across Queensland.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are on fire ants, as a result of concerns raised by several constituents over several years in south-eastern Queensland around the towns of Gatton and Boonah.  

Mr Metcalfe: Sorry, I didn’t hear the first part of the question. CHAIR: Yes, you are a bit hard to hear.  

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are from constituents in the towns of Gatton and Boonah in South East Queensland and they are on fire ants—eradication or suppression or containment, I’m not sure which.  

Mr Metcalfe: That is a very long-standing and expensive program.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. How much has it cost the Commonwealth government of Australia to fund the fight against the spread and ultimately eradicate these pests—fire ants—so far?  

Dr Locke: My colleague might correct me if I got this wrong, but the federal government, as I understand it, has spent $294.3 million to date as its contribution to the program.  

Mr Simpson: Yes, since 2001.  

Senator ROBERTS: The figures I have been told were of $412 million allocated over 10 years, running out in the next 12 months, but the actual spending is $700 million. I have heard that figure from people in the Queensland government.  

Mr Simpson: The National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program in South East Queensland is a $411.4 million nationally cost-shared program. That is the current program in place at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you say $411 million?  

Mr Simpson: It is $411.4 million.  

Dr Locke: It runs to 2027, so it is not quite 12 months. This may have been a previous line of questioning but it has been subject to a review, and Queensland as the lead agency is to come to national governments through the ag ministerial council to provide an update and to propose where to take the program going forward. 

Senator ROBERTS: So it is $412 million. My figures are correct. The next question is: Are we winning in getting rid of the fire ants?  

Dr Locke: That is the essence of the paper the Queensland government will bring back to the ag ministers shortly. They are making good progress but it is an incredibly expensive program, as you know. I guess the question will be how much do we keep spending where and is that viable, and we haven’t got to that decision gate yet.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your KPIs don’t include: are we are winning or not? You can’t tell me if that is the case; you are relying on Queensland?  

Dr Locke: The review certainly said that we’re making good progress but it also suggested we should do some things differently. I guess that is what we have got to see rolled into a proposal for governments.  

Senator ROBERTS: Listening to the residents in the rural area near Gatton and Boonah, they are suggesting that you are not making progress.  

Dr Locke: To be fair, there is a large amount of money being spent on the eradication program. It is making a difference in some areas. I wouldn’t presume to say that their experience of that is wrong, but we need to see what the sum of the proposal looks like from the Queensland government.  

Senator ROBERTS: So are we waiting on the Queensland government, which is receiving hundreds of millions of dollars, to give us the answer?  

Dr Locke: They are the lead jurisdiction on a national response.  

Senator ROBERTS: But that’s true: we’re waiting on them?  

Dr Locke: Yes, but it’ll be a year soon.  

Senator ROBERTS: My point is that they’ve got an interest in perpetuating the spending of that money.  

Dr Locke: I’ve spent a lot of time talking to the Queensland government and the heads of Biosecurity. They don’t want to be doing this program if they don’t need to, but they want to get rid of red imported fire ants, as do all the other jurisdictions that are contributing to the funding.  

Senator ROBERTS: People want to get rid of them, but that doesn’t mean they’re effective in getting rid of them. That’s why I was asking you for KPIs.  

Dr Locke: There’s a lot of scrutiny on what the Queensland government is doing because other jurisdictions have to pay the cost. We pay for half of it and then other jurisdictions contribute as well, so there’s a lot of interest in what Queensland’s doing and there will be a lot of scrutiny on their proposal.  

Mr Metcalfe: Just to add to that, the actual independent chair of the steering committee is Dr Wendy Craik, who’s very well known in agricultural circles and is a very eminent and respected person. I certainly recall that she and her committee reported to agriculture senior officials over the last year or two. But you are absolutely right. It is an insidious and difficult pest, and, although it may well have been eradicated in some areas, it is still in others and we are very much awaiting advice from Queensland as to what would be needed to try and finally deal with the issue. But it’s a difficult one. It just shows you how difficult these issues can be.  

Dr Locke: In any eradication program there’s a first question about whether eradication is technically feasible and then there’s a question about the benefits and costs. Our understanding is that the revised Queensland proposal will say that it is still feasible, but we haven’t yet seen that and we haven’t yet had the chance to assess the benefits and costs.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true, though, that areas that should be pest free are not—for example, the Richlands market garden is still infested. I understand there’s an area somewhat close to the Port of Brisbane, where they first arrived, is invested. I understand, in listening to some construction workers developing new housing estates just south of Ipswich, that they regularly just kick over these fire ant nests.  

Mr Metcalfe: I think that’s all true. We would probably need to take on notice information about very specific locations and we’d need to rely upon advice from the Queensland government about that, but I think we’re all saying that it’s a long-term and difficult issue but the Queensland government continues to be of the view that it’s a fight worth fighting and that it is able to be achieved. Apart from anything else—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your honesty.  

Mr Metcalfe: Yes. Apart from anything else, it’s almost a fight that we must win. If the ants continue to spread and find their way up over the divide, then there’s a real issue as to whether they can migrate beyond the valleys around Brisbane and into the downs and elsewhere. I don’t think anyone’s under any misapprehension as to how serious this is and that’s why so much public funding has gone into it and a lot of smart people are working very hard to try and deal with it.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not doubting that they’re smart, and I’m not doubting there’s a lot of money going in. What I am doubting is the effectiveness, because I’ve listened to people on the ground—farmers and rural residents—and they’re not at all convinced and they’re worried about the dangers.  

Dr Locke: It’s a fair question, Senator, but I think that’s what their plan will address and I think you’ll find that, in some areas, you’ll get more positive responses, but there’s widespread concern, obviously, about the red imported fire ants. That’s why so much focus is being put on them.  

Senator ROBERTS: The secretary just said if they get west of the ranges then we’re in even more trouble, but that’s why I want to know how effective it is because if it’s not effective, they will go west of the ranges.  

Dr Locke: And that’s why all jurisdictions are contributing to the cost of the control.  

Mr Metcalfe: That’s not to underestimate the issues faced by people where they currently are. I’m not in any way denying the seriousness of the impact on amenity and production in the current areas of location, but there are very sound reasons for continuing to try and eradicate them, for broader regions as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that there is a request before the Commonwealth for more than $800 million to be put towards the cost of the future program?  

Dr Locke: I’m not aware of any such request.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What studies have been done as to the effect on human health of the insecticides used on fire ants?  

Dr Locke: I’m not sure if we have that detail here, do we?  

Mr Simpson: I’m sorry, we don’t have that with us.  

Mr Metcalfe: We’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why is bait laying done in wet weather when it is clearly stated that it is not to be done and rainy weather due to health risks?  

Mr Metcalfe: We’ll check on that with the Queensland government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why are property owners not warned about aerial spraying, from helicopters, over their properties, even if it is not proven that fire ants are present there? It just seems indiscriminate.  

Mr Metcalfe : I will take that on notice as well. I’m not agreeing with any of it; I’m simply saying I’ll find out.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that the insecticides used to kill off all insect life make contact with and are a danger to the aquatic food chain?  

Mr Metcalfe : We’ll check on that as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Queensland government representatives in charge of the fire ant project could not answer these basic questions, not with any confidence. Residents are really concerned about their own health and their food security. What studies are being done in Queensland to monitor the health of the environment as a result of the indiscriminate spraying that puts toxic chemicals into the waterways?  

Mr Metcalfe : We’ll seek a response in relation to that as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: On what basis are federal moneys provided to the states to assist with these programs? I was told a few years ago in Gatton that the state government gets a different amount of money, whether it’s based upon an eradication program or a containment program. Is that true?  

Dr Locke: This is not a response that is funded under one of our standing deeds, but it follows very similar mechanisms. There are similar decision steps you go through about whether it can be eradicated and whether it is technically feasible. There are technical advisory bodies that help with that. There is a cost benefit piece and then there is a funding formula that depends on the nature of the pest. It is very like the disease responses we’ve got, that are managed through established deeds, but it is an independent framework.  

Senator ROBERTS: What kind of oversight do you have with regard to the effectiveness? I would like to know. The residents tell me, with some authority, that there’s an incredible waste of millions of taxpayers’ dollars when baiting is done, with no chance of success. People are not even warned that helicopters are dropping baits on their land. The next thing they know, a helicopter is dropping baits on their land during the rain. They can’t see how it is possibly working.  

Mr Metcalfe : Obviously, there are committees, there are experts and there are a whole bunch of overlays around this. I think it’s probably best if we respond to those very specific complaints. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know, specifically, how you track to make sure the Queensland government is doing a good job and not just spending money.  

Mr Metcalfe : Again, we will put that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is this, essentially, an ongoing money-spinner for the states?  

Mr Metcalfe : I think the easy way to say it is that the Queensland government would far prefer this to have been a successful program and no further money required, rather than simply seeing it as some sort of employment program—far from it.  

Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, the Queensland government is like some other governments; they don’t care, so long as they’re seen to be doing something. They want to look good rather than do good. That’s the concern of the residents, and people’s health is getting compromised.  

Mr Metcalfe : At a local level, the Queensland government has clear accountability in relation to this. But we will certainly provide answers, as far as we can.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any consideration given to nominating this as a project for the Australian National Audit Office?  

Mr Metcalfe : The Audit Office has looked at biosecurity arrangements generally. I’m not sure whether that’s been something—  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s a lot of money going into this.  

Dr Locke: This program was subject to a review not long ago; I’m not sure if I’ve got all the details of that but I am sure the ANAO will take an interest in the program at some point, given its size.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you refer it to them?  

Dr Locke: I just think the way you’d characterise the Queensland government’s engagement on this issue doesn’t reflect our experience.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve seen two public meetings now where the Queensland government representatives have completely failed to allay fears.  

Dr Locke: Again, I am not disputing that experience and the views of your constituents; we’re happy to follow those up with the Queensland government. But I can’t say that I have seen anything that would characterise this as a money-spinner for the Queensland government. They are desperately trying to get rid of these fire ants, and they’re looking at innovative ways to do that. That’s certainly been the message that I got from Wendy Craik, when I spoke to her about the program, as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not here to convince you; I’m just here to ask questions and get your answers.  

Dr Locke: We’re happy to follow this up. I think it’s important to not lose community support for these programs.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know some specifics, please, in those answers. I’ve got more questions on foulbrood, but I’ll give someone else a go. 

/9 Comments/by

Labor breaking promises to coal miners, again

Labor paraded around coal towns during the election promising coal miners a “just transition” and replacement jobs because of the transition to net-zero. Just a few months into their government, BHP has announced the closure of their Mount Arthur coal mine with 2000 miners to lose their jobs.

Instead of finding them the replacement jobs they promised, the government is washing their hands of the closure and saying it has nothing to do with them despite the fact they put their net-zero target into law. It just goes to show, they’ll tell you anything to get elected and then say “not our job” once they get in.

/5 Comments/by

17,000 Bee Hives Destroyed by Government

Despite the government destroying tens of thousands of bee hives they have still failed in their mission to try and contain a varoa mite outbreak. No support has been offered to beekeepers to restock their hives. Without bees we won’t have agriculture and we won’t have food.

/37 Comments/by

Government uses data breaches to push Digital Identity

Have you noticed more and more data breaches lately? Some in the Government are using this as a reason to centralise everything into one Digital Identity. As the long list I read out proves, nothing is unhackable. That’s a good reason why you SHOULDN’T centralise everyone’s data into one Digital Identity location. It would be a hackers dream, a one stop shop to steal your identity.

/43 Comments/by

Was the election audited as required?

Before the election a change was made requiring the Australian Signals Directorate to audit the AEC voting systems ensuring they were secure and fit for purpose. I was hoping for a very quick answer at Senate Estimates to confirm this was done but didn’t receive one. The agency has about 6 weeks to get the answers back to me after taking the questions on notice.

/19 Comments/by

What is the AEC doing?

After every election the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) meets to review the election – what went well, what went badly, and most importantly how to improve the election experience and increase accuracy.

This year the Government has opened the JSCEM inquiry with a very limited terms of reference, which is a very unusual decision.

Many thousands of submissions have been made, these are either not being published or published with heavy redactions.

Today I asked questions in Senate Estimates to draw attention to some of the areas in this election that must be done better next time. I call on the Government to upgrade the JSCEM Inquiry to a full inquiry, as normal.

Every Australian who has made a submission deserved to have their concerns dealt with.

/7 Comments/by