WILL ANYONE TELL ME THEY’VE CALCULATED HOW MUCH CLIMATE POLICY COSTS?
Our commissioned report by economist Dr Alan Moran estimates that climate policies cost Australians $13 billion every year. You would think on such a costly policy area the government would have made its own estimates. Well they haven’t, not even the Productivity Commission could give me a figure or tell me where the proof that human CO2 affects climate and needs to be cut is.
Transcript
Senator Roberts, you have the call.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair. And thank you for being here tonight. I understand the Productivity Commission does analysis of policy sometimes; impacts, so on. Good policy in my view would be based on specifically, particularly in terms of climate change and energy policies, would be based upon specified, quantified impacts of carbon dioxide. In other words, for a given amount of carbon dioxide output from humans, it would have a quantified effect on climate factors, such as temperature. Now you’ve written reports on climate change, I believe. Have you ever identified any specified quantified link between human carbon dioxide and any climate factor? Whether it be temperature, rainfall, droughts, storms, whatever. Specific quantified impact.
So Senator, sorry, Michael Brennan the Chair of the Productivity Commission. I would have to check, it’s a while since we’ve done work that went specifically to climate change or other related policies like energy policy. For the most part, the scientific basis for the work, I think has been based on findings from organisations like the IPCC. So it hasn’t been the practise of the commission to second guess the scientific assessment made by other entities. But possibly to make a judgement about the economic policy response and how best the economic policy response might sit with that science. But as I say, it’s some time, I would have to take on notice the last bit of work we have done that was specifically on climate or a related policy and confirm that response.
[Malcolm Roberts] So you’ve not been able to identify specific, quantified impacts between human carbon dioxide and temp and climate factors.
Well, I’m really saying that it wasn’t necessarily we would not have seen that as part of our…
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. But you have to, yes. Okay. So I’m not finding you wrong for doing that, but you haven’t seen that. Have you assessed the, you have assessed the costs and benefits of policies?
I’m going to have to take that on notice because it’s a while. And I might even turn to Mr. Latimer because his history with the commission is longer than mine. It’s certainly in recent years, we haven’t done work in this area going back 10 to 15 years, possibly.
2012, we did some work on barriers to effective climate change adaptation, but we haven’t done a lot of work in this arena.
[Malcolm Roberts] Wouldn’t it be difficult to assess a policy if there’s no specified quantified link between the cause, the claimed cause carbon dioxide from human activity, and the impact supposedly?
Well, it could be potentially, but it would be, if we were to undertake work of that nature we would be taking the science as given by what we would take to be the expert scientific community.
Okay.
[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve had policies now going on at least 25, sorry, not in ’96, 25 years that are impacting energy, generation, agriculture, industry, transport, personal as well as business. And these had billions of dollars of impact throttling us back in our economy, especially relative to our competitors. Could you tell me, on notice, what advice you have given to governments? Not you, but the Productivity commission, has given to governments and MPs and ministers since 1996. Please, just the type of communication, the date, the type of communication, who it was sent to, and what the advice was, please?
You said it all. We can certainly take that on notice. It’ll be predominantly in the form of written reports that we will have published. That that’s our primary end for the most part, the overwhelming bulk of our communications with government.
[Malcolm Roberts] And if you could note the specific advice in there. Just a summary of that advice, please?
We’ll see what we can do. Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much. Thanks. Thanks Chair. That’s all.
There are many allegations of criminal activity and water stealing in the Murray Darling Basin. The Inspector General of Water is intended to be the cop on the beat and stamp out a lot of this non-compliance. I’ve travelled extensively across the Murray Darling Basin and spoken to locals on the ground.
I wanted to see if many of the issues I’d been told of had been brought to his attention.
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts] Have you made contact with the New South Wales Natural Resources Access Regulator specifically in connection with unapproved water storages in New South Wales, including the Northern Basin?
I’ve had a number of contacts with Grant Barnes, the CEO of the Natural Resource Access Regulator and the Chairman Craig Knowles, not on that specific issue, more on general issues about our establishment and about metering and yeah, metering and a little bit about the water sharing plan on our last meeting.
[Malcolm Roberts] Are you aware, I’m not having a criticism of you, but are you aware of how much concern there is about water theft in the Northern Basin from people in other areas of the Murray-Darling Basin?
Oh, without question.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That’s very reassuring.
Yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] So is there a timeframe for getting to the bottom of the question of how much water is being extracted in the Northern Basin as against the amount allowed by the plan?
Our work plan will, once we are legislated enact a number of assurance checks, auditing processes to get to answer a lot of those questions and then hopefully be able to work off a benchmark so that we can then answer those questions specifically.
[Malcolm Roberts] So I understand the legislation that enables your position is in the Lower House now?
That’s correct.
[Malcolm Roberts] And, so once that’s passed, how long do you think it’ll be before you have a good handle of that, three months, six months?
I can’t speculate on the parliamentary process or the ascension into from the Governor General.
[Malcolm Roberts] Once your position is created, legislated, how long will it take you to get a good handle on the Northern basin and the water?
We’ve already got a handle, we’ve made preparations with the scoping of a number of bodies of work that will be part of our work plan to start day one.
[Malcolm Roberts] And to get to the bottom of the issues and come up with some conclusions. How long roughly, do you think?
Well, there’s different timelines for different projects within that work plan, but they will all be transparently published on our website. So everyone will understand the work that we’re doing and the projects that we’re doing and the timeframes.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s wonderful. When will that be available? I know it’s subject to the passage of the legislation.
The day we are enacted, it will be published.
[Malcolm Roberts] There’ll be a lot of people pleased to hear that. So we’ll be looking forward to it. If the enabling legislation passes as presented what tools do you have at your disposal to decide who is and who is not cheating on the basin plan? And what strategies would you be following?
It’s a difficult question to answer cause it’s case by case, or there’s holistic views, so, I guess if you’re talking about, if it’s a regional issue, like you referenced the Northern Basin, the legislation would allow us to potentially conduct an inquiry to get through some potential broader systematic issues that may be there. We have the ability through audit and compelling of information to inform potential river operation arrangements and how that’s measured and modelled and things like that. So there’s a number of different mechanisms depending on what the scope of the actual inquiry is. So your questions are very large, broad.
[Malcolm Roberts] So you can work at that level, but you can also work at the property level?
Exactly. Right. The property level would be less regular, we’re a regulator of last resort in that instance but there would be circumstances where we would do that and the legislation allows us to have authorised officers to conduct that work. But yes, it’s a tiered ability from an inquiry through to audit and assurance, checking and through to individual investigations.
[Malcolm Roberts] And you will also have the authority to appoint people to do that work for you?
Yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] So you’re going to have foot soldiers for you?
Yes. I will have under the statute the ability to, not sure of the exact word but to create the authorised officer or officers.
[Malcolm Roberts] So you’ll have all that’s needed to enforce the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, make sure there’s no favouritism to any area.
Yes, and part of the MoG arrangements is making sure that each of those authorised officers have the appropriate training, skill sets and to allow me to approve them as Commonwealth investigators as an authorised officer.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. ‘Cause there’s a lot of concern about cheating on the plan.
I’ve heard that loud and clear Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] What other matters are you investigating right now?
We don’t have the powers to formally investigate.
[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry. Yeah. Okay. What are you evaluating right now? What will you be investigating
We’re scoping and canvassing everything from standards, trying to understand benchmark of standards because the inconsistency from valley to valley, state to state, north to south basin is significant. So we’re canvassing that and have a body of work prepared for that, river operations, metering, trade, which there’s specific legislation in relation to trade. There’s specific legislation that allows me to create standards and benchmarks. Now that’s done in cooperation with the basin states obviously because a lot of the state legislation may need adjustment depending on what agreed standards and benchmarks that are created as well, so it’s a variant scale of work.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’m very pleased to hear that you’ve used the word variation because there is enormous variation, particularly between the north and south, that makes it very difficult for people in those areas to understand the other areas. But what specific topics are on your radar? What issues?
Senator, all of them to be frank and because a lot of them are interrelated, there’s a lot of misinformation out there as well. So we have a role to be a myth buster and independent communicator of truth and make sure that the data that people rely on and the modelling that’s relied on has an independent validation as well. There’s a componentry role that we’ll play there. It’s a very broad role, but metering measurement through to water operations through to environmental water and outcomes. It’s everything.
[Malcolm Roberts] So trading?
I have, yes, I have powers under the act in relation to trading, but limited resources and mindful of of the recent ACCC’s work and recommendations which is currently under consideration by all states and the federal government.
[Malcolm Roberts] And what about making recommendations and changing systems to enable you to better oversee the trading in any breaches of trading regulations?
Yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] You’ve got the ability and the support to be able to make changes?
I won’t have the power to be the– up through the Basin Official Committee into MinCO for those.
[Malcolm Roberts] Because it seems at the moment trading is something that is difficult to enforce for a variety of reasons, but you’ll be able to get through that.
Well, I’ll be able to assist the Ministerial Council and Basin Officials Committee.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you Chair, that’s all I have.
[Chair] Thank you Senator Roberts.
[Malcolm Roberts] And I appreciate your direct answers. Thank you.
No, you’re welcome, Senator.
Chair could I just add to those answers by saying that, of course the relevant bill was introduced to The House of Representatives this week, through the explanatory materials, the minister’s second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum outlines many of the issues that the Inspector General has just been talking about and I’ve just reacquainted myself with the explanatory memorandum. It’s written in a very good style and it outlines the proposed powers of the Inspector General, the offence provisions and the various other issues that have been outlined here. So I would commend that to the attention of the committee.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you chair. Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Grant will then have the ability for things that are not defined in the regulations or in the legislation to actually go and talk to someone to make sure that they’re covered somehow?
Well, Mr. Grant, or the Inspector General, once appointed, would certainly be charged with the administration of those aspects of compliance and Mr. Grant’s interim Inspector General has indicated the work that’s underway at the moment, but also the preparations, the very detailed preparations that have been put in place to ensure that when the legislation and if the legislation is passed, the Inspector General will be able to hit the ground running.
[Malcolm Roberts] Apart from variation, another word that keeps cropping up is complexity in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the work of the Authority. So, Mr. Grant is human and he’s already had some input into the legislation, as I understand it, is that correct?
[Mr. Grant] Yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] You mentioned that at the last Estimates I think, but he’s human so he won’t be able to understand everything quickly. So there’ll be need for changes of his approach or maybe changes that he couldn’t foresee a few months ago.
Well, certainly the Inspector General and Mr. Grant has outlined the fact that the Inspector General and the staff of the Inspector General will be a cop on the beat, that they will have staff, quite a significant resourcing out there in the Basin, working on a daily basis on these issues. And of course, if there are views that arrangements are not working properly, as Mr. Grant has explained, there’s a loop back through the Basin Officials Committee, given that this is a shared space between the Commonwealth and the states and the ACT to consider whether adjustments need to be made. So, the fact that there will be an on the ground presence will be a particularly powerful way of ensuring that things are actually working and if they need improvements then things can be done about it.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/latixF0DaPs/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-02 16:57:382021-06-02 16:57:51Will the Inspector General of Water Compliance have real teeth?
Mayor Yanna has identified multiple problems with satisfying the needs of Mornington Islanders. After the closure of the canteen which served safe light beer, many of the people addicted to alcohol turned to poisonous home brew which destroyed their kidneys and is killing many.
It’s just another example of how despite billions of dollars in funding, the complaints of inner city activists are not helping indigenous people in their communities at all.
Transcript
Senator Roberts.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you Chair, and thank you for being here today. Six months or so ago in response to one of my constituents on Mornington Island. One of my office staff visited the island and he was shocked with the outright squalid conditions that the Islanders are forced to endure, absolutely through no fault of their own. We’re planning for me to visit with all the aboriginals in the coming dry season, right across the whole of the Cape, including Mornington Island. It’s recently been the subject of interest in the Queensland media due to the poverty and poor health the islanders living there. And I understand the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Health Minister have both said they will visit the island to see the conditions for themselves, so they’re obviously aware that it’s shocking. So my first question is, with the dwindling population of less than 1200 residents in Mornington Island why is the medical centre only manned by nurses with no resident doctor, to look after the needs of the residents when 50% of the population are reportedly having chronic diseases?
So well, it’s a very broad question.
[Malcolm Roberts] It is, yeah.
But I think, so in terms of provision of good primary health care for that then we don’t specifically mandate the requirements for each particular health centre that has to have X, Y, and Z. That tends to be the health clinics will tend to work out what they’ll need for that, most we’ll have arrangements where there is a nurse led post, which will deal with all of emergencies, and then that’s usually where they’ll connect up, and that is for a lot of the day-to-day provision of, for basic primary health care, for more chronic needs then most of the clinics have arrangements with, either they’ll have GPs visiting from time to time or they’ll connect people up on, in through other services in mainland to basically get that provision of GP service. So it depends, it varies a little bit from service to service, how that will be done. Mornington Island, I think we would need to go and check so I’m not actually sure whether that’s a community control clinic, it might actually be a Queensland Government clinic as well, possibly for that so we would need to go and find a bit more detail specifically around that but it does vary from community to community about how the clinics provide health care and how they will access into there for the GP services. But, nurse led processes are not uncommon in remote communities because they are a way of delivering good frontline healthcare and then connecting up with GP care…
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, I accept and understand that a lot of the nurses are wonderful, but why are so many residents of the island needing dialysis off island, and how many are treated this way? Now you probably have to give me that on notice.
We would need to, in terms of specific numbers about how many would be needed, the dialysis cohort on time I would absolutely have to go and check with that. And that dialysis is generally a state and territory provision through hospital and outreach services they’ve structured that, there are in various places in remote, you know dialysis chairs, and we did have some visiting services around that to return people in there, but obviously a lot of the people with dialysis can have other complex issues. So sort of being able to provide the dialysis in a setting that has that wider medical facilities is which is why quite often went out, why quite often dialysis occurs in hospital settings, and those sort of places. Although obviously there are some, there is a general movement in some areas to try and get dialysis back into closer to community, and that’s why we have things like Purple House and providers, particularly in the territory and some of the remote areas who will then provide dialysis closer to home.
Sorry Senator, we’ll probably have to take a lot of the detailed questions around Mornington Island specifically on notice, but certainly Mornington Island has a hospital and a healthcare centre run out of the hospital, that’s provided by Queensland Government, its staffing and its adequacy we’d need to talk to Queensland about as well.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, so taking on from Mr Matthew’s point, it is more complex than just simple dialysis. Why is type two diabetes, for example, so common in the residents even including teenagers, and how many are treated for this? So you’d have to do that on notice.
We’d need to take that on notice.
[Malcolm Roberts] So with the chronic shortages of affordable fruit and vegetables and widespread malnutrition, have something to do with it?
I couldn’t comment without knowing the details Senator, but sadly chronic conditions and the incidents of chronic disease is high in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities…
[Malcolm Roberts] And even malnutrition?
Particularly, in remote communities.
[Malcolm Roberts] For such a small population, why is the death rate of residents so high? And how many deaths occurred last year, and why is the suicide rate in particular so high? Even extending to child suicides. And how many in the last year children and adults suicided?
Again, we would need to take the specific data, but I mean they’re obviously very multifaceted issues as well, that are not, you know there’s a range of factors across all of those that would lead to them that are not specific to a health intervention from a health clinic or something like that. There are any number of reasons what that would lead to those, outcomes is very complex.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah I accept that it’s complex, and we need to dig into the issue, and that’s what my questions are trying to do. Could the lack of quality accommodation be a cause when currently up to 11 people reportedly pack into small two bedroom houses, many people to the cramped rooms, or even are forced to sleep rough with no roof or protection from the tropical weather? So it’s not just health issue, it’s not just a suicide issue, it’s also a housing issue. So is the confusion about the native title status of the island affecting the health of that residence?
I don’t think we could speculate on that, I think Senator that would, yeah I don’t think we can speculate on that at all.
[Malcolm Roberts] ‘Cause we raised questions about native territory yesterday and it’s actually preventing, well we won’t go into that here. Is home brew a cause of the widespread kidney failure in the community?
We couldn’t comment without further information from Mornington Island.
[Malcolm Roberts] Perhaps I’ll ask several questions together and you can jump in if you can answer any, and I’m not criticising you for not being able, I accept the trustworthiness.
And a lot of these questions we may not necessarily be able to answer, that would be questions for the community broadly, as opposed to perhaps what, we will do what we can to answer them, but some of them it may not actually be appropriate for us to weigh the answer, or speak on behalf of the community…
[Malcolm Roberts] Perhaps you could let me know, yeah I accept that. Has the closure of the island canteen been an indirect cause of the overuse of poisonous home brew within the community? Would reopening of the canteen for managed and limited sales of low alcohol, mainstream alcohol be better than driving people addicted to alcohol to drive dangerous home brew? Would it be beneficial for the government to subsidise the costs of fresh fruit and vegetables for the community? Could the federal government fund and audit the commence but never completed market garden promised to the community by the government to assist the community to be self-sufficient in growing crops to feed themselves? Could the use of the once a week barge service be subsidised to lower the cost of bringing fresh fruit and vegetables, fresh milk and other healthy foodstuffs to the shops? There’s one grocery store there for the residents. But this is a really interesting question and again, I don’t expect an answer other than on notice. Why is there no fishing industry in a region rich with marine resources? There were three large tinnies that my staffer saw abandoned on the dump, because they needed simple welding repairs. Why is there no mechanical service on the island to keep machines, vehicles, and boats going? And this is the reason why many repairable vehicles and white goods stand abandoned across the island and at the dump. Why was the cattle herd that existed for many years in the island destroyed?
Senator Roberts, I understand the validity of your questions, but I’m not sure if the Department of Health is the right agency to be asking them to.
[Malcolm Roberts] I think we’re looking at a multi-faceted, multi-layered health issue and we need to get to the core of it. These communities have been abandoned in many senses for a long time.
[McCarthy] Environmental Health that’s what your…
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, many yeah. Living environment, perhaps if I could. Well, there’s another one here Chair, could the creation of real jobs at the residents perhaps involve the hundreds of wild horses that roam freely on the island? Could it assist to alleviate the high mental health depression problems of the community or the fishing industry, the tourism? And here’s the really important question I’m leading to, why are the many programmes currently on the island to assist youth and the aged on the island missing? They’re just not visible on the island. So I suggest that a real audit of services not a paper audit, but a real audit be provided to the island, and that’s desperately needed. Where’s the federal money going?
So Senator, we’re gonna take, we’re gonna have to take the majority of the health-related questions on notice, and specifically drill down into the funding that goes to Mornington Island, what it’s used for, how it responds to particular health issues. Obviously, there’s a range of other portfolios. And the state government that’s involved in funding there as well, and questions around industry development and jobs obviously…
[Malcolm Roberts] And the problem is a difficult one for you because it’s not, I’m trying to paint a picture that is not as simple, give them a jab or give them something else. It’s a really serious issue.
We understand Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] As Senator McCarthy said.
Senator if I could just, I’ll give you some information on the market garden issue of Mornington Island. There is an existing market garden initiative on Mornington Island, which is delivered as an activity under the CDP. And we are aware that, and we’ve been talking with the Mornington Shire Council and they’re interested in establishing a larger commercial market garden for the community. And there, my understanding is they’re trying to negotiate now with traditional owners to gain the use of a parcel of land, which is subject to no title to develop a larger scale commercial garden. So, there is some movement in terms of market gardens there.
[Malcolm Roberts] Good.
It’s interesting you say that, we’re quite happy to take the health questions, I think we may need to, as I’m sure the secretary, but you know we’ll need to work and a lot of those questions really get to the broader social determinants which are well beyond the health departments, so we might need to work out where those are best addressed, because otherwise we will not be able to answer a lot of the questions broadly about, particularly employment, housing, fishing industries.
Perhaps some of your questions Senator directed more generally rather than to the Health Department with respect to. I understand…
As Senator McCarthy said…
No, I’m not disagreeing with you, but some of the questions that you’ve asked while having that broader, as Senator McCarthy said, environmental health perspective, but some of them clearly go to some of the other indigenous programmes rather than the more health specific ones that operate in that community, and it might be that you can get more definitive answers to your questions by directing them in a different way.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you for that advice, I’ll take heed of it. I’m also concerned though that, the people on the ground in these communities are not getting the money that’s being poured their way, and people in the Aboriginal industry seem to be taking it along the way. And that goes to every federal government, I’m not saying it applies to every federal government initiative, but it goes to a lot of the federal government pathways for money, and the people who really need it are not getting it.
I think that actually goes to the point that I was making with respect to some of the broad programmes that are operated and how they might be perhaps coordinated, is that sort of gets to what you’re talking about.
[Malcolm Roberts] And Senator Colbeck perhaps I could ask you, the paternalistic and patronising approach, I’m not accusing you of this, of supposedly helping these communities over many, many years is probably, well I’m sure it’s hurting them, having visited a lot of the communities, and maybe that’s something, a change in direction, because we can’t keep going like this.
Senator I think from a government perspective, what we would like to see is programmes that are effective on the ground. A lot of the conversation, I think today has been quite constructive in actually seeming to achieve that, getting results. So again, my point about where your questions get directed, then going to interrogating the way that some of those programmes work, so that, and the term continuous improvement has been used a few times here today, and certainly my aspiration and clearly yours, and others sitting around the table would be that we continue to improve the circumstances of people living in communities and how they are engaged as a part of that process is, as you quite rightly pointed out very important, rather than necessarily being imposed.
[Malcolm Roberts] Can I just make one final comment in response?
[McCarthy] Is it a comment or is it a question Senator Roberts?
[Malcolm Roberts] It is a comment to Senator Colbeck.
This is more a forum for asking questions of ministers than making comments to them.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well I’ll frame it as a question. Senator Colbeck…
[McCarthy] Fine.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’m familiar with continuous improvement versus step change, and what I’m suggesting here is continuous improvement to the same old process is not going work, we need a step change, wouldn’t you agree?
Senator I was not looking. Yeah look, I won’t disagree with you, I think clearly the circumstances and conditions need to be improved. It is quite a complex area as I think has been demonstrated by your questions and by your statements. And that would align with I think, all our aspirations.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you Chair.
Thank you very much Senator Roberts. We are due to adjourn at 3. Senator Dodson how much longer do you have to go?
Oh look I’m not going to punish people any further today.
You’re happy to…
I’ll wait until health comes up tomorrow or next week.
[Matthews] And we will have all the answers on the Kimberly, Senator Dodson, ready for you.
[Dodson] Don’t worry, they’ll come.
Wonderful.
And just to finish up, probably with just the one thing, just to further to Senator Roberts just around one thing that we do do in the health space I think, perhaps not. I don’t think it’s quite as relevant necessarily for Mornington Island as such, but obviously through the work we do to support comprehensive primary health care, driven by Aboriginal and Torres Strait community controlled organisations, that is effectively the reason why that is not growing, obviously grown from Aboriginal and Torres Strait people wanting to kind of that sense of self-determination and growing their health services, for that is about putting them in charge of health and getting improved outcomes through that, and so we are at the moment going through a process to strengthen, and work very collaboratively with the sector to strengthen that over the time, we have put funding into that sector to strengthen it. Recently, we injected about $90 million over three years into that, over recent times we put a further 36 million into that recently to expand services. There’s a new clinic in, that we’ve set up through in Puntukurnu, in Newman, in WA. So we have been trying to, and we will continue to keep working away with that sector in line with the new closing the gap agreement, because of that exact point you’re talking about there in terms of strengthening community and strengthening, you know, backing the local communities in to provide services for local communities.
And to acknowledge that I’ve seen communities in the Territory and in Queensland, who are proudly talking about some of the measures that they’re taking in regard to preventative health care through food and nutrition. So I acknowledge that.
So we are working very closely with the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation and their affiliates on those matters, thank you.
After failing to get some of the answers we were seeking on vaccines, I went back to the Department of Health and Dr Murphy to ask some more questions about informed consent and vaccination by coercion with a vaccine passport. I think you’ll find their answers in this part 2 just as interesting as part 1.
[Malcolm Roberts] And one that I touched on briefly, the intergenerational effects of the vaccine are unknown, the effect of the vaccine on transmission is unknown, GPs are not even allowed to say which vaccine they have available. Well Australians have a right to know the foundation of informed consent is accurate and full information. How is it possible to achieve real informed consent in this information vacuum?
So, I think the GPs are certainly able to say which vaccines they have available and they provide informed consent-
[Malcolm Roberts] Just to interrupt there, We had a presentation, I attended a presentation by you and Professor Kelly saying that the vaccine injection rooms would not be disclosing which vaccine was given at that time. Where people go to get their injection.
They’re not given a choice. They’re not given a choice
I think you’re talking two different things, Senator, so, clearly, at this stage of the rollout, the GPs are distributing AstraZeneca. The issue would’ve been the choice and perhaps there might’ve been some other issues that…
[Malcolm Roberts] It was certain, nonetheless, Minister, with so many effects unknown, how can there be an informed consent?
Well, Senator, I’m not going to try and give you health advice, and so I’ll prefer to-
Professor Kelly might be able to address that, but just to be very clear that people undergoing the informed consent process are very clear about which vaccine they’re getting, we’re not disguising the vaccine. So Professor Kelly can can go through the informed consent process.
Yeah, so, informed consent is a very important component of any medical medical procedure or treatment. And doctors do that with their patients every day, every time they see them pretty much is talking through the pros and cons of various, in this case, vaccines. As the Secretary has said, it’s pretty clear if you turn up to a GP at the moment with a couple of exceptions, but almost all GPs are only using one vaccine and it’s only for those over the age of 50 if it’s AstraZeneca. And there is some benefits of that in the particular circumstances of the person in front of them would be discussed in great detail. We’ve provided a lot of information, very detailed information based on the ATAGI advice in relation to that risk and benefit equation for GPs and other medical practitioners and nurses to use.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. My first question goes to the, question of mandatory vaccination. Is the government considering mandatory vaccination?
Government’s repeatedly said it is not considering mandatory vaccination for COVID vaccines or any other vaccines.
[Malcolm Roberts] So is the vaccine passport still under consideration?
The only situation that, as we referred to early today, where people might be on a public health, state and territory, for example, may say that they would refuse entry to a residential aged care facility, that’s the position that AHPPC is considering. That is not mandating vaccination, it’s basically saying that in certain situations it may be not possible to participate in a certain activity unless you’ve been vaccinated. But there has not been a position that we’ve taken so far, AHPPC is reconsidering it.
Can I just add Senator? So, obviously the issue of medical advice is the extent to which and whether and when you might want to limit access to aged care facilities, which the Secretary’s talking about, the broader issue of whether there’s a vaccine passport to identify you’ve had a vaccine and what impact that might have, internationally or otherwise, is a matter for the Department of Home Affairs. You should refer it to them.
But we are providing citizens with evidence of vaccination, they can get a vaccination certificate and they can use that in whatever way they choose.
[Malcolm Roberts] So that’s essentially a vaccine passport then isn’t it? Ms. Edwards?
It’d be a certificate. I mean, at the moment, it’s a long… The Australian Immunisation Register has been around for quite a long time, it got expanded a few years ago to cover all vaccinations and it will have the evidence of your vaccination of COVID-19 vaccine in it. And you have access to it in a printed form or electronically. That’ll evidence you’ve had the vaccine. There is no activity, at the moment, of that you’re either permitted or prevented from doing by virtue of vaccine status but as obviously medical information for you.
[Malcolm Roberts] So that vaccine register should be confidential, shouldn’t it?
It is.
It is, but any citizen can print their own certificate and they can use it as they choose fit.
And we use it for aggregated data. So a lot of the data we’re getting about how many people have been vaccinated not just for COVID-19 vaccine, but for the range of vaccines that we know is drawn out of the Australian Immunisation Register in a de-identified aggravated form.
[Malcolm Roberts] So a vaccine passport, though, could be established for restricting movement of people or entry of people to a specific venue?
Well, it’s a hypothetical question, not one within the remit of the health department. All that we’re talking about is having evidence that you’ve had the vaccine, which is really important, apart from anything else, so that people know what your risk is if you come into contact with COVID-19. And also, it’s used in vaccination clinics to check that it’s your second dose. So if you turn up for your second dose they’ll check the register to check that, yes, Senator Roberts has had one dose of AstraZeneca and here’s the time for the second one. So used for those safety reasons for an individual and it’s evidence of the medical treatment that you’ve had. But any further use of it, one’s not in contemplation that I’m aware of, we’re certainly not involved in that. And the questions about how it might be used internationally, or so on, is a matter for Home Affairs.
[Malcolm Roberts] So Home Affairs, where would they get their advice from? It would be from you, wouldn’t it?
They seek health advice from us,
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.
and also advice about how the Immunisation Register works and so on, together with Services Australia, and they would be engaging with other agencies as well.
[Malcolm Roberts] So as I see it, threatening Australians with the loss of privileges of free movement, or a job, or even a livelihood without a vaccine passport, that’s really a digital prison.
I’m not aware of any proposal to do any of those things, Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] You’re not aware of any? So is the government enforcing vaccination through coercion, if that would occur?
[Secretary] Well, Senator, that’s a hypothetical and it’s an opinion, Senator, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to ask the officials that question.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, going back to the vaccine, people expect the vaccine to do more than prevent deaths, more than not cause deaths, people expect the vaccine to bring back life as we know it, the removal of all restrictions and the resumption of international travel. Clearly, while acknowledging the many unknowns that you commendably and openly acknowledged this morning, what percentage of vaccination unlocks the gate and removes the restrictions, and when?
I think Professor Kelly can address the fact that that’s still an unknown parameter and our knowledge is evolving, but Professor Kelly has been asked this question on many occasions.
And I’ve since answered it. Thank you, Secretary, just on the-
[Secretary] They’re still asking it.
Yeah, I will get to your question just on the proof of vaccination. On my phone through my Medicare app, I have proof of my vaccination, it arrived within 24 hours of that vaccination happening, and it’s just shows that this is already happening. Anyone who’s had a vaccination will be able to access that, and if it’s needed to be shown it’s there.
[Malcolm Roberts] We’re not worried about that. My constituents are very worried about it becoming a condition of entry to a venue or to travel or something like that.
Well, as the associate Secretary has mentioned that it’s a matter for other parts of government to consider but we will provide medical advice about how that information can be verified in terms of a vaccine that we trust and know that works. So, to your question about where’s the target, this has come up on multiple occasions, I guess my answer is that these are non-binary states. So every single extra person that’s vaccinated in Australia is part of our path to the post-COVID future you’re describing. There’s no magical figure that says when we get to that, we’ve reached herd immunity and everything will be fine, rather it’s a process of getting towards that. We do need quite high coverage, though, to be able to get to the situation where, for most of the time, a seeding event, such as what we’re experiencing in Victoria, right now, will not lead to a large outbreak. So, that is, modelling that is being done at the moment by colleagues at the Doherty in Melbourne, and others. It’s part of the work that AHPPC has been asked to do to provide information into Mr Gaetgans’ committee, which is in turn providing information and advice to the national cabinet.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Where’s the government’s plan for managing the COVID virus because, the six components we discussed, the three of us discussed at the last Senate estimates, isolation lockdown, testing, tracing quarantining, restrictions, treatments, such as cures and prophylactics, and the fifth was vaccines. And then I think Professor Kelly added personal behaviours as number six. Perhaps we could add a seventh, and that is prevention through health and fitness because we’re seeing now that obesity and comorbidities are a big predictor of people dying from COVID. When will we see action in number four, which is treatments, cures and prophylactics, and health and fitness?
I can perhaps address treatments. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, which is the committee that looks at the vaccines also as a watching brief on all treatments and has considered whether there are any treatments that we are recommending government to purchase. There’s also the TGA obviously also is reviewing treatments as they appear at this stage. And we also have an evidence taskforce that looks at the real-time evidence of treatments. At this stage there really is very limited options for treatment other than vaccines, but Professor Skerritt can perhaps give you more information.
Thank you Secretary. So, at the moment in Australia, the Clinical Evidence Taskforce endorses three TGA-approved treatments. The first is, and may depend on how sick you are, whether you need oxygen and so forth. So if you’re in hospital requiring oxygen, corticosteroids are recommended for use with COVID patients. And I would venture to say that, globally, they’ve probably been the most successful intervention. A drug called Remdesivir is approved for moderate to severely ill patients who don’t require oxygen or ventilation. And more recently, there’s a drug that was originally an arthritis drug, known as Tocilizumab, T-O-C-I-L-I-Z-U-M-A-B, I don’t get to name them.
[Malcolm Roberts] You barely get to pronounce them.
No, no, no, no. But it’s tricky, If they have unpronounceable names, everyone uses a trade name. That’s the trick. But Tocilizumab is for people who do require oxygen. Now, what we don’t have yet, and I think I may have said this at last estimates is a antiviral drug that’s up there as effective as the recent antiviral drugs for Hepatitis-C or for HIV. But trust me, there’s a major effort of companies working on that area. The other thing that has been coming through the system, and seem to be getting better, are these antibody-based treatments. And we’re currently looking at a drug, or an antibody, called Sotrovimab. It’s S-O-T-R-O-V-I-M-A-B and it has some very promising early results, and we’re currently assessing that. But we have always said that antivirals and other treatments will be important for a range of reasons. One of which is that even with the greatest adherence to, say, the three week gap for Pfizer vaccination, or the 12 week gap for AstraZeneca vaccination, neither treatment is 100% effective against catching or transmitting the virus. They seem to be very effective against death or hospitalisation, but we do know that treatments will play an important part in getting on top of this virus.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, just building on that, you didn’t address item number seven, which I suggested, health and fitness. But the focus on the vaccine is not addressing the end to end from prevention to resiliency to treatment. Don’t we need the full gamut? A comprehensive and complementary approach, what would that look like? And would it not include Ivermectin, assuming someone sponsors it and other treatments for those who want alternatives to vaccines? Because there are people who want alternative.
Well, very briefly on general health, the fact that people are going to many general practitioners and having the COVID vaccination is always an opportunity for the GP to have a quick discussion, “well, hey, smoking doesn’t actually help your respiratory chances with COVID.” There are some mixed messages out there and some mixed results. For example, a lot of people with asthma were very worried early in the COVID pandemic, but some of the asthma drugs, there’s a drug called Budesonide an orally inhaled steroid, inhaled steroid, which is actually quite effective in the early stages of COVID. People with asthma, for example, in general, especially if they’re on those drugs don’t seem to have been affected. But it is true that if you have co-morbidities such as diabetes and so forth, your risks of COVID infection are greater. And that’s why in Phase 1b a number of people who, for example, had drug resistant hypertension or had diabetes and so on were prioritised early for vaccination. Going back to other therapies, we’re always interested in evidence-based submissions for any other therapy. The challenge is that some of the early papers that suggested, for example, with hydroxychloroquine there was a lot of promise, when the blinded trials were done objectively the early promise very sadly didn’t hold up.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you, Chair. I’ll leave it there.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Ua4DLlEL-cw/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-02 12:42:242021-06-02 12:42:33Informed Consent and Vaccine Passports – Department of Health Part 2
In response to my question, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office has made a stunning admission that environmental damage along a 100km section of the river was caused by environmental, conveyance and irrigation water sent down under the Murray Darling Basin Plan.
My suggestion that the best way to fix the environmental destruction was to stop water trading below the Barmah Choke was met with an extraordinary comment from Andrew Reynolds. He said there was no extra water sent through the Choke because every trade below it was matched by one moving water back above the Choke. I wonder if that is right?
I am pleased to see that this Estimates has marked the demise of the supposed “sand slug”, which has now morphed into “sedimentation”. I was also pleased to get an undertaking that the MDBA will not create a man-made flood event to drain the Menindee Lakes and the current surge event will be limited below 40GL.
Another major flip flop from the MDBA came when I asked if the water coming into the Coorong and Lake Albert from the South East drains restoration project was environmental water for the basin. This classification was shot down last estimates however this time around Andrew Reynolds agreed this water was basin water to be used for the environment.
With only 350GL left to complete the SDL acquisitions I repeat my call that the restoration project should be stepped up and used to provide the remaining 350GL of SDL water. Farmers in the basin have given up enough water and should not be asked to provide one more drop.
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Are you familiar with the damage, the extensive damage, to the banks of the Murray River around the Barmah Choke?
Yes, I am.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, that’s good, we won’t need to table that then. It’s caused by nonstop water flows, and the picture that I was going to show you, if necessary, could have been taken anywhere along about 100 kilometres of the river, the damage is so pervasive. The Choke is being eroded by combined environmental, conveyance, and irrigation flows. What’s the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder doing about this damage?
Thanks, Senator. As you said, it’s a combination of all the water in the river that’s causing the bank erosion there. My colleagues from the MDBA may also want to talk about some of the geomorphology that’s occurring in the bed of the river there. There’s silting in the bed of the river, which is reducing the capacity of that narrow section of the river, between Yarrawonga and down to about Barmah, but the main sedimentation is in the Barmah area. And that damage is part of major studies and scientific work going on in that area, trying to work out what’s causing it, how it might be remediated. And we’re happy to be proud of that. I would also like to add that the water that the Commonwealth environmental water holder puts through that system there, is run counter cyclical to some of the irrigation demand in the system. We also put water around the choke through some of the forest streams and rivers through that area. And I have a bank into the forest there that helps de-energize some of that water, by taking some of that pressure off that peak demand season. We think we may actually be mitigating some of the issues that may otherwise be arising in that area.
[Malcolm Roberts] Before we do things, Pauline, Senator Hanson, and I we try to get the facts. So we went down the Murray River after hearing of extensive complaints from southern Queensland and then southern New South Wales and Northern Victoria. And we went down the Murray. And then when I came back into the Senate, I over flew the whole basin and the number one thing that I noticed I picked up in the first five minutes of my flight out of Aubrey, heading down the river, the river is incredibly tortuous incredibly so, and that tells me one thing the gradient is so, it’s almost flat and you would know that. And yet the amount of water that’s being shoved down that river is just phenomenal. And it’s doing this damage. This is the opposite of what environmental guardian should be doing in our opinion. So let me continue asking questions. This is just physically impossible to get all that water from the Upper Murray, downstream to the large corporate plantations, and all the environmental water. So this is the fourth estimates that I’ve asked about environmental damage to the choke, as the Commonwealth environmental water holder who should be interested in this, or the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, who are administering the plan that has caused this damage, done anything to stop this damage. It sounds like you haven’t just studied at the moment.
Senator, I think it’s fair that certainly the environmental water flows through the choke, as you said, other purposes as well I might ask the Murray-Darling basin authority to come forward and talk about
[Malcolm Roberts] Sure.
what’s being done in respect of the choke.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you for acknowledging that there is a lot of water going down through there.
Andrew Reynolds, Executive Director River Management with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. So management of the choke is a significant concern for the Authority and how we regulate the river system. It has been pointed out there are a number of competing demands on the system, a delivery of consumptive water for irrigation demands, excuse me, environmental water demands through the system as well. There are a number of, as Mr. Taylor said, a number of studies have been underway to understand how the geomorphology of the choke is changing. Certainly sedimentation, which is occurring in the choke reduces the capacity through there in terms of the management arrangements there. Thank you. We certainly are focusing our system planning on how we move water through the system. We work very, very closely with environmental water holders and irrigation operators in terms of understanding demands, planning our system operations, so that we can deliver water to to Lake Victoria at varying times throughout the year. We make extensive use of inter-valley transfers from the Goulburn and Murrumbidgee system to also get a different pattern of water through the system to, in part, limit the amount of erosion that occurs. We certainly are working on getting a study underway to understand how we might better utilise Murray irrigation infrastructure or indeed infrastructure on the Victorian side, through the GMID to also be able to take some of the pressure off the banks through the river system. All of those pieces of work are underway. Some of them we can adapt our operations immediately to try and alleviate some of those concerns. Some of them are longer run pieces of work that will take some time to affect change.
[Malcolm Roberts] Are there any plans to construct a pipeline or a channel around that Barmah choke?
No, there’s no plans to construct anything in particular. We’re looking at a study to optimise how we might utilise existing infrastructure, certainly looking at whether or not there are other flow paths through the forest where we might be able to use some of the existing outfalls particularly from the Murray irrigation system. I had to put water into other smaller creeks to run it past the choke that way. That study may lead to investigation of some enhancements of that system but we’re yet to progress to that stage.
[Malcolm Roberts] So there’s no consideration or idea of a pipeline to get around it, or a channel to get around it? Because some of the locals are telling us that there are surveyors working in the Barmah overflow, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything.
Certainly there’s no significant studies like that around any major bypasses. We’ve not commissioned any on-ground field surveys or the likes. I’m not quite sure what people have observed but it’s not anything that we’ve commissioned.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. So the trading of water used to be limited in the Murray-Darling Basin, as I understand it, from what I was told from by commissioners on the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, that preceded the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, used to be limited to, a certain, limited to within each valley, within each catchment, and only to a certain extent downstream. Now they can be inter-catchment transfers, inter-valley transfers, and extensive transfers along the river. So we’ve got a lot of water moving from the northern part of the valley, Murray valley, down to the, sorry, the upstream part of the valley down to the large plantations. Wouldn’t one option be to stop that trading?
So Senator Roberts, there is actually a limit on trade from above the choke to below the choke. It’s been in place since 2014. And there’s no proposal that that would be relaxed. That limitation on trade requires that the net volume of water traded downstream is zero. So trade from above the choke to below can only occur if there’s been a an equivalent volume traded upstream first. And so the total volume of water moving through the choke is unchanged by trade.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, in a meeting that the Commonwealth environmental water holder was in, I think you were there Mr. Reynolds as well, in Parliament House with us in October of 2019 or thereabouts I was advised that the department is working on a report into water loss from over landing through the Barmah forest and has been collecting this data for many years. It’s now May 2021. It’s almost two years later. And this report has not been tabled. Isn’t this a critical, critical report for making good decisions about watering the Barmah?
So we have an ongoing programme of assessing each and every event where we put water through the forest for environmental water holders’ use, or indeed for transfers downstream in the rare occasions when that’s necessary. We use that work to assess the loss of water or the consumption of water within the forest. That’s part of the work that Mr. Taylor was talking about earlier, in terms of assessing the return flows to the river system. In other words, how much of the environmental water holders’ water is consumed in the forest versus how much comes back into the river to be used further downstream for other watering events. That’s an ongoing piece of work that will continue, I would imagine almost indefinitely, because every time you have another event you have another bit of data to assess the basis on which those losses are assigned. Certainly all of that work is done on the basis of making sure that there is no third party impact of water availability for other entitlement holders. So we take a conservative approach to those estimates, but we’re continually refining them.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, maybe I wasn’t clear with my communication in the previous question. We were told there was a report coming, and this is almost two years later and there’s been no report. I would’ve thought the Commonwealth environmental water holder and yourself would be champing at the bit to get that report.
So we have produced reports on losses in terms of losses through the system, and we’ve just recently provided an update on losses for the last two water years, but the work on individual watering events and the development of effectively the loss rates applied to environmental water holdings is ongoing. It’s not being reported as a single report. We need to refine that,
[Malcolm Roberts] We were told there was a report coming and there’s no report. Are you aware of any report?
There are numbers of pieces of work that have been documented. I’d have to take on notice whether they’ve been published has certainly been shared with states and other others involved in that development of those estimates.
[Malcolm Roberts] So we were told there was a report coming.
[Andrew Reynolds] I don’t,
Let me just clarify, Senator Roberts, from my own knowledge, cause, there’s a report about the environmental water, or a report about the conveyance losses and use, cause I know in 2019 there was a report on that, the conveyance and loss through the Barmah area. And I think you just updated that? That was meant to be annual, but 2019, they didn’t do one last year.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s what I’m asking about. Reporting the water loss from over landing through the Barmah.
[Senator Davey] That’s been done, in 2019.
Sorry, I misunderstood your question. That report was done in 2019. And we’ve recently in the last month published an update that that completed the data for the 2019 water year and also reported on last year as well.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, with regard to that then how much environmental water went into the Barmah in 2020?
I’d have to take on notice the specific number.
Senator Roberts, do you have much more? because it is lunchtime, I,
[Malcolm Roberts] I just have one more question,
One more, perfect, thank you.
[Malcolm Roberts] Floodplain harvesting in excess of allowed take deprives the environment of flows needed to keep the river alive, and that means you have to do more with your water than it was intended to do. Is floodplain harvesting in the northern basin affecting your environmental water permit, remit, and is there anything you wish to say on this matter?
Thanks Senator, there’s been quite a bit of discussion with some northern Victorian irrigators and myself around this issue and other people across the southern connected basin. And I think there was some conversations around floodplain harvesting over the last five years and the potential impact that it may have had on either our resources and other resources in the southern connected basin. And in those conversations, we outlined that in over the last five years in 2016, it was a wet year and there was probably significant floodplain harvesting but had little, or minor impact in the south as it was good allocations in that year. 2017, there was good reserves in stocks in the south. And again, it probably had little impact upon our resources for environmental water delivery, 2018, 19, and 20. So the remaining three years in that period were probably record droughts in the northern basin. And as a consequence there was no water really in the northern basin to harvest. So again, it probably had little or no impact upon our resources available for environmental water delivery in the Southern connected basin. I’d like to add though, that the Commonwealth environmental water holder intends to put a submission in to the New South Wales government on the floodplain harvesting process. We’re very concerned about ensuring anything that occurs in that space is completely transparent, well measured, high levels of compliance, because in certain flow circumstances it could impact upon flows, could have an impact upon our capacity to deliver water particularly in some of the northern basin, probably more so than its likely impact in the Southern basin.
[Malcolm Roberts] Because as I understand it, before we go to lunch, one final thing. And as I understand it, as I understand it the people who end up paying, ultimately, with loss of water, are the farmers in northern Victoria and southern New South Wales. If someone’s going to lose it and water can’t come from the northern basin, they lose it.
So, I guess the impact of floodplain harvesting if there’s less resource makes it through the flows any of the reduced allocations as a core, that as that resource is shared is shared everywhere. It’s my understanding of it.
IF THERE’S ONE VIDEO YOU WATCH FROM SENATE ESTIMATES MAKE IT THIS ONE.
I questioned the Government about vaccines, the indemnities it has provided to vaccine manufacturers and whether the government actually has a plan to stop restrictive lockdowns. These are common sense questions about liability and informed consent, let’s see if the tech-censors agree.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair. And thank you for appearing today. Many Australians have heard that getting vaccinated does not stop us from getting COVID, and that if we do get it we could still infect other people. Is that true?
– Yes – I guess Dr. Kelly onto that.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What is the risk of being infected by a vaccinated person with COVID compared to an unvaccinated person with COVID?
So, just repeat the question.
[Malcolm Roberts] What is the risk of being infected by a vaccinated person who has COVID compared with an unvaccinated person with COVID?
Well, it’s lower. I’m not sure I can give you an exact amount. I think Professor Murphy earlier talked about the issue and also Senator Colbeck, about the issue of transmission and how the vaccine affects that. We’re getting more information, and it seems like there is a definite influence on transmission, decreasing transmission somewhere between 30 and 60% less likely.
[Malcolm Roberts] Is that a mass figure or is that if you had COVID and you were vaccinated compared with if you had COVID and weren’t vaccinated, would I have the same risk or lesser risk?
You would have a much lower risk, but it’s not zero.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. What decrease in transmission of infection would stop restrictions such as lockdowns, masks, and social distancing?
So, that’s a matter that we’ve been charged by national cabinet way as in Australian Health Protection Principal Committee of which I chair, by the national cabinet to look at. And so, it’s a matter for the national cabinet. There will be, there’s a series of papers that we’re preparing exactly to answer those questions. Some have been produced already and presented and there’ll be more in the coming meetings.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. How many times and how often would each of us need to be injected for the vaccine to be effective and for each time, for how long does the effect last?
So, as I mentioned earlier in the hearing, very good protection from one dose of vaccine, either the AstraZeneca or Pfizer particularly in relation to severe infection, but also to symptomatic infection, and to a lesser extent asymptomatic infection. So, that’s a single dose. The second dose is important for both of those vaccines. And most of the vaccines that are currently being used around the world require two doses to give a longer effect and a more deep effect, if you like, in terms of protection. I think it’s very important that Australia knows that this is the start of our vaccine programme. It will almost certainly not be the end. There will be a need for boosters into the future particularly in relation to the variants of concern of which there are four now that have been designated by the World Health Organisation. And some of those we already know do affect the vaccine efficacy. So, it’s likely we will need to have boosters into the future. How long the two dose effect works is still, we don’t know. We know it’s at least six months because that’s the studies of, been looking at it for six months. It’s almost certainly longer than that for the original strain, but the variance of concern adds another complexity to it.
[Malcolm Roberts] Can you guarantee Australians that all the vaccines you have obtained are 100% safe?
I can’t say that they were 100% safe, Senator, no.
[Malcolm Roberts] I do appreciate your honesty. How many years will it be before we know the long-term and intergenerational effects of these vaccines that only have provisional approval?
I might ask my colleague from the TGA to come up to answer that one.
John Skerritt, Deputy Secretary, Health Products Regulation, also responsible for the TGA. So, TGA, unlike the U.S. and the UK, for example, did a provisional approval of a vaccines as opposed to an emergency use authorization. The reason why it is a provisional approval is because we don’t have, for example, as Professor Kelly has just said, information on the duration of protection from these vaccines. And we require that the companies to give us that sort of information in the coming years. I mean, no one has those answers now. There’s some encouraging results, but as Professor Kelly has said, it’s likely that further vaccinations will be required. As part of the approval of any medicine or vaccine, big companies together with us are involved in very extensive safety monitoring. And we publish the results of the safety monitoring of that vaccine every week including mild or 24 hour adverse events, right through to those that might be much more serious and require hospitalisation. And no medicine or vaccine is without adverse events, but on balance, the number of adverse events, especially serious adverse events for these vaccines are comparatively low. The overwhelming majority of people vaccinated from them at worst suffer the 24 or 48 hours sore arm or tiredness, fatigue, et cetera.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, thank you. It’s a very comprehensive response. So, to summarise, we don’t know yet, but you’re relying upon company, the vaccine makers, to feed you back information as time moves on.
No, information on safety comes from a wide range of sources. It comes from the states and territories. For GP vaccination agreements, the GPs make an undertaking to also report any adverse events. The companies are legally bound to report adverse events not only in Australia, but also globally. And of course we share, and in fact at nine, 10 o’clock tonight we’ll be having one of our regular fortnightly video conferences. We share information on adverse events with all the major regulators globally. So, and the final sources from a medical scientific literature. So, while the companies have this legal requirement to report, it’s only one of a number of inputs to understanding adverse events. And many of our adverse event reports come directly from doctors or even individuals. Any individual can report an adverse event directly to us.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, moving onto another topic away from vaccines for a minute, the vaccine only has provisional approval. Is it true that provisional approval is only possible where there are no approved pharmaceutical treatments available?
The provisional approval is possible where there is not a similar treatment available in that, for that group of patients. And so, if there’d been an approved vaccine, but say it had been on the market for several years, fully approved, then it wouldn’t have been possible to provisionally approve a vaccine, but at the time of the submissions of those vaccines, and indeed we have provisionally designated the Novavax vaccine as well and the Johnson & Johnson or Janssen vaccine, it is possible to provisionally designate and potentially provisionally approve those vaccines.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Ivermectin is an antiviral that’s been proven safe in 3.6 billion human doses over 60 years. It’s now demonstrating success in treating COVID internationally, including in certain Indian states that are performing far better than the other states without it. Last time you were here, sorry Dr. Murphy and, Professor Murphy and Professor Kelly, you acknowledged that cures and preventatives are a fundamental and complimentary part of a virus management strategy. What is your timeline for the assessment and use of Ivermectin in light of the emerging evidence and it’s historical setting.
Senator, we have not received a submission for Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID. I have had a number of people write to me and say, “Why haven’t you folks approved?” We can’t make a medicine submission to ourselves for regulatory approval. There’s no provision in law for us because it requires a legal sponsor. But we have said to people if you come with a dossier of information we will review it as a priority. Now, if you go to the broader community including the company that is the main originator company that is a sponsor of Ivermectin, they do not believe that the overwhelming balance of evidence actually supports that Ivermectin being effective in the prophylaxis or prevention or the treatment of COVID. However, our doctors and scientists would look at that evidence with open eyes. And so, it is open for any sponsor to put an application in for Ivermectin to the TGA for regulatory approval.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Moving back to the vaccine, the government has provided an indemnity to vaccine suppliers, as I understand it, and multinational pharmaceutical companies who have caused harm in the past. What is the nature of the indemnities that government has provided, and are they full indemnities?
Yeah, just give me a moment. Sorry, Senator, going to a wholly different part of my folder.
[Malcolm Roberts] You’ve got a lot on your plate.
So, just to go to your question, I understand it. You’re wanting to know exactly the nature of the indemnities provided, obviously–
[Malcolm Roberts] That the government has provided to the vaccine manufacturers and suppliers.
So, in the first instance to say that the actual detail of the indemnities is part of the Commercial in Confidence contracts, but I can provide you some information about the nature of what’s provided. So, we’ve agreed to certain indemnities with the COVID-19 vaccine suppliers. They’re contained in commercially confidential contracts. The indemnities are designed to operate if there are problems with the flow on from the vaccines themselves, as opposed to the manner of administration and so on, they don’t cover that. Details of the agreement are Commercial in Confidence, but nothing in any of the contractual agreements from individual companies would stop individuals from seeking to litigate should an individual seek to do so in the future.
[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, could you repeat that again, please.
So, the actual detail of the indemnity, it relates to the nature of the vaccine itself as opposed to the manner of administration or any other issue to do with how it’s transported and so on. But it is absolutely the case that nothing in the indemnities prevents an individual from taking an action against the manufacturer or against anybody, if there’s an issue that arises from the impact of the vaccine. So, the summary of the arrangements are that they ensure that manufacturers have the significant indemnity in place to allow them to come into the marketplace and provide the protection, but they don’t prevent any action being taken by an individual who might be affected by a vaccine.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, what would they be? Why would they need an indemnity if they, they can still be sued? I don’t understand that. I’m not a lawyer, but.
I was once, but it’s a long time ago.
[Malcolm Roberts] You could say, I’m honest with you. Now, we’ve got lawyers as good friends. We’ve got good friends.
So, no one’s saying I’m . It’s to do with the relationship between the government and the company.
[Malcolm Roberts] What is the nature of that relationship?
Well, those are the things that are confidential in the contracts. You’d appreciate in order to get these vaccines into Australia so that we have access to them, there are strict requirements in the way the contracts are done with the companies and confidentiality. And the nature of the indemnities are part of that confidentiality.
[Malcolm Roberts] In the event of an injury or death from the vaccine, who pays compensation?
Not a question I can answer in the abstract. It would depend on the circumstances and so on and how the legal process would go on. As I say, the indemnities with manufacturers relate only to the flow on from the vaccine itself. So, in the event that negligence happens in any mechanism then it could be actionable against the person who had done the negligence, but there’s no simple answer to who pays compensation ’cause compensation would have to be found to be payable and attributable to someone and so on.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, it’d be pretty challenging, Ms. Edwards, for an individual to sue that they’ve just lost their spouse or their son or daughter, because, I’ll just go through some of the settlements in the past or some of the fines. Pfizer has paid the second largest pharmaceutical settlement in history, $2.3 billion in 2009, off-label promotion and kickbacks plus US$ 430 million in 2004 for off-label promotion. AstraZeneca has paid US$ 520 million in 2010 off-label promotion and kickbacks and US$ 355 million in 2003 for Medicare fraud. Johnson & Johnson has paid US$ 2.2 billion in 2013 for off label promotion and kickbacks plus millions in Australia last year for defective pelvic mesh implants. It’d be a pretty brave person that would hope to get anything out of this if they tried to sue any of these companies. These guys have a history of dodging.
Well, I’m not aware of any of the instances you’re referring to, but clearly there have been instances in which action has been taken against these companies.
[Malcolm Roberts] Are these companies appropriate to be entered into an agreement in this way? I mean, look at the history.
So, the Australian government and Australian consumers have the advantage of pharmaceutical products produced by companies such as these and many others. Obviously, enormously important to the health of Australians that they have access to medicines, including vaccines. We rely heavily on the scientific advice from the CMO, from the TGA and from experts as to what is the appropriate vaccine to be approved and used in the country. And those are the vaccines which we have purchased and are administering.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’m going–
[Member] Senator Roberts…
Senator, I think that perhaps I might throw this in In relation to this. The approvals for the vaccines have been based on a considerable amount of data. The approvals haven’t been provided lightly. And we have had the advantage of the visibility of the application of the vaccines in a number of other jurisdictions. It’s an important question that you ask, I think. And so, it’s not a company reputational issue, it’s actually the data that supports the application of the vaccines that is assessed by not only our regulatory authorities, but also the regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. And also the fact that, as has already been indicated, there is a lot of discussion between those authorities in relation to that data. So, it’s interrogated as a part of the approval process not only in this jurisdiction, but in others, and I might…
[Malcolm Roberts] I understand it’s, perhaps you could also include reference to this Doctors Skerritt that some of the overseas nations that are using these vaccines have suspended their use.
Well, there’s several questions. I’ll return to suspension of use although it’s been relatively limited in countries like Norway. But to talk about those fines for the companies, I should clarify that it’s a consequence of one of the things that personally I hope Australia never follows. And this is the U.S. widespread advertising directly to the public of prescription medicines. And it is legal and extremely commonplace. You only have to have the TV on for five minutes in your hotel room to see an advertisement for prescription medicine in the United states. And however, it is tempting for some of these companies. And they’ve been found with major fines from court cases when they push for sorts of conditions, what we call the indications for which a medicine is approved. So, a medicine may be approved for certain sorts of arthritis and their marketing people think it’s a great idea to talk about arthritis in general, and that’s where they get these multi hundred million dollar fines. So, if you go into those cases in the U.S. it’s not about them providing defective vaccines or cheating with their quality data or cheating with their clinical data. Almost all those cases come down to inappropriate promotion because of the, I guess the temptation the United States systems offers of allowing to advertise prescription medicines directly to the public. Now, thank God we don’t have that system in this country.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s still a matter of ethics, though, isn’t it? That the companies are pushing that, it’s their marketing people they are employing.
It’s their marketing people, and of course, we could mention many well-known Australian corporations who have also had challenges with marketing, including of telecommunication services. Now, we also —
[Malcolm Roberts] But they also go to the essence of integrity of the company?
But in Australia, we do look closely at promotion, including to doctors. So, recently we fined a particular company over $300,000 for what we concluded was inappropriate promotion of opiates to doctors. This wasn’t of a general public, but it was still inappropriate in our view. So, we will take action if we believe promotion of a product is inappropriate. Now, talking about companies in countries that have suspended vaccines, there were a number of short term suspensions of vaccines. For example, when some deaths in aged care were reported very early in the new year, they were then lifted off after further investigation where it was found that sadly people die in aged care. And the death rates were not all that different from the expected death rates. There were then short term changes, suspensions in some countries after the initial clotting cases were found AstraZeneca. In most countries, although Norway, for example, was an exception, most countries have re-introduced those vaccines, but like Australia, many of them have age recommendations. And those ages vary between countries.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.
Senator Roberts, you’ve just run out of time. So, if you’ve got one more question.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. After the TGA had already provisionally approved the AstraZeneca vaccine, Minister Hunt said of the vaccines quote – “The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”. Australians later died of blood clots due to the vaccine, a side effect that was not known prior to provisional approval. Why should Australians be the lab rats of a drug trial?
So, the word trial really, I mean, the treatment of COVID. And none of us has a crystal ball, where we’ll end up, whether it’s opening the borders or changes to the way we live our lives in a year or two is probably one of the biggest societal trials we’ve had since World War II. So, it’s true to say that because we don’t know whether vaccines are 100%, 90%, 80%, 70, 50, 60 in preventing transmission because we don’t know about the duration of protection, all those things. It is a trial in the sense that anything is new. So, that was a context. If you look at the wider context in which the Minister made those comments. Now, on the issue of benefit versus risk, every medicine or vaccine has significant risks. There’s been many dozen deaths due to Panadol in this country. And yet, if we didn’t have that drug for the relief of simple fever and so forth, there’d be a lot of people suffering. And so, every medicine has its benefits and its risks. Now, because the clotting thing is very rare, even though the trials were extremely large as trials go, 20, 30,000 people, and there’s been another 30,000 people on a follow-up trial of the AstraZeneca. Those numbers were still too low, but you would predict something would be seen 10 in a million times. And so, that’s why the clotting thing was not picked up.
[Malcolm Roberts] Isn’t there still something really big, outstanding though and that is that these are an RNA vaccine?
[Professor John] No, the AstraZeneca vaccine–
[Malcolm Roberts] Some of them, sorry, are RNA. How long before we know the intergenerational effects?
[Professor John] There’s no evidence at all from animal or human studies that the RNA vaccines, if you’re talking about them, incorporate into the genetic material of human beings. They wouldn’t have been approved for regulatory approval and that includes by much bigger regulators such as the FDA, if these bits of mRNA incorporated into the human genetic material. In fact, medicines that incorporate into human genetic material and are inherited are currently not permitted in most major countries, including Australia.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, what you’re saying is that it is okay to have a few deaths?
I’m saying that every medicine or vaccine is assessed both before it goes onto the market and once it’s on the market based on benefit and risk. And in Australia, we’ve had, sadly, one death. We’ve had a number of cases of this clotting syndrome, but the really encouraging thing is that many of our cases seem to be milder than in our countries. And that’s because of such widespread awareness. These cases are picked up early, they’re put in hospitals, even if it’s minor clotting, and the really good news is that, the overwhelming majority of those people were already out of hospital.
You may not realise it but bees are unbelievably important to our farmers and our environment. Its so vital that the pollination industry is worth $1.6 billion, 4 times that of the entire honey industry. American Foulbrood is a fatal bacterial disease in bees. Keeping the spread of it under control in Australia is incredibly important.
Transcript
We have a very short amount of time, Senator Roberts. Would you mind being to the point?
[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, I appreciate that, Chair, and so if there’s anything that needs detailed explanation, I’m happy to take it on notice.
Sure, sure, sure.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, so my questions go to American Foul Brood, which I only learned about recently, and I’m very passionate about honey, a disease that destroys beehives. It now extends from Melbourne to Cairns, and there is no known cure. American Foul Brood positive hives must be burnt and the department must be notified, correct?
Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts] What are the, what are the statistics Australia-wide on the American Foul Brood contamination in respect of bee loss and hive loss?
Senator, I’ll go to the Chief Plant Protection Officer.
[Malcolm Roberts] Do you want to do that on notice or as she got them?
I haven’t got the statistics, but I can tell you a little bit about American Foul Brood and it is an endemic disease in Australia. Sorry, I’ll just introduce myself. I’m Dr. Gabrielle Vivian-Smith, the Australian Chief Plant Protection Officer. So it’s an endemic, established disease of bees in Australia. It’s relatively widespread. It’s been here for quite a significant amount of time. I think I believe it was, it’s been over a hundred years since it first arrived, and it’s managed largely by the state and territories as an established pest in Australia. And it’s managed under a code of practise that is adopted by industry or beekeepers in Australia. And generally they need to report it to their state and territory agency. They don’t report it to us, so we would not hold those statistics and they are required to take action if they detect it. It is quite a difficult disease to detect. So it requires a lot of vigilance and the bee bio security code of practise really encourages that vigilance and monitoring of beehives to ensure that they can pick up this disease early and take action before it spreads.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, my understanding is that it’s still allowed to be imported through foreign honey or wax products. Is that the case, and if so, why?
I’ll have to take that question on notice. I don’t believe that we would allow it to be imported, as such.
[Malcolm Roberts] Maybe you don’t allow it but maybe the testings not adequate, but I’m of the understanding that it, it continues to be important.
Sure, Senator, we can take on notice that there are very strict protocols about the importation of bees into Australia and bio security requirements that we might provide some information about that on notice as well. But American Foul Brood is a disease that’s been with us a long time. It’s in all states and territories and it appears to be spread largely through contaminated equipment, and there’s a very significant testing regime, so I’ve just been looking at the New South Wales DPI guidance for apiarists, for example.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, is it true that China does not accept imports of any honey products from Australia with AFB, American Foul Brood, but does export honey to Australia that contains or may contain AFB?
We have to take that one on notice, Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. Why does the department still allow the movement of bees from state to state, except for WA, without trying to restrict hives containing American Foul Brood?
That would be a matter for each state and territory.
Each state and territory manage that, Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, why do we not have mandatory testing of AFB when movement of hives is required?
A state and territory issue, Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] So that’s for them to get together, come up with it? Is it true that New Zealand does have an aggressive eradication programme?
I can’t comment on New Zealand’s eradication programme for American Foul Brood. I don’t have any knowledge of that.
[Malcolm Roberts] And I would, I would I’m guessing, correct me if I’m wrong, on notice, that because it’s endemic, it would be difficult, you would see it as impossible, to eradicate from Australia?
Ah, yes, yes.
Nothing’s impossible, Senator. Depends how much money you spend, yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, impractical.
Impractical, highly impractical, because it would probably require the destruction of a great many hives and bees.
[Malcolm Roberts] Last question. What is the worst possible scenario if this, if this disease got worse?
Well, obviously impact on the, the viability of the honey industry, but again, I think we should take that on notice and give you a considered response.
[Malcolm Roberts] Would it impact widely on agriculture because bees are used to pollinate plants?
That’s a, that’s a good question, Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s the key question.
These are very serious questions that you’re asking. I think we should provide you with a considered response.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s the main question I want to know. Has it got far-reaching consequences for all of agriculture?
For pollination activity, so, yeah.
So Senator, as a guide, the honey industry worth three or $400 million a year, pollination services, 1.6 billion. So it’s the work that bees do in pollination. It’s far more important to the economy than the honey, although we all enjoy the honey.
[Malcolm Roberts] And that’s what I’m after, so thank you very much. Thank you, Chair, for your patience, and thank you to the commission.
A damning 255 page report has slammed the board of Australia Post and found that Christine Holgate did not breach any policies. We know from the small businesses that operate licensed post offices that Christine Holgate was well respected and had a reputation for actually getting problems fixed. I questioned Australia Post at Senate Estimates.
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts] Disappointing to note that the CEO of Australia Post, the former CEO of Australia Post, Christine Holgate, has taken up a new role rather than pursuing a return to work in Australia Post. I’ll explain more about why it’s disappointing in a minute. In denying Ms. Holgate “her legal principles of procedural fairness and natural justice,” can Australia Post employees, licensees, and customers expect the same treatment as she got?
Senator, I’d prefer not to comment on matters dealing with the board and that have been very well dealt with, with the inquiry and the 255 page reading that we’ve received yesterday. But I think those matters should be kept entirely separate from the matters that happen on a day to day basis at Australia Post. I think that they’re very different matters-
[Malcolm Roberts] I can imagine you-
Those matters have been well covered.
[Malcolm Roberts] I can imagine you are advocating that, but the description of your board chairman’s behaviour in giving evidence to both Senate estimates and committee’s subsequent inquiry has shown him to, at best, have an appalling memory, and, at worst, at being deliberately evasive and misleading. I’ll just relate a personal example, personal interactions with the LPOs, because this issue about what happened to Christine Holgate goes well beyond Ms. Holgate. It goes to the goes to Australia Post. The ministers have done enormous damage, I believe, to Australia Post and to the LPOs. Now I’ve been pursuing issues for the LPOs strongly and vigorously. We’ve gone out into the regions and we’ve listened to people in the city LPOs, and they have told us, for years, that their needs have not been met. They’ve not been listened to. They’ve been abused. They’ve been trod on. So prior to Ms. Holgate becoming the CEO, that’s the way the LPOs are treated. And what stunned me, was the LPOs is just swung straight in behind Ms. Holgate. Very, very strongly behind her. And they said that, she actually told me later, that due to my questions in Senate estimates, she said, “There’s a problem here.” And she went out and listened. And the LPOs were very, very grateful for that. And they swung in right behind her. Angela Cramp from the LPOs, very strong advocate. The LPO is we’re writing letters to us, saying how much they appreciate Ms. Holgate. They’ve never had that kind of support and now they’ve lost it. And the way she’s been dismissed has left a lot of people wondering what’s going on in Australia Post. That’s why it’s so important.
Senator, if I could try and separate those issues and matters that have been dealt with well by the inquiry in the former CEO. But I could give you my, having grown up on a farm myself, and coming from regional Western Australia, and joining Australia Post because of its far reach into regional and rural Australia, I appreciate, as does Ms. Sheffield, who looks after community and consumers and all of the LPOs, how important the LPOs are to Australia Post. We are absolutely committed to the LPOs. And as Ms. Sheffield said, the first round of payment reform was what 55 million increase in additional payments. So there is a significant amount of support within Australia Post here at this desk today and back in the offices right across Australia Post. So, we do appreciate everything the LPOs do. They’re a very important part of the Australia Post. And will be for a long time to come out, I hope.
[Malcolm Roberts] But we’ll be assessing it by listening to the LPOs, as to what happens, because they are Australia Post in many communities. And they’re the community, they’re the heart of many communities. So-
Senator, and just take that on board. When I sat down with the chair of the Australia Post Advisory eh-
[Ms. Sheffield] APLAC.
APLAC. I always get the acronym wrong. Outside his LPO and discussed matters, and we are listening to LPOs every day. It’s very important.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, I just had a text message from Angela Cramp. And she’s saying, “He has had no contact with LPOs since he took over the role. He’s not responded to anyone.”
From Ms. Cramp-
[Malcolm Roberts] To me.
Directed at me?
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.
I haven’t had direct contact with Ms. Cramp. As I said, I sat down with the chairman of APLAC, and I’m out in post offices, corporate and LPOs alike. So, as Ms. Sheffield, on a regular basis.
[Malcolm Roberts] We hope it doesn’t go back to the way it was pre-Holgate.
Can I also add to that, Senator? We have worked very hard to build those relationships with licensees. We understand and value licensees incredibly. This week, we had an APLAC board where we brought everyone together, which Angela Cramp is a National Director on. We, you know, we’ve just finished six weeks of road shows, where all licensees were invited to the communities and we will be coming, well hopefully, COVID permitting, in Woolongong next week for, you know, to ensure that we hear from our licensees because we agree with you. We have to listen. There is a lot of change happening in our community. There’s a lot of change to their business, and there’s a lot of change that needs to be there to support them. And whether it’s in looking at what products they’re offering, outlets, payments, lots of consultation, and we really do value the input that they have, in both associations, both LPOG and POALL provide a lot of input and provide, not just to myself, but to teams of people at Australia Post that really are there to do the best. And we don’t want anything to go back. It won’t go back. This payment reform is written. It’s an agreement. It is there to stay, and the next phase will be an agreement. So, really it is, it is there to really support them and help them to grow. Because we know when LPOs thrive, Australia Post thrives. And that’s why we created the payment reforms so that they’re not, it’s not a cost, it’s actually a cost of sale. It’s based on growth. So as e-commerce grows, they grow, because they get a greater share of parcel revenue, which they never got before. So the whole basis of how that set up, actually, is there to drive their growth and ensure that their businesses grow.
[Malcolm Roberts] Right. And as you said, it didn’t happen before. Thanks to Ms. Holgate, it has happened. So we’ll be watching very, very closely because we don’t want to see it go back to the previous days. Will you be implementing Senator Pauline Hanson’s recommendations as part of the committee’s recommendation and report that came down yesterday that the Australia Post chair, Mr. Lucio Di Bartolomeo, be removed from the board, given the scathing conclusions and comments about his behaviour?
Senator, thank you very much for that question. I don’t think it’s the responsibility of the acting group chief executive to comment on the chair. The chair has put a statement out yesterday afternoon saying he’s committed to continuing to lead Australia Post. So, but it’s not for the acting management, and as acting CEO to comment on, on that.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’ve had other questions on services so I’ll put them on notice.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/n0LRDpVqVG4/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-01 13:30:002021-06-01 17:39:59Will Australia Post apologise to Christine Holgate?
Growers on PFAS affected land are concerned that our huge beef export market could be under threat if PFAS is detected in Australian beef. Their concerns are completely valid even though officials from Meat and Livestock Australia. who are meant to work for the long-term prosperity of the meat industry, didn’t seem that concerned.
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you chair, thank you for being here today. My questions are to do with the PFAS contamination of our food chain. Your Meat and Livestock Australia function is to foster the long-term prosperity of the Australian red meat industry. Is that correct?
Correct.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. One of the significant challenges to this industry is the increasing presence of PFAS in the red meat supply chain. Does Meat and Livestock Australia have an advisory on PFAS contamination of cattle?
Senator, with respect, I think it’s a very limited threat. And I think the publicity and push of that issue from a very small number of producers doesn’t accurately represent the threat. I think our industry is incredibly, incredibly conscious of not just our bio security reputation, but our responsibility to ensure that we provide a safe and wholesome product to all of our customers globally, which go to a hundred markets globally. This issue is something which has been extensively, extensively evaluated by the authorities responsible. And while we are aware of it, it’s certainly an issue that is being monitored on an ongoing basis.
[Malcolm Roberts] Who are those authorities who are responsible?
So, as far as the level or potential contamination, the responsibility for making decisions about potential contamination would sit with groups like SAFEMEAT. And the FSANZ would actually set the requirements or the levels that would have to be triggered for it to be a challenge.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s the Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Food Standards, Australia New Zealand Food Standards, that’s correct.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, we’ll come back to them. I would disagree with you because from, I’m not talking about FSANZ, but other authorities supposed to be overseeing this PFAS issue and not doing their job. That’s quite clear from the questions we’ve asked. So, next question: Are you aware the Food Standards Australia has PFAS regulations under review and, later this year, there may be maximum PFAS levels specified that your breeders will need to act on? I think it’s timetabled, at the moment, to come out early September, 2021. But given that, I think, the early ones are behind, it probably be late later this year.
No, Senator, that’s something that’s their responsibility. And if there’s need to support them in providing information or technical support for that, I’m sure they’ll contact us.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’m very aware, I’m very concerned, about the threats to our export industry. The Australian beef industry is worth 28 billion a year. And the export portion of that is 17.2 billion, which makes it one hell of a big industry. So are you aware that the European Union have now enacted a recommendation of six micrograms of PFAS per kilogramme of body weight as a recommended maximum daily intake? A figure that mandates the effective elimination of PFAS from meat.
No, Senator. The setting of MRLs is not something that comes under our responsibility.
[Malcolm Roberts] You’re not aware of it?
No.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Does Meat and Livestock Australia consider that our $28 billion a year meat industry might be headed for a substantial disruption caused by these new PFAS limits in Australia and in our major export markets?
No, Senator, I don’t. I think it’s important for context, so this can sound quite significant but I think it’s important that these are very, very isolated potential incidents. So no is the answer to your question.
[Malcolm Roberts] Have you considered what a PFAS scare may do to our livestock industry? Have you done any modelling or risk assessment at all?
So, we’re certainly aware of the potential of what those scares could do. And of course, as a result of that, we’re conscious of, we’re aware of, I’m assuming you’re talking about this specific issue, which keeps coming up regardless of the support that gets provided to that producer. So yes, we are aware of what the potential of those scares can do. And it is disappointing that an individual, regardless of the disproportionate support they get from any sectors of the industry, continue down this path.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, I’ve got letters in front of me from the Charolais Society of Australia, the Australian Brahman Breeders’ Association, and the Australian Registered Cattle Breeders Association. They’ve all called on the government to relocate the graziers from affected properties to remove PFAS from the food chain. They’re worried about what’ll happen if that is detected in the food chain. The Australian Registered Cattle Breeders Association agree and added that failure to fix this problem can only lead to a disaster for the Australian meat industry. Why has Meat and Livestock Australia ignored your own breeders recommendations?
All due respect, Senator, those letters haven’t, I don’t think those letters have come to us. But also, Breed Societies, whose primary responsibility is the recordkeeping of pure-bed livestock, are not the people we should be relying on for information around chemical…
[Malcolm Roberts] What about the other two?
They all are, all three of them are. Breed Societies, the Registered Cattle Breeders are the peak organisation for the Breed Societies.
I accept that. Aren’t they, though, concerned about the future of their industry?
Your industry?
I’m sure they could be made concerned, Minister. If they were, if they received the representations that we have received from the producer, that I assume we’re still talking about the same one, I can imagine they would be concerned.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’m aware of several producers.
There’s a main producer that’s raised this a number of times and have said they would take this further.
[Malcolm Roberts] I wouldn’t dismiss it because you’re counting one, there are several. And they’re deeply concerned not only about their own livelihoods, they’re concerned about the whole industry. It’s palpable, you can see it in them.
Sorry, sorry, Senator, I didn’t mean to sound dismissive. We’re not being dismissive at all. I think what the point I’m obviously not making well is it’s very important that we appreciate from a bio-security and food safety point of view. In our industry, we have incredibly good systems in place, and we have the authorities like FSANZ and SAFEMEAT who have responsibility for this. And we lean very heavily on their authority and expertise to manage this issue. And if it becomes more of a policy issue, then that’s a representative organisation responsibility. We absolutely will support any of those, if there’s more technical information required. And we do take on board these issues every time they are raised. But we all have a responsibility to rely on the authorities who have the expertise and responsibility for this, which is what we’re trying to do.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’ve been through various types of diet in my years on the planet. in the last few years, I’ve become completely meat-eater, that’s all I eat. So it’s very important to me personally, to my family, but especially more so in my responsibilities as a Senator representing constituents. And I’m not just talking about people who have got PFAS problems themselves, but people in the beef industry because it’s a very important industry to our whole state and our country. And I’m deeply concerned what would happen if this gets out of hand, if we don’t hit it off. So has Meat and Livestock Australia considered that, of all the stakeholders in this industry, you are the best situated to lead a whole of industry response to the PFAS issue? That solution being to relocate farmers from land destroyed by PFAS pollution from defence bases, and in so doing removing the source of PFAS contamination from our food chain, and removing the risk to this core meat and food industry?
Sorry, Senator, none of those things are actually our responsibility. None of those things actually fit.
[Malcolm Roberts] What is your role?
Marketing and research and development, Senator. Those are our responsibilities. And if there’s technical issues that we can support any of the participants in this, as far as understanding what contributes to it or what can be done, that’s absolutely the sort of thing we should be considering. But the relocation and compensation is absolutely not something.
[Malcolm Roberts] No, no, I’m not arguing that you should take responsibility for that. But I’m arguing that your function, as we agreed in the first question, is to foster the longterm prosperity of the Australian meat industry, Australian red meat industry. You agreed with that. I’m saying that this is a serious threat.
And that our contribution, given that function, would be to ensure that, if there’s a technical information that’s required that can be developed through research and development to support these activities, then absolutely. We would be prepared to support that. But as far as the examples you were using before around relocation and rectification.
[Malcolm Roberts] No I’m saying bring your pressure to bear, because…
No. Sorry, Senator. We absolutely could not do that, ’cause that’s not, that’s absolutely not in our responsibility. We can’t be putting pressure.
[Malcolm Roberts] You’re just watching this?
No, no, Senator. That’s not at all, that’s not at all right. You asked me, can we put pressure to bear on the people who are responsible to do this. And no, we are not, we can’t be taking action like that. The representative organisations…
[Malcolm Roberts] I’m terrified that Europe could get one contaminated sample. And given the way that the UN and the EU are now focusing on decreasing meat consumption, that one contaminated sample could destroy the imports of beef, huge industry in our state and our country, into Europe. And then we’ve also got the Greens with the potential to use this issue to stop the meat industry altogether. So, surely there must be something to head this off. I love my lamb and beef.
Which is an excellent, Senator. And I’d love to give you as much confidence as possible. And all I can say, I think, is where the issue sits is a very long, long, long away from what you just described. And if we can help in providing technical information to support that, then we’re certainly happy to do that.
Senator, Senator Roberts, probably one of the places that you might be able to prosecute this with more success might be next week in health, because FSANZ are very much at the forefront of making sure that this issue is dealt with. So that, that might be a good place to go.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. Thank you both. Thank you chair.
With 40% of Australian land mass currently under a successful native title claim, you can see how estimates of up to 80% of Australia being claimed under native title by 2050 are very possible. There are currently 177 native title claims awaiting determination right now.
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you for attending today. My questions are to do with native title projections.
Thank you.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What are the current costs of administrating administering Australian native title claims each year, please?
Kathleen Denley, assistant secretary of the native title unit. So the approximate cost per year is 140 million. I don’t have the exact breakdown, but I can get it for you. The majority of that money goes to the national indigenous Australians agency who pay for native title representative bodies. There’s also money that then goes to, for example the Federal Court, the National Native Title Tribunal. There’s some administered funding that goes to native title respondents funding schemes. There’s also an anthropologist scheme which the department administers for some funding for native title anthropologists and some money that departments such as NIAA and AGD expend.
[Malcolm Roberts] It’s a massive undertaking. Could, could we get the breakdown on notice please?
Certainly
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Secondly, how many claims have been finalised to date?
Senator just to clarify, do you mean native title claims as distinct from state compensation claims?
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.
I’ll have to find the exact figure for you Senator. According to the data held by the NNTT as of the 3rd of May, there are 524 determinations and 177 active claimant applications
And of those determinations Senator 416 are consent determinations and 53 were litigated determinations.
[Malcolm Roberts] How many 53 did you say?
Result of litigated determination.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What human resources are being used to assist progressive progressing native title claims.
Could you
[Malcolm Roberts] How many people in the department are working on that?
Oh, so the native title unit in the attorney General’s department? So I think we have approximately 14 staff. However, the unit is also working on things other than native titles, such as the closing, the gap measures in conjunction with the national indigenous Australian agency
[Malcolm Roberts] And how many people would be employed full-time equivalent on, on government funding outside the department?
Senator, Just before we go onto outside of the department we also, our legal assistance area would also process claims under a number of schemes. I don’t have those details. We’ll take them on notice and I’ll give you an estimate if you
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Yep. How many claims are currently in the system yet to be finalised? Is that a 177 active?
That’s right. That’s of native title determinations. There are also native title compensation claims that are currently before the courts.
[Malcolm Roberts] How many of them?
I think there’s approximately 15, 14 or 15.
[Malcolm Roberts] When is it considered that the remainder of unfinalised claims will be finalised?
I’d have to take that question on notice. I think there’s a range of cases that are still before the courts for a variety of different reasons. I’d, I’d have to take the question on notice to see if there was a projection by the federal court.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What proportion of the Australian landmass is currently under finalised native title?
So 40.5% are covered by a determination and 6.3% are covered by a determination that there is no native title or that native title has been extinguished.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. There have been some assessments made by persons including Warren Mundine and Josephine Cashman. Who’s an indigenous lawyer and activist predicting that that finalised native title claims will cover 70 to 80% of the Australian land mass by the 2050s. Is this estimate reasonably correct? If finalise claims as successful?
I’m not sure I could accurately comment on that particular percentage. What I could say is in terms of the indigenous land estate once Al Rowe or Aboriginal land rights act findings are also taken into account. The overall indigenous land estate is larger. Of course it’s, it’s uncertain what the percentage would be that it would be based on individual circumstances of cases that are before the federal court. But we would, I think, expect that the overall percentage would increase, but I couldn’t comment on that exact percentage.
[Malcolm Roberts] Senator, if I can add to that, of course when the court makes a determination of native title it might be exclusive native title. What might be non-exclusive native title. So we could have land that’s subject to native title but that doesn’t mean that it’s subject to exclusive native title. If you understand where I’m going with that.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Yep. So it will be, you don’t know whether it’ll be a lot more than the current 46 and a half percent
We would expect it to increase
[Malcolm Roberts] Increase. But you don’t know how much. I’m not not complaining about that. I’m just, just trying to pin it down broadly. So next question, Aboriginal people of Australia currently represent around 3.3% of Australia’s population. Yet native title does not allow individual ownership of land under native title claim, as I understand it. This will effectively lock up a large proportion of Australian land that is no longer available as private freehold property to any individual Australian to purchase. Was this an intended consequence of the introduction of native title to lock up the land?
So the purpose of the native title is to recognise pre-existing interest in land and the court will make that determination based on evidence before it. So if there has been pre-existing laws and customs as the secretary outlined before, it will be it will depend on the individual circumstances as to the extent of those rights. In some instances they may be exclusive but in some instances it may be more limited such as a right to hunt and gather. It could be a right to continue a particular cultural practise. So it will change in every circumstances to the extent of those rights.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. Is it true that Aboriginal people are not able to build or buy and own their home on land under native title? Because that’s what I’ve been told by people in communities.
So native title isn’t free hold title although exclusive native title in some circumstances has been considered similar by the nature of the rights that are given. However, as I mentioned, it really does depend on the finding of those individual rights.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.
The native title act also contains the regime where the native title holding groups can themselves decide whether they wish to permit activities, to take place on land that is subject to native title. So it would be open to a native title group to in fact say that if they wish to that they would allow individual members of that group to, to build housing on that land and to have, for example, 99 year type leasehold arrangement. But that’s a matter for the group themselves as to whether they wish to do that or not.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. It is, it’s much more complex than people think then. Is it true that land under native title cannot be used as security for a loan to assist an Aboriginal person? Or is that following on from what you just said?
So, because if someone was to default on a loan, for example native title land, can’t then be repossessed by a financer financier. So that that’s not to say that financial institutions aren’t capable of devising financial ways of actually lending to, to native title groups based upon assets and revenue streams that a native title holding group might have. I mean, a native title holding group might have revenue streams, if they’ve agreed to mining, for example on the land and things like that. So it, again, it’s more complex than it might seem.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you. Two more questions. What is the relationship between the United nations and the native title act given the extensive reference to the UN in the acts preamble?
Are you referring to a particular treaty or?
[Malcolm Roberts] No, just a, just a broad understanding of the relationship between the UN and the native title act.
I guess broadly the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people. I, I’m not sure of the particular reference
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.
The declaration on the rights of indigenous people postdates the, the native native title act that was passed before that, that declaration. So like my, my colleague, Ms. Stanley, I’m not sure about the references to the UN in the preamble. The native title act is an act passed by this parliament. So it’s, it’s a piece of domestic legislation in that sense.
[Malcolm Roberts] So who would be the best person or agency to do find out more on that?
Look, we, we can take on, on notice.
[Malcolm Roberts] No, could we come and see you? No need to take it on notice.
You actually want a meeting?
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. Just a briefing on it. Yeah. Better understanding. Yeah. Thank you. Oh, we intend to, we have been. Has native title improved the living circumstances of the majority of Aboriginal persons in Australia.
Are you asking me for a personal opinion? I’m not sure I can give that sense.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s probably not
With all due respect to the official, that’s exactly right.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s fine.
But a briefing will be facilitated for you Senator Robert.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much.
Thank you very much Senator Robert.
Thank you.
If I could just interject for a minute to going back to the previous witness I appreciate the answers being direct and concise. It’s very helpful.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/xFMMz5oxaPw/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-31 18:15:002021-05-31 13:37:31Over 40% of Australian Land Mass under native title
