Questions Raised on Safety of Infanrix Hexa Vaccine

,

These questions are about Infanrix Hexa and SIDS and are based on information contained in Freedom of Information documents 3828 (document 9) and 1345 (document 1). This vaccine is approved to protect against nine different strains of six diseases: Diphtheria, Tetanus, three strains of Pertussis, Hepatitis B, Influenza type B, and three types of inactivated Polio viruses. Each vial containslactose, sodium chloride, aluminium chloride, hydroxide, aluminium phosphate, phenoxyethanol medium, potassium chloride, polysorbate 20 and 80, formaldehyde, glycine, sodium phosphate, dibasic dihydrate, potassium phosphate monobasic, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin B sulfate and 2-phenoxyethanol. There is a lot happening in that single jab.

All of these chemicals are given to six-week-old babies, again a month later and then again as a booster, in many cases. There are 17 reported deaths on the DAEN (Database of Adverse Event Notifications) from this product and another 26 reported deaths on your internal Adverse Event Management System (AEMS) going back to 2010. The report from 2010 is that the child died on the same day as the injection, with no other suspected medications or health issues. The child was injected and then died. Why is that death still on the AEMS and not on the public DAEN after 14 years?

Once again, the public servant feigned not understanding the question before deflecting and failing to answer, offering instead to take the question on notice. The reason our vaccines are considered safe and effective is because cases where they were not safe are covered up, as is happening here. There is no reason for the specific case I am asking about to still be withheld from the public. The facts of the matter were clear in 2010 and they are clear now: the vaccine is full of harmful substances and killed that child.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My next set of questions are about Infanrix hexa and SIDS. My questions are on the vaccine Infanrix hexa using information contained in freedom of information 3828 document 9 and freedom of
information 1345 document 1. Constituents are raising this issue with me. This vaccine is approved to protect against nine different strains of six different diseases, and, for brevity, these are diphtheria, tetanus, three strains of pertussis, hepatitis B, influenza type B and three types of inactivated polio viruses. Each vile contains lactose, sodium chloride, aluminium chloride, hydroxide, aluminium phosphate, phenoxyethanol medium, potassium chloride, polysorbate 20 and 80, formaldehyde, glycine, sodium phosphate, dibasic dihydrate, potassium phosphate monobasic, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin B sulfate and 2-phenoxyethanol. There is a lot happening in that single jab.

You give all of those chemicals to six-week-old babies, then again a month later and then again as a booster, in many cases. To my question: there are 17 reported deaths on the DAEN—that’s the Database of Adverse Event Notifications—from this product and another 26 reported deaths on your internal Adverse Event Management System, AEMS, going back to 2010. The report from 2010 is that the child died on the same day as the injection and there were no other suspected medications or health issues. The child was injected, and he died. Why is that still on the Adverse Event Management System and not on the public Database of Adverse Event Notifications? Isn’t 14 years long enough to have processed the report?

Prof. Lawler: So there are two questions there. On the first, I think it’s going to be very difficult for us to give you a satisfactory answer now on the basis of a 14-year-old report, so we will have to take that on notice as well. And the second question, sorry?

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the report still on the Adverse Event Management System and not on the public Database of Adverse Event Notifications?

Prof. Lawler: Was that the first or the second question?

Senator ROBERTS: The second one.

Prof. Lawler: Then the answer is probably the same.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay; 10 of the 28 deaths on the Adverse Event Management System record cause of death as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and three on the Database of Adverse Event Notifications. Can you
confirm that, in a limited number of cases, routine childhood vaccinations have caused Sudden Infant Death Syndrome—SIDS?

Dr Larter: It’s very important to remember that the reporting of an adverse event or death to the TGA does not necessarily mean that the vaccine caused the death, or even that the reporting doctor necessarily considered that the death was caused by the vaccine. We strongly encourage all consumers and health professionals to have a very low threshold for reporting suspected adverse events, even if there is only a very small chance that the vaccine was the cause. To date the TGA has not identified SIDS as an adverse event associated with Infanrix.

Senator ROBERTS: There are 14 other cases of babies dying within three days of injection with this product, including three others that died on the same day. Why hasn’t the TGA investigated these deaths, and why are they still hidden on the Adverse Event Management System, which I understand—correct me if I’m wrong—is internal?

Dr Larter: That is correct. The TGA’s Adverse Event Management System is the database that contains all the detailed information regarding adverse events reported to the TGA. The Database of Adverse Event
Notifications for medicines is our public database, which includes de-identified adverse event information. The vast majority of reports made to the TGA are included in the public database. However, where the case has been rejected or where it’s a duplicate, these cases are not published. In terms of why an individual case is not included in the public database, we would need to take those questions on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you also tell me then, as part of the other part of the question, why the TGA hasn’t investigated these deaths?

Dr Larter: Again, we can confirm on notice. The TGA does have robust processes in place for investigating reported deaths after vaccination, as we’ve previously advised. We work very closely with state and territory
jurisdictional immunisation committees and public health units to investigate any death that’s reported to us after vaccination. So, while I cannot confirm the details of the individual cases, they will have been investigated by the TGA.

Senator ROBERTS: We don’t want personal details. Here’s your ideal opportunity to show off the TGA now, on notice. There are 14 other cases of babies—

Prof. Lawler: Sorry, can I just respond? It is actually very difficult to give a fulsome response on cases that are, in some instances, 14 years old.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, perhaps you could tell us why you haven’t done the response.

Prof. Lawler: I would hope, Senator, that you would not want us to be providing information to you without the information that we require. So I understand—

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by that?

Prof. Lawler: What I’m saying is that I’m assuming that you would not want us to prevaricate or invent information simply for the purposes of providing an answer. As you said earlier yourself, an appropriate reason
for taking a question on notice is because we don’t have the information in front of us.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine.

Prof. Lawler: So Dr Larter has endeavoured to make clear the processes that we do follow for the purposes of giving you specific information about some specific cases that you have raised. We will need to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Absolutely. That’s fine. That’s in accordance with the witness guide. There are 14 other cases of babies dying within three days of injection with this product, including three others that died on the same day. Why hasn’t the TGA investigated these deaths? Sorry, I’ve asked that question. But 29 of the deaths were male babies and 14 were female. Have you investigated why the hexa product is twice as likely to kill male babies as female babies?

Prof. Lawler: I’ll go to Dr Larter in a moment. The assertion or implication that you make, that it is twice as likely to kill babies, I think is an inappropriate statement to make, and it’s not reflective of an understanding of vaccine safety or statistics.

Dr Larter: Again, reporting of an adverse event does not mean that that adverse event is causally related to the vaccine. We do investigate all deaths and adverse events following immunisation.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. That finishes my second set. I’d like to have a third set after Senator Rennick.

CHAIR: You’ve still got a couple of minutes.

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t want to start the third set and then leave it halfway through

/by

AFP’s Role in Protest Interventions

,

During the recent Senate Estimates, I questioned the AFP about whether they were under orders not to intervene during protests when offenses, such as the flying of illegal Hezbollah and Hamas flags, were observed.

The AFP clarified that they were under no such orders and explained that maintaining peace at rallies and protests is primarily the responsibility of State and Territory police as frontline officers. They also noted that decisions on whether to intervene may depend on tactical considerations and safety concerns.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: On to another topic, are Australian Federal Police officers under any orders at certain demonstrations to not intervene when they see an offence being committed? 

Ms Barrett: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: We see the issue of illegal flags being raised at some demonstrations—illegal Hezbollah flags and Hamas flags. Why wasn’t action taken? 

Ms Barrett: There are a few things I would say to that. Primarily, it’s our state and territory colleagues that are policing public order in protest activity. The AFP doesn’t generally have a frontline presence at protest activity. 

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got jurisdiction, say, in Sydney at a big protest—only in Canberra? 

Ms Barrett: It’s not our primary role. It’s primarily the role of the states and territories. They are better equipped and trained to deal with large public order matters. We obviously provide support to them and some specialist capability where it’s required, but they are primarily the ones on the front line at the protest activity. They also have access to utilising this legislation and, in fact, there have been other state and territory colleagues and counterparts that have used this legislation in relation to the prohibited hate symbols. The other point I would make is that there are a lot of tactics that go into policing protests and into maintaining law and order and public order, particularly in mass protest activity. It is quite a simplified expectation that police officers would be immediately arresting on the spot. There is a lot of consideration that would go into tactical decision-making around whether it would be the right decision to immediately intervene and arrest in a mass protest activity, and that is where our state and territory colleagues have the specialist skills and training. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have two questions. Do you have jurisdiction in Sydney, for example, or in the state, apart from airports? 

Ms Barrett: We have jurisdiction for Commonwealth offences, so under Commonwealth legislation. Our state and territory colleagues have state legislation that allows them to enforce public order in those situations. As I’ve already said, they also have access to Commonwealth legislation around some of these applicable offences. 

Senator ROBERTS: Last question: is one of the considerations as to whether or not to take action to arrest someone who’s demonstrating with a hate flag or hate symbol the need to be seen to be enforcing the law? People are just shocked that these people are getting away with breaking the law willy nilly in front of the police’s eyes. 

Ms Barrett: There are a number of grounds that have to be satisfied before a police officer can arrest someone under the Commonwealth legislation. There are six or seven grounds for arrest, so it’s not as simple as just making a decision to arrest somebody. It has to be either to prevent the continuation of offence, prevent a loss or destruction of evidence, ensure a person’s appearance before court—there are a number of elements that you have to satisfy yourself of before you make a decision to deprive someone of their liberty. I can tell you that every police officer takes the decision to make an arrest very seriously because, as I said, you are depriving someone of their liberty. The other thing I will just make the point of is that every police officer has the independent office of constable. I can’t direct someone to make an arrest in any situation. It is an individual decision made by the individual police officer, and they themselves have to be satisfied that they’ve met the grounds for arrest under the Commonwealth legislation. 

Senator ROBERTS: One of those grounds was the continuation of an offence. Isn’t letting people continue to march with a hate symbol a continuation of an offence? 

Ms Barrett: Yes, in most circumstances it could be. But I will take you back to my earlier point—that there are a lot of other factors, particularly in mass protest situations where you’ve got big crowds, high emotions, a lot of passion and a propensity for violence or disorderly behaviour. There are a lot of tactics that go around policing large demonstrations like that, not least in terms of officer safety as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/by

NDIS Overlooks Fair Compensation for Family Caregivers

,

During this Estimate session in November, I inquired about the potential streamlining of payments to care workers and received responses primarily related to care providers (agencies). It appears that not all care providers are registered, and the registered ones must meet minimum standards. I also asked about the possibility of family or friends providing care being properly compensated for their extensive services. I was informed that these individuals may receive allowances, but that these amounts would be small compared to fair remuneration for their services. The NDIS views these supports as beneficial, yet is not willing to pay unless they are provided on a professional basis by individuals trained to a specific standard.

It seems that the NDIS is not prepared to offer support to family members providing vital care; rather, they will only support workers affiliated with recognised care providers. They seem to overlook the fact that many families make significant sacrifices to care for a disabled relative in a home setting, yet are not entitled to fair remuneration for the many hours of unpaid work they contribute.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. What is being done to streamline the payment system for care providers?

Ms C McKenzie: As Ms McKay was talking about before, we have a range of improvements underway through a significant program of work, particularly the crackdown on fraud program of work. That will include
progressive improvements to the provider platform and a range of other payment systems to improve and support the continued improvement of the payment system through to providers.

Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean the IT focus?

Ms C McKenzie: It is predominantly IT focused. Yes, that’s right. So it is upgrading systems that are at the end of their life or are approaching the end of their life. It is also developments in improving both the integrity of the data that we are able to capture and our ability to move more quickly and with more confidence in the payment to providers.

Senator ROBERTS: What is being done to set up a scheme to ensure that family members who provide constant care to a family member are compensated for the time and care put in to deal with high level basic care?
I understand that families like to take care of other family members; I’m not arguing against that. In one case, we had a pensioner on a low income looking after their 60-year-old son who is disabled. They were very concerned about him. There are some extenuating circumstances where families need to be compensated.

Mr McNaughton: There are a couple of components to that question. First of all, obviously through other portfolios, there are income support payments and carers payments and carer allowances in recognition of some of those activities. That is an important part of that. We also recognise that informal care is a really important part of the NDIS. Parents provide informal care for their children with disability. Ageing parents often do the same. There does come a time where that needs to be a paid care role. That is when the NDIS supports having paid, trained carers to come in and support that person with a disability. It is a combination of both. Who do you feel comfortable with providing that level of informal care and support and decision-making and assistance in your daily activities? There is the carer allowance and carer payments through the social security portfolio. The NDIS pays for the funded support workers to provide that trained specialist care for the person with disability as well. It is an ecosystem, a combination of all those things. It really does depend on the individual circumstance of the participant.

Senator ROBERTS: I presume, then, that a very formal assessment is required before moving from one to the other?

Mr McNaughton: Yes. But we know that participants like to have their families and informal supports around them. That is a really important thing. We don’t want to detract from that at all. Some participants also need
additional funded carers. There are regulations for being a qualified carer and a registered provider as part of the NDIS system. Those things need to work hand in glove to provide that support for the person with a disability.

Senator ROBERTS: Are all direct care providers to be registered if they wish to be paid under the NDIS?

Mr McNaughton: They don’t have to be.

Senator ROBERTS: What is registration? What does it involve?

Mr McNaughton: I might defer to the commission, who can talk through registration guidelines. There are differences in terms of pricing within the NDIS and registration criteria. I am not sure if the commission wants to respond about the registration of providers.

Ms Myers: The registration relates to providers. When it comes to workers, there is screening that occurs for workers.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re looking at their capabilities and their skills?

Ms Myers: Worker screening is about suitability. Worker screening is for people who are in risk assessed roles. Worker screening checks are conducted by the state and territory worker screening units. The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission is responsible for maintaining the database. Registered providers can link their workers who have a worker screening check. That is another safeguarding measure so that participants can see which workers have a worker screening check. In fact, we’ve had record numbers of unregistered providers also seeking access to the worker screening database so that they can also link their workers.

Senator ROBERTS: So direct care providers don’t have to be registered, but for some circumstances they must be?

Ms Myers: For some circumstances, they need a worker screening check.

Senator ROBERTS: Are those reforms you both discussed complete?

Ms Glanville: I wonder whether, on the registration topic, Associate Commissioner Wade would like to speak on this, if she is there?

Ms Wade: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Glanville. Registered providers are an important part of the disability care system. There is also provision for the regulator, which is the NDIS Commission, to regulate both
unregistered and registered providers. Registration status indicates compliance requirements of a provider, but that does not leave providers unregulated if they are not registered. All providers that receive funding from the NDIS are required to comply with a code of conduct. Failure to comply with that code of conduct can see regulatory action brought against the provider by the commission as the regulator.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is my final question. What monitoring is involved for both registered and unregistered providers?

Ms Myers: The Quality and Safeguards Commission is responsible for the monitoring of both registered and unregistered providers. Much of our work is conducted as a result of either complaints received to the commission or reportable incidents where we need to make further inquiries around the circumstances of particular incidents. Registered providers have obligations that they are required to report certain matters to us, including certain changes of circumstances. The commission utilises that information to determine what regulatory action it might take.

Senator ROBERTS: Are there audits of this? It’s not just self-reporting?

Ms Myers: We do some proactive compliance monitoring work. They also have audit processes tied to their registration. The audit process relates to the standards they must meet in order to maintain their registration.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.

/1 Comment/by

Coal LSL Faces Scrutiny Over Improper Payments

,

I inquired with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) about the breach of Section 83 of the Constitution mentioned in their Annual Report regarding improper payments received by Coal LSL. This issue was not noted in the Coal LSL Annual Report for 2022-2023.

DEWR identified the breach in April 2023. It was discovered that several entities had paid levies to Coal LSL that should not have been paid. The funds were then paid to DEWR and deposited into consolidated revenue, where they were subsequently pooled and returned to Coal LSL from that revenue.

DEWR acted diligently to identify the error, highlighting the loose manner in which Coal LSL manages other people’s money.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. Here we go again. My questions are very short. They involve Coal LSL or your interaction with Coal LSL. Is it true that the Coal LSL annual report for 2022-23
states that no compliance issues were reported to the minister?

Senator Watt: I know Coal LSL will be appearing later tonight. I’ll just check whether we’re in a position to answer those questions now, or whether we might need to deal with them later.

Mr Manning: We’re just waiting for one of our colleagues to come from the waiting room downstairs. I don’t know the answer in relation to the annual report and any qualifications completely, but as I understand it there were none in relation to section 83 of the Constitution.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d now like to take you to page 101 of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Annual Report 2022-23, which says: Coal LSL has identified it may have mistakenly received levy payments from entities that do not meet the definition of ’employer’ for the purposes of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992. If so, payment of amounts equivalent to the levy by the department to Coal LSL in relation to those entities would likely have been made in contravention of s 83 of the Constitution.

Mr Manning: Yes, and that was the point I was getting to. Because of the way the money is collected under that scheme, a levy that’s collected is done by Coal LSL acting as an agent of the Commonwealth—because only the Commonwealth can levy taxation—and then goes into consolidated revenue. Then the same amounts go back out to allow Coal LSL, no longer acting as agent of the Commonwealth, to pay money for the purposes for which it exists. In the circumstances of section 83, it would technically be the Commonwealth, as represented by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, who, if there is a breach, has committed that breach. That’s why it’s in our annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: I guess I’m concerned because—what you’ve said in your report is accurate, I presume: Coal LSL has identified it may have mistakenly received levy payments from entities that do not meet the definition of ’employer’ … So they shouldn’t have taken that money.

Mr Manning: My understanding is there is a small number of employers who are not national system employers from whom the levy shouldn’t have been collected.

Senator ROBERTS: The report says: Coal LSL has assured the department that it is conducting further investigations to confirm how many entities may have incorrectly paid levy and quantify any corresponding amounts that have been paid by the Commonwealth without a valid appropriation. It looks like the money has been collected from individual entities by Coal LSL, sent to you and then it has gone back as a lump sum. Is it true that you have confirmed that the information relating to Coal LSL in your annual report is correct?

Mr Manning: That’s our understanding. I might just ask my colleagues, who have now been able to join us, if they have anything to add to that. As I understand it, the issues are still being worked through between the
department and Coal LSL.

Mr Kerr: What my colleague Mr Manning has said is correct. Our understanding is that Coal LSL may have mistakenly received levy payments from employers who do not meet the definition of ’employer’ under the
scheme. Mr Manning has correctly described the money flows—essentially, the amounts collected by Coal LSL flow in and out of the consolidated revenue fund in the department. That’s the standard approach for taxation revenues that all go in to CRF. As a result, that’s led to a section 83 breach that we have disclosed in our annual report. So all of that’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: I find Mr Manning is usually pretty correct.

Mr Kerr: Indeed.

Mr Manning: Thank you; I’m always appreciative of the confirmation that I’ve got it right.

Senator ROBERTS: You weren’t even nervous while he was saying it. You weren’t waiting on the edge of your seat. How did the department become aware of these serious issues when it was not identified in Coal LSL’s annual report?

Mr Kerr: I believe we became aware of it in the context of considering some legislative amendments to the scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: When was the breach first detected?

Mr Kerr: I believe it was in April 2023.

Senator ROBERTS: Who identified the likely breach of section 83 of the Constitution? Was it Coal LSL or DEWR?

Mr Kerr: No, it was the department.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the outcome so far of the investigation into this matter?

Mr Kerr: The department has been working with Coal LSL to seek to clarify the scope of the problem. I understand that Coal LSL has undertaken some assurance activities to review the current active registered
employers to identify affected entities, which is not an entirely straightforward endeavour.

Senator ROBERTS: Nothing much is straightforward in Coal LSL.

Mr Kerr: Indeed. As part of that review, Coal LSL has updated its records and introduced some new procedures to mitigate the risk of new ineligible employers being onboarded, and probably Coal LSL is best
placed to speak to that later.

Senator ROBERTS: We will be tonight.

Mr Kerr: From the department’s point of view, we’re working closely with Coal LSL and other relevant Commonwealth agencies to try and clarify the scope of the issue and settle a way forward to resolve it.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re still clarifying the scope.

Mr Kerr: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: How was it detected? You said it was while doing some legislative enhancements.

Mr Kerr: Yes. The department was considering some potential legislative amendments to the scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: To the Coal LSL legislation?

Mr Kerr: Yes, correct.

Senator ROBERTS: In what year?

Mr Kerr: In 2023. In the course of that, we were considering the operation of the scheme and uncovered this issue.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your diligence. What checks and balances does the department have in place to confirm that the payroll levy taxes collected are true and correct?

Mr Kerr: The department has obtained legal advice in relation to this matter, but to a large degree we rely on the information provided by Coal LSL with respect to the amounts of levy collected. As we are required to do under section 36 of the Coal Administration Act, the Commonwealth role here is really to withdraw amounts equivalent to the levy collected by Coal LSL out of CRF and pay it back to them, with the effect being that the amount collected ultimately ends up in the Coal LSL fund. So, from the department’s point of view, we rely quite heavily on the information provided by Coal LSL about those amounts.

Senator ROBERTS: What is DEWR doing to remedy this breach? I know you said that you rely a lot on Coal LSL; I understand that.

Mr Kerr: The consequences of a section 83 breach are dealt with in some guidance put out by the Department of Finance. Essentially, what an entity is required to do if concerned that an appropriation may have been spent in breach of section 83 is to conduct an appropriate risk assessment which may include legal advice, which we have done, and also to undertake a section 83 breach disclosure, which we’ve also done in the annual report that you just referred to.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s not much you can do in regard to prevent it happening again.

Mr Kerr: I think I’d say that we’re working closely with Coal LSL and other Commonwealth agencies, including the Department of Finance, to confirm which employers and employees have been affected and the
options for addressing these.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’m asking for an opinion now. Was this disaster another example of Coal LSL’s incompetent best or an indication of the loose way that Coal LSL uses other people’s entitlements, and that
has not started since Labor came into office; that’s preceding Labor coming into office. I’m heartened by what Mr Manning and Mr Kerr said.

Senator Watt: Technically, we can’t give opinions but—

Senator ROBERTS: Ministers can. That’s why I asked the minister.

Senator Watt: Me, have opinions? Look, we support the work of the Coal LSL agency. Obviously, the department is taking you through a range of issues that are being considered and we’re supportive of that work as
well.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems DEWR has done its due diligence and done the job. I’m very concerned because—Coal LSL, at its core—the key issue we exposed in 2019. It took a long time for the government to say,
‘Okay, we finally agree with you.’ It took a lot of things to come out and I’m not sure it’s been fixed yet. Thank you, Chair.

/1 Comment/by

Visa Approvals and Security Checks Amid Rising Global Tensions

,

I asked Home Affairs about the total number of permanent residency visas issued in the last financial year, which totalled 185,000. For temporary student visas in 2023-24, there were 580,193 applications and 376,731 visas were granted, with 86,473 issued up to September this year. In the same period, 315,632 temporary residency visas were issued, with an additional 64,820 granted by September.

Visitor visas in 2023-24 reached 4,713,442, with another 1,203,891 granted by September. Working holiday visas numbered 234,556 in the last financial year, with 95,371 issued up to September.

With the crisis in Lebanon, 8,330 temporary visas have been issued to Lebanese nationals, with 15,525 applications lodged. All applicants undergo rigorous vetting, including identity and character checks, with applications screened against a 1,000,000-person immigration alert list. All security checks are completed before applicants arrive in Australia. Applications from Lebanon are typically processed within a few weeks, some prioritised for faster processing if necessary.

Regarding Palestinian visa applications, 3,041 have been granted, 7,252 refused, and 200 remain under review as of September 30. 

Security criteria was confirmed to remain uncompromised throughout the process.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. How many permanent visas are currently issued for residency in Australia? How many temporary visas are currently issued for residency in Australia?

Mr Kilner: For the Migration Program, the current numbers for this program year will be 185,000 migrant visas. That’s the program numbers for this year.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s permanent?

Mr Kilner: They would be permanent visas, yes. For temporary visas there are a range of different visas that we have. For student visas—most of the key programs for student visas are demand driven—I’ll give you a figure for last program year, as an example, and I can give you a figure for visas that have been granted so far this year. For the last program year there were 580,193 visas granted. There have been 99,868 visas lodged so far this year, from 1 July to 30 September, with 86,473 granted. The number granted for the last program year was 376,731 for students. For temporary residence visas, the number granted for the last financial year was 315,632. So far this program year, up until 30 September, there have been 64,820 visas granted. I’ll also go to visitor visas.

Senator ROBERTS: What was that category?

Mr Kilner: That was temporary residence visas.

Senator ROBERTS: The previous one was temporary visas for students.

Mr Kilner: Yes. There’s a different category—so that was student, and the next one I gave you was temporary visas. For visitor visas, the number granted for the last program year was 4,713,442. For this year to date, up to 30 September, it’s been 1,203,891. For working holiday maker visas, last program year there were 234,556 and so far this year there have been 95,371.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to another tack now. Now that the war in the Middle East has progressed to responding to attacks by Hezbollah, a terrorist group from Lebanon, how many migrants from Lebanon were
received into Australia at the end of last year?

Mr Kilner: I’ll have to take that figure on notice. I’ll just check if my colleagues have a figure. We may need to take that one on notice.

Mr Willard: I provided some evidence earlier on the number of visas we’ve granted to Lebanese citizens over the past 12 months. Your question was specifically about permanent visas, as I understand it. I don’t have that breakdown but I have that figure, which I could repeat. Since 7 October 2023, 8,333 migration and temporary visa applications have been granted to Lebanese nationals.

Senator ROBERTS: You can get the migrants on notice—the permanents?

Mr Willard: I can get the breakdown on notice, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: How many applications for visas over the last year from Lebanon have been received to come into Australia?

Mr Willard: The figure for applications since 7 October 2023 to 15 October 2024 is 15,525 migration and temporary visa applications lodged.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the vetting process for these visa applications?

Mr Willard: All applications are assessed against criteria for grant of a visa, which covers character, security, health, and a range of other criteria depending on the visa that is granted. We have to be satisfied of someone’s identity, and there’s a range of processes that sit behind all of those assessments.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you lead me through the process? A person makes an application; what then happens to that application?

Mr Willard: Typically, the application is lodged online, which is how over 99 per cent of our applications are received.

Senator ROBERTS: Does that go to a consulate or something in Lebanon, or does it come here?

Mr Willard: It goes to one of our processing offices around the world. Some of them come here. Some go to our embassy in Beirut. Some go to other locations. When the application is lodged, there is a series of risk alerts in place that identify concerns or characteristics to look for around fraud, disingenuity and other concerns. To give you a sense of that process: there are well over a million alerts in place that relate to identities and documents of concern. That’s on something called the migration alert list.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you work with intelligence agencies, home affairs and cybercrime?

Mr Willard: Yes. We get a whole range of information from a range of sources, including security agencies, other agencies within the Commonwealth, law enforcement agencies and partners around the world. In addition to those alerts that relate to identities and documents of concern, there are another 3.4 million entity details which are matched against visa applications. I don’t want to go into too much detail in a way that sets out exactly what the process is, because that provides an opportunity to game the process, but entity matches are any piece of information that we’ve collected that might be able to be matched against an application. There are also 1,000 rules based alerts, which are alerts that come up to the decision-maker to take a particular action on a particular application, depending on the characteristics of that application. We also have 43 predictive models that give a decision-maker an indication of the risk associated with a particular application. That’s not all that happens, but that’s the starting point. Then there is an assessment of the application, the claims that are made and documents that are submitted in support of the application. That’s all considered against the criteria for the grant of the visa. If all the criteria are met, then the application is granted.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the estimated time taken to process visa applications? I’m guessing there is a wide range of times here. Would it be better to process these visa applications prior to these persons being
allowed to enter Australia?

Mr Willard: All the applications, when they’re lodged offshore, are processed prior to them entering. In fact, they can only enter if they have been granted a visa—if they’ve gone through that process and have met all the criteria for a visa grant.

Senator ROBERTS: Does that apply to refugees?

Mr Willard: That applies to all of those applicants, including refugees. I’m sorry; can you repeat the first part of your question?

Senator ROBERTS: What is the estimated time taken to process these visa applications?

Mr Willard: At the moment in Lebanon, we’re looking at about a couple of weeks. As you said, there’s a range of processing times, but that’s roughly what we’re looking at.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that a fast-track for people from Lebanon? I’ve got nothing against people from Lebanon. I buy my lunch from them every day. They’re wonderful people, some of them

Mr Willard: What we’re doing in respect of Lebanon is supporting circumstances where Australian citizens are seeking to leave, and a close family member might be someone who needs a visa. It might be their partner. It could be children. It could be a parent. In that circumstance, we’re prioritising that assessment, but everyone still has to meet all of the criteria for the grant of a visa, and that process is taking a couple of weeks at the moment.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any consideration being given to staying applications for visas for people from Palestine and Lebanon until hostilities cease?

Mr Willard: Across many years, we’ve seen in all sorts of circumstances situations where there are challenges in various countries. The role of the officers who make the decisions, the delegated decision-makers, is to
consider applications against the criteria and make an assessment of whether or not someone can be granted a visa.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. My interpretation of what you just said is that the criteria are not compromised.

Mr Willard: No, the criteria are not compromised.

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s the most important thing—criteria? But if there’s a human rights crisis, as there is right now in Palestine and Lebanon, you may try and put more resources in. How would you shorten the
period?

Mr Willard: It’s an exercise in prioritisation—for example, triaging applications when they come in and, where there’s additional information required, making sure that that’s actioned promptly and that people get
information about what they need to provide to satisfy the criteria. It’s also about making sure we’ve got contingency, particularly in Lebanon at the moment, to be able to handle unexpected circumstances. For example, we have a capacity to collect biometrics through a mobile collection facility. We also have some additional officers in country who are supporting staff who are already there and who’ve been going through a long period in Lebanon where it’s been a crisis situation. Providing some additional staff to support them is part of what we’re doing as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Would those staff already be in Lebanon? I think that’s what you said. And they’re redirected to that task?

Mr Willard: We’ve got two posted officers and 10 locally engaged staff in Beirut, and they’ve been doing a tremendous job in difficult circumstances. We’ve had some additional people go in to provide support and
capacity for them to rest, recuperate and actually have a break as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Are they from Australia or from somewhere else in Europe or the Middle East?

Mr Willard: There are a few from Australia, and some have been cross-posted from other posts overseas.

Senator ROBERTS: How do you make sure that they can understand the cultural signs in Lebanon?

Mr Willard: There is a series of training and assessments that we do before we post people, and they are trained on cultural awareness training. But for this particular situation they’re also trained in working in high-
threat environments. They’ve also been assessed in terms of resilience, because sometimes it is a very difficult circumstance, and officers are selected on those particular qualities.

Senator ROBERTS: So the cultural training is to be familiar with the local culture so that people understand the flags; it’s not DEI cultural awareness?

Mr Willard: It’s a broader training that people go through on their overseas preparation course around cultural awareness. It’s not specific to each country. When they do go into country, though, they are briefed by the local post, particularly around the security circumstances.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll switch to Palestine. How many visa applications from Palestinians have been finalised over the last year, with full risk vetting completed?

Mr Willard: I provided some evidence earlier, and I’m happy to repeat that. There have been 3,041 visas granted to holders of Palestinian travel documents. There have been 7,252 visitor visas refused. In addition,
another 45 migration and temporary visas have been refused, eight protection visas have been refused and fewer than five humanitarian visas have been refused.

Senator ROBERTS: So, out of about 10,300 visa applications, 3,041 have been approved?

Mr Willard: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true, as the media stated, that some of those visa applications were processed in around one hour?

Mr Willard: I do have some processing time information that could perhaps provide some detail. Since October 2023 and going through to the end of September 2024, the median processing time for all visas finalised
for holders of Palestinian travel documents is 116 days. The average processing time in that same period is 107 days.

Senator ROBERTS: Medians and averages—and I’m not accusing you of hiding anything—can hide many, many things. Were some of the visas approved in less than an hour, or in around an hour?

Mr Willard: We’re not able to report on that level of detail. I would be very surprised if that were the case, but I can’t provide a report to—

Senator ROBERTS: Are you familiar with the claims made in the mainstream media, the mouthpiece media?

Mr Willard: I am familiar. In fact, some of it may have related indirectly to evidence I provided previously, before this committee, in which I was making a reference to, globally, visitor visas processed in one day. But, in making that reference, with all visa applications from all nationalities around the world, the median processing time is a day. That median processing time is on our website.

Senator ROBERTS: From an application being received to the visa being granted is a day?

Mr Willard: It’s the median processing time for a visitor visa for all nationalities around the world. It doesn’t mean it’s the median processing time for holders of Palestinian travel documents. I just provided that figure at 116 days.

Senator ROBERTS: How many of those Palestinian visa applications are still outstanding?

Mr Willard: I gave some evidence earlier. I think the figures—

Senator ROBERTS: How many of them are connected with Hamas or Hezbollah sympathisers?

Mr Willard: For the visa applications outstanding outside Australia, as at the end of 30 September, that figure is 200. I can’t provide a response to the second part of your question because the fact they’re outstanding means they’ve not yet been assessed.

/by

Australians Deserve a Proper COVID Royal Commission

, ,

The government’s COVID inquiry: * No power to compel witnesses * No ability to take evidence under oath * No power to order documents * Only talked to people who volunteered for interviews

Australians deserve a full COVID Royal Commission with: * Power to compel testimony * Evidence under oath * Full document access * Complete transparency

Even Health Minister Butler admitted there was ‘lack of transparency’ and ‘lack of evidence-based policy.’ Australians deserve real answers and accountability, not a toothless inquiry.

It’s time for a proper COVID Royal Commission so that charges can be laid.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Going to the government’s COVID-19 response inquiry, the panel only talked to people who volunteered to talk to it, didn’t they? 

Ms Hefren-Webb: Senator, there was no compulsion. People weren’t compelled to talk. 

Senator ROBERTS: You must be a mind reader; that was my next question. It was an inquiry that had no ability to compel witnesses, order documents or take evidence under oath—correct? 

Ms Hefren-Webb: That’s correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: The then government put in place the largest economic response in history, dropping money from helicopters. We had some of the worst invasions of Australian civil liberties, between surveillance, vaccine mandates and lockdowns. The supposed health advice relied on to do this has still not been published, yet Australians are meant to just accept the results of an inquiry that can’t even take evidence under oath. Is that right? 

Ms Hefren-Webb: The inquiry had excellent cooperation from a wide range of people. They spoke to nearly all the state premiers who were premiers at the time of COVID. They spoke to nearly all the chief health officers. They spoke to groups representing people impacted by the pandemic in particular ways—for example, aged-care groups, people with disability, CALD groups. They spoke to and received submissions from people who were not supportive of the use of vaccines et cetera. They received evidence from and spoke to a wide range of people, and their report reflects a broad set of views that were put to them. They have assessed those and made some recommendations in relation to them, and the government is now considering those recommendations. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I had the opportunity to listen to Minister Mark Butler, the health minister, discuss the report. He said there was a lack of transparency on rationale and evidence around decisions that have profound impacts on people’s lives and freedoms. He said that there was a lack of a shift from precautionary principle at the start of the response to the COVID virus—which we accept—and that there was a lack of a shift from precautionary to evidence based; it never occurred. There was no balancing of risks and benefits. There was no taking account of non-health impacts of decisions imposed on the community and in a non-proportionate way. He said this was compelling insight from this report. There was a lack of evidence based policy, yet we were told repeatedly at state and federal level, ‘This is all based on evidence.’ The evidence changed from day to day, week to week, within and between states. We were lied to, and there was a lack of transparency—as the minister admits. Then he said it’s driven a large decline in trust and that the measures are not likely to be accepted again. This is a serious problem. Health departments across the country are in tatters, yet there’s no recommendation in this report that says we should establish a royal commission; correct? 

Ms Hefren-Webb: That’s correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: How are we going to restore accountability, Minister, and trust without holding people accountable for the tragic errors they made? 

Senator Wong: This was a very comprehensive inquiry into the multifaceted aspects of Australia’s response. Whilst I’m not the minister responsible, it was something we considered. I think it is a very good piece of work that is very honest about the things that Australia did very well—and we did do some things extraordinarily well. We didn’t see the overwhelming of our hospital systems and the death tolls we saw in some other developed countries. There are also things which we didn’t do as well and things which we weren’t set up to do. Where we differ from you, in terms of the last part of your question, is that we want to be constructive about the failings as opposed to simply pursuing those who might have made the errors. The inquiry goes through, as you said, the precautionary response in a lot of detail. There is a question about whether some of the findings about what was evidence based or partially evidence based—that is perhaps not as black and white as your question suggests. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m paraphrasing the minister. 

Senator Wong: Yes, but that’s a matter for discussion. I think it’s also true to say that you don’t get a global pandemic of that ilk very often in most people’s lifetimes, and so, understandably, you are going to make mistakes as a nation as well as do things right. That’s what the inquiry shows. The minister has been clear that we need to learn from this, and the Centre for Disease Control was one of the key recommendations which the government responded to. 

Senator ROBERTS: I wrote to the then prime minister and the then premier of my state, Premier Palaszczuk, and said, ‘We’ll give you a fair go in the Senate.’ I said that with their response in March and their second response in April, for JobSafe and then JobKeeper—and I told them I would hold them accountable. I wrote letters to the Premier and the Prime Minister in May. I got no evidence back at all. 

I wrote to them again in August and September, and, again, no evidence; I was seeking evidence. The Chief Medical Officer gave me evidence in March 2023 that the severity of COVID was low to moderate. When you figure in the overwhelming majority of people, it was very, very low when you removed the people who had high severity. We did this all for a low-severity virus. There was no pandemic of deaths. We’re expecting Australians who have lost trust in the health system and who see no accountability to just accept it. This is dancing away from responsibility and accountability in the health system. 

Senator Wong: I think it’s a very accountable report, with respect. It’s many hundreds of pages, which go through in great detail a lot of the aspects of the nation’s response to the pandemic—Commonwealth, state, territory, the medical sector, how we handled borders, how we handled hospitals, the community. I think it is a very comprehensive report, so I don’t know that I agree with the assertion about the lack of accountability. I also would say to you, if you want to talk about evidence bases, that I don’t think the evidence supports the proposition that this was simply—I can’t recall the phrase you used. 

Senator ROBERTS: Low-to-moderate severity. 

Senator Wong: I don’t share the view of some who say that it was— 

Senator ROBERTS: That was the Chief Medical Officer. 

Senator Wong: I don’t share the view of some that look to what happened in the US, what happened in Italy and what happened in Spain in terms of what we saw there and the hospital systems and the consequent rates of death. I don’t dismiss those as made-up news. The fact that we averted that kind of scenario in Australia is something we should reflect upon. 

Senator ROBERTS: I agree. 

Senator Wong: You and I have different views on the vaccines. I’d say to you that there were mistakes made, yes, and people have to accept that and front up for that. But I hope we can use this to make sure we equip the country better because, given the more globalised world, we know from most of the experts—WHO and our own experts—that pandemics have become more likely. 

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to New Zealand. We had a Senate inquiry as a result of a motion that I moved in the Senate that developed the terms of reference for a possible future royal commission. The terms of reference are wonderfully comprehensive. Nothing has been done. The Prime Minister won’t even share them with the people. 

The terms of reference were so comprehensive that they were adopted, largely, by the New Zealand royal commission. The New Zealand royal commission that was underway thanks to Jacinda Ardern was a sham. It had one commissioner and very limited terms of reference. The terms of reference developed by the Senate committee in this country have now been adopted by the New Zealand royal commission. They have expanded it to three commissioners. That came about because Winston Peters—who initially was in a coalition with the Labour Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern—went and listened to the people in Wellington at a large protest, and he realised that so many people had died due to the vaccines and so many people were crippled due to vaccines. He also realised that so many people were gaslit, saying, ‘It’s not a vaccine injury; it’s just a mental health issue.’ He then formed a coalition with the current National Party government, and the condition was that they have a proper, fair dinkum royal commission. The terms of reference have been expanded, broadened, extended and detailed; they’ve now brought vaccines and vaccine injuries into that. Isn’t that the least that we can do for the people who’ve been injured? Tens of thousands have died as a result of the vaccines; we know that from the statistics and the correlation. We also know that hundreds of thousands have been seriously injured, and they’re being laughed at. No health department in this country— 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts— 

Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t we get justice for those people? 

CHAIR: I don’t think that’s a question. 

Senator ROBERTS: I just asked a question. 

Senator Wong: If you want details about vaccines, Health would probably be the place to go in terms of the estimates process. 

Senator ROBERTS: We’re going there, Minister! 

Senator Wong: I’m sure you will; I think you regularly do! I’d make this observation: I know you don’t accept the medical evidence, but that is the medical evidence both governments have received— 

Senator ROBERTS: On the contrary, I do accept the medical evidence. 

Senator Wong: Well, I don’t think you accept the weight of the medical evidence. The second observation is that I am concerned—I think the inquiry might have gone to this. We’ve had a pretty good history in this country of vaccination across measles, whooping cough et cetera, and the concern about vaccines means that we are dropping below herd immunity for diseases which we had largely won the battle against. I don’t think that is a responsible thing to do. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s another matter altogether. 

Senator Wong: I would say we have a responsibility in this place to understand where our words land, and I don’t think it’s a good thing if we’re not vaccinated against whooping cough or measles— 

CHAIR: Or HPV. 

Senator Wong: or, frankly, COVID. 

Senator ROBERTS: The fact is that people were vaccinating their children for whooping cough and so on. The fact is that so many people have lost complete trust in the health system; they’re saying, ‘Stick your vaccines.’ That’s why it’s so important. How will you restore accountability? 

Senator Wong: How will you? If you said to them, ‘You should get your kids vaccinated for whooping cough’, that might actually cut through. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve done some research on that. 

Senator Wong: You don’t want them vaccinated? 

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. It should be the parents’ choice. 

Senator Wong: I disagree with you. I think parents always choose medical treatment for their children, but I disagree with you that people can choose their facts. The facts are— 

Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s fundamental. 

Senator Wong: that we know what whooping cough does, and what it does to kids. 

Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s fundamental— 

Senator Wong: Alright. We’re not going to agree. 

Senator ROBERTS: that parents have responsibility for the health of their children. 

Senator Wong: Fair enough, okay. We’re going to disagree on the issue of vaccinations. 

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian people deserve transparency and answers. They deserve a COVID royal commission now, and some people deserve to be in jail for the overreach and damage inflicted on Australians. How is your government going to restore trust without accountability? 

Senator Wong: I think we’ve just been discussing this, haven’t we? 

Senator ROBERTS: I raised it earlier on, but you didn’t answer the question. 

Senator Wong: Which bit do you want? We don’t think we need a royal commission because we’ve had a— 

Senator ROBERTS: How can you restore trust without accountability? 

Senator Wong: I’m inviting you to help us restore trust, but you don’t agree with many of the vaccinations. My point is— 

Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t say that. 

Senator Wong: That is what you said. You had your own views on whooping cough. 

Senator ROBERTS: I said parents have the right to choose what to do. Parents are responsible for their children. That’s fundamental. 

Senator Wong: Yes, that is true, but what I meant was that parents should not be given incorrect facts by people in a position of authority. 

Senator ROBERTS: I agree entirely. 

Senator Wong: I’m saying to you that I think it is not responsible to be telling people that they shouldn’t have their children vaccinated for whooping cough. 

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that; I said that it’s the parents’ choice. I recommend a book, Fooling Ourselves, written by a statistician in Queensland. That’s evidence. I give that to parents and say, ‘Decide for yourself.’ 

Senator Wong: So you don’t think the medical evidence and— 

Senator ROBERTS: This is medical evidence. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t deny evidence. 

/by

Children Deserve Care and Love – Not Life Changing Surgeries

,

The Australian Human Rights Commission has previously argued for minors to be given life changing surgeries and puberty blockers under the ‘gender affirmation’ model. They claimed these treatments could be reversed, weren’t risky and were supported by science: none of these are true.

The UK Cass review has completely discredited ‘gender affirmation’ for children. It’s time for the taxpayer funded Human Rights Commission to rule out ever supporting children being put onto puberty blockers or sex-change surgery ever again.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I’ve got questions on gender—sex change. My questions are to the commissioner who looks at gender-affirmation care and children. That may be Dr Cody; is that right?

Dr Cody: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to make clear, from the start of these questions, that I support adults doing whatever they like if they want to transition or attempt to transition. However, I draw the line at children. Previously, the commission has argued in court that puberty blockers were ‘reversible’, the risk of a wrong decision to give a child puberty blockers was ‘low’ and the outcome of a wrong decision would not be ‘grave’. My questions to the commission are: do you still stand by that position completely, and why the hell are you in court arguing to put children on puberty blockers?

Dr Cody: I believe that you are referring to family court decisions in which we have intervened as amicus. I’m not aware of the details of those specific cases. I would have to educate myself around exactly what our argument was. We do not have any intention to—or any cases in which we are intervening, or have sought to intervene, as amicus in relation to the use of puberty blockers or gender-affirming care with children.

Senator ROBERTS: But your words are significant. Are you a medical doctor?

Dr Cody: I’m not.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no good evidence that puberty blockers are reversible, and the effects of puberty blockers on the developing brain of a child are simply unknown. Why should the Australian taxpayer be funding the commission to argue for children to make irreversible changes to their body that we have no good clinical evidence for?

Dr Cody: One of the fundamental human rights that we all have is a right to health care. That includes children—the importance of all children having the appropriate access to health care from the moment they are born right through until they turn 18. Gender-affirming health care is a part of that access to health care.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s continue. The Cass review in the UK—have you heard of that?

Dr Cody: I have.

Senator ROBERTS: It was one of the most sweeping and intensive inquiries into puberty blockers for children. The Cass review said that the evidence for puberty blockers is so poor that they should be confined to ethically controlled clinical trials, and cross-sex hormones for minors should only be used with extreme caution. The Cass review had the gender affirmation treatment protocol used at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne independently evaluated for the scientific rigour in development. Do you know what it scored?

Dr Cody: I’m sorry, what scored? I didn’t catch the first part of that question.

Senator ROBERTS: It had the gender affirmation treatment protocol used at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne independently evaluated for the scientific rigour in development. It scored 19 out of 100—very low rigour. Are you aware that, in the United States, there was a US$10 million report over nine years that was not published because the lead author didn’t want the results to be public? Those results were that there were no improvements in the mental health of children who received puberty blockers after two years. Are you aware of that?

Dr Cody: I’m not aware of that study in the United States. In relation to the Cass review, one of the findings of that review was recognising the importance of having a holistic approach to health care—which we have in Australia—that includes a psychologist’s treatment, social work treatment and having wraparound services with a GP and psychiatric assistance for any child who has any issues around their gender. One of those recommendations is something that we actually have within Australia and that we’re lucky to have within our healthcare system.

Senator ROBERTS: Until recently, it’s been almost automatic in some areas to put children who suffer from gender dysphoria, which is not uncommon in adolescents, on affirmation to change their gender. I can’t remember the name of the institute—it’s either the Australia-New Zealand society of psychiatrists or psychologists that has come out recently saying gender affirmation is not recommended. When are you going to stop going to court at taxpayer expense arguing for these experimental, life-changing, irreversible, mentally damaging chemical treatments to be given to children.

Dr Cody: At the moment, we are not intervening as amicus in any cases before the Family Court.

Senator ROBERTS: I think this question will probably go to the president. In your opening statement, you say:

Human rights are the blueprint for a decent, dignified life for all. Human rights are the key to creating the kind of society we all want to live in …

Could you tell me what is the field of human rights? What rights are encompassed in the field of human rights?

Mr de Kretser: The modern human rights movement started after World War II with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where the international community, after the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust said, ‘No more. These are the basic standards that everyone, no matter who they are or where they are, needs to lead a decent, dignified life.’ They have then been expressed in two key international treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and various other treaties have codified aspects of rights since then. The human rights in those treaties have only been partly implemented in domestic Australian law, which is why we’re calling for a human rights act to properly implement Australia’s international obligations and to properly protect people’s and community’s human rights in Australia. Is there a specific human right or aspect that I can address for you?

Senator ROBERTS: I’d just like to know what you see as the core human rights that humans have and that you’re overseeing in this country?

Mr de Kretser: The legislation that we have—our discrimination laws—implements the obligations to protect aspects of the right to equality, for example. We have seven commissioners. Six of the seven are thematically focused on different rights: Commissioner Cody, obviously, is focused on equality rights; Commissioner Hollonds is focused on child rights; Commissioner Fitzgerald is focused on the rights of older persons—and the like. The key international treaties are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

CHAIR: I don’t want to interrupt this really helpful lecture on human rights law. If you’ve got a punchline question, you should get to that now.

Senator ROBERTS: Is freedom of speech seen as a human right?

CHAIR: Yes. Good question.

Mr de Kretser: Absolutely. Freedom of expression—our freedom of speech—is an aspect of that. Freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of religion and the like are critical human rights.

CHAIR: That’s all the questions we have for you this evening. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you for the work that you did on the framework and delivering that in the last couple of days. I know it’s taken an enormous amount of work.

/3 Comments/by

ABS Avoid Key COVID Data Links

,

I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) about their new publication, which compares excess deaths against a baseline using regression analysis. This approach is the proper method for reviewing excess deaths. The dataset relates to excess deaths DURING COVID, so it would make sense for the ABS to include vaccination rates in the analysis. This would enable a direct comparison of COVID vaccination rates and excess deaths.  

The claim that the data comes from other sources is specious. The ABS website is replete with datasets that combine data from multiple sources.  Furthermore, the ABS utilises data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), so the suggestion that “they do that” is not acceptable. In fact, in this case, the AIHW does not compare vaccination status to excess mortality or the increased prevalence of conditions like Alzheimer’s and cancer.  

Who is instructing the ABS and AIHW to AVOID producing data that allows direct comparisons between these datasets? I also highlighted a recent paper from UNSW, which made the comparison that found a strong correlation of 0.71 between booster shots and excess mortality.

I will not give up on my quest to get honest data on our COVID response so that we can all identify where the Senate went wrong and ensure the Government never repeats these mistakes again.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just table this for my second question. My first question refers to your comparison of all-cause mortality—you’d be familiar with this—

Dr Gruen: Broadly, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: and COVID deaths against baseline using regression data. Firstly, thank you for the analysis. It provides a clear idea of where we are. I note that excess deaths are staying above the baseline, above the upper range of the baseline. It is something the monthly provision of mortality data also shows has continued into 2024. My question should be familiar to you. Is the ABS doing enough to produce the wealth of data the government and our health agencies need to review their decisions during COVID? Specifically, why haven’t you added vaccination rates to this data?

Dr Gruen: The mortality data we get from births, deaths and marriages from each of the states and territories—I will make certain that this is correct, but my understanding is that vaccination status does not come with the births, deaths and marriages data that we get and publish. This is the publication that come out two months after the period?

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not sure of the agency’s name. I think it’s the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare or maybe the national institute of health and welfare—

Dr Gruen: No, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Senator ROBERTS: They are able to provide the vaccinations, I think.

Dr Gruen: Then they may well have done the analysis. Vaccination status exists, and it’s, for instance, in our integrated data assets, and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare does analysis on our data and produces reports. So I’m not saying the data doesn’t exist. I’m saying it’s not in the form that we get from the births, deaths and marriages from each of the states and territories on which we base the mortality statistics that I think you’re talking about.

Senator ROBERTS: So isn’t it just a matter of adding another dataset, getting that from somewhere—because this would be valuable information for health authorities.

Dr Gruen: The answer is that it requires analysis, and that’s not what we do for that publication.

Senator ROBERTS: Do the health departments and health agencies use your data?

Dr Gruen: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So wouldn’t it be helpful to them to understand the vaccination rates?

Dr Gruen: I think there’s been quite a lot of work on vaccination status and the implications of vaccination status for mortality. There was a very big study published in the Lancet that was done by the University of New South Wales which looked at that. It followed 3.8 million Australians over 65 in 2022. So there have definitely been studies.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on. The scientific paper that I tabled—Melbourne university have done the work that you haven’t done, and they’ve used regression analysis to test for the relationship between COVID boosters, if you have a look at the abstract—

CHAIR: The committee tables the document.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. If you have a look at the abstract, it summarises what I’m saying. I’ve circulated their paper, published by the European Society of Medicine. This is their conclusion: ‘The results suggest a strong regression relationship with an adjusted R squared of 71 per cent.’ Correlation of zero is no correlation. One is a perfect correlation. In this paper, they found a correlation of 0.71. That’s very strong, and it suggests that boosters are linked to excess deaths. As you already do this work—that’s the graph again—why won’t you just add vaccinations and boosters to the data and give the Senate better information upon which to base better decisions?

Dr Gruen: I’ve already answered that question.

Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t happy with the answer.

Dr Gruen: The point is—

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t explained it.

Dr Gruen: the data comes from somewhere else.

Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t you do that?

Dr Gruen: I explained. Those data come from births, deaths and marriages from all the states—

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that.

Dr Gruen: Right. The vaccination status comes from elsewhere. It comes from the Australian Immunisation Register.

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t merge the two together; you won’t do that?

Dr Gruen: We publish the data that is available to us. Others do analysis on that data. It is perfectly open to anyone who has a well-defined project to use the data that we have generated and to produce research on that. That’s completely up to them. We are an organisation that produces the data, and it is predominantly others who do the analysis.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So you collect data from various agencies, you summarise it and present it, and other people use that data to do the analysis.

Dr Gruen: Yes. There are circumstances where we do some analysis, but in this case it’s others who do the analysis on linking vaccination status and mortality.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you.

/6 Comments/by

The Climate Alphabet Soup

,

There are numerous government organisations dedicated to implementing United Nations climate policies, making life increasingly harder for Australians. It’s hard to keep track of them all. One such organisation is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC). It incurs $537 million in annual expenses and has $7.3 billion of taxpayers money tied up in assets. The wage bill for their top 15 employees is $7.4 million a year.

Ian Learmonth, featured in this video and head of the CEFC, received a $614,000 bonus last year, taking his total remuneration for the year to $1 million dollars or 1.7 times the salary of the Prime Minister.

It’s no surprise he didn’t want to disclose this when I asked.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: There’s an alphabet soup of agencies and government departments involved in the energy transition. As simply and as specifically as possible, what do you do at the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, what are your basic accountabilities and what are the unique qualities you bring?

Mr Learmonth: The object of the CEFC, as per the act, is to facilitate the flows of capital funds into the clean energy sector and to deliver on the government’s climate targets. We’re using a significant amount of capital deployed out there in the Australian economy, effectively, to decarbonise Australia. That’s really what we’re doing. We have 165 people, most of whom are very skilled at going out into the marketplace and finding places that we can use this catalytic capital to drive emissions reduction.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total wage bill for all employees? Do you have any casuals and contractors or are they all full-time permanents?

Mr Learmonth: We just tabled our annual report that has all that information in there. If you’d like any further details that aren’t obvious or available in the annual report, I’m very happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: There have been no changes since the annual report was released?

Mr Learmonth: No.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total budget for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, including any grants or programs you administer?

Mr Learmonth: Do you mean over the forward estimates? What time period?

Senator ROBERTS: This current financial year and if you want to bring it into the forward estimates, that would be handy, too.

Mr Learmonth: Once again, I will take that on notice. It’s probably best that we do it that way. My CFO might be able to dig that number up for you. We’ve certainly got what’s in the budget papers.

Senator ROBERTS: Just getting in the chairperson’s good books, last question: what is the total salary package of everyone at the desk here who is attending right now?

Mr Learmonth: Once again, it is in the annual report. Certainly, Andrew and I are explicitly there on page 215 of the annual report. If you’d like any further information about that, we can follow up.

Senator ROBERTS: Why the reluctance not to share it?

Mr Learmonth: It’s there and there’s a whole raft of different short-term incentives.

Senator ROBERTS: If it doesn’t meet our needs, we can send a letter to you and get the details? Is that right?

Mr Learmonth: I would be positioning it the other way. If there’s anything that’s not in that public document around the remuneration of the CFO and myself, we could provide it to you on notice.

2023-24 Annual ReportDownload

/2 Comments/by

Sexuality Question for Teens in 2026 Census Not the Government’s Business

,

I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) about the decision to include a question in the 2026 Census asking every Australian over 16 about their sexuality. One Nation believes that a person’s sexuality is not the government’s business and that there is no overarching need for the government to know. A person’s sexuality has no bearing on housing requirements, road usage, or the consumption of medical or educational services—areas which the Census is designed to address in order to plan infrastructure.

Families usually complete the Census together. Asking a 16-year-old about their sexuality could start a conversation the child is not ready for. Even selecting “prefer not to say” could expose a child to danger in a household that is not tolerant of LGB individuals.

This question should not be included in the Census, which needs to return to its core purpose—providing data to support government services.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Moving on to the 2026 census and referring to the table, ‘status of potential new topics’—it’s on your website—the sexual orientation of children aged 16 and up is listed as a new topic. Is that correct?

Dr Gruen: Sexual orientation of people 16 and over?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. It says, ‘”sexual orientation and gender” will be included in the 2026 Census, for people aged 16 years and older’. It’s in—

Dr Gruen: That’s right. That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Families fill this form out together, I’d assume.

Dr Gruen: Sorry, could you say that again?

Senator ROBERTS: Families would fill out the census together.

Dr Gruen: That’s often the way it’s done, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So they can see each other’s responses. The question is, are you exposing a child to a conversation they may not be ready to have with their parents, or which they may not be ready to have with themselves yet?

Dr Gruen: That’s an important issue, Senator. The way that we handle this is that, for these forms, the household form, there’s always the option of ‘prefer not to answer’. That is an option for these sensitive questions, and the other important thing is that if a young person living in a household chooses not to discuss this with their parents but wishes to record answers that they do not wish to share with anyone else, they can fill in a private form and we will override the answers that they provide. So their form will take precedence over the family form.

Senator ROBERTS: Wouldn’t the other members of the family know about that? If a family member over 16 was reluctant to answer, then that might start a conversation that no-one’s ready to have.

CHAIR: This is the last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: What business is it of the ABS to know the sexual orientation of children?

Dr Gruen: The answer is it’s not our business. The answer is that we provide the option for people to fill in the form privately without having the conversation with their family, and they can choose to do that or not do it. We have an option in those questions of ‘prefer not to answer,’ so we have done the best we can to provide an environment where people do not have to reveal this information if they would prefer not to.

Senator ROBERTS: But just having the question there—

CHAIR: Senator—

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Chair, I’m just following up on that.

CHAIR: Sorry. We’ve got three minutes.

/4 Comments/by