CASA’s Myocarditis Numbers Kept Secret

,

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) claims there are no side effects from COVID Vaccines.  I’ve asked them multiple times to search their medical records database and report how many times the word “myocarditis” and other conditions have appeared over the years.

They tried telling me that conducting such a search wasn’t possible, however they seem to have forgotten that they advised they had done such a search, in a previous Question on Notice, proving it can be done.

The real issue is that they are unwilling to conduct a search for the subsequent years because they know the number of matches have increased over the years, which would force them to admit there is a problem.

Transcript

CHAIR: Welcome back. Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. CASA has again refused to provide, in SQ24-001131, the number of times myocarditis and other conditions are mentioned in your medical records system. What are
you hiding?

Ms Spence: Nothing. As we’ve explained before, the medical records don’t allow themselves to be interrogated in the way that you’ve asked. But, as we have indicated previously, we have no evidence or examples of any pilot who has been impacted by a COVID vaccination in a way that has meant they weren’t airworthy.

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t take the word of British courts and our own health authorities here?

Ms Spence: I’m simply explaining to you what’s in our system. We have no-one who’s reported having become unairworthy as a result of a COVID vaccination. Nothing has changed from when we provided evidence
to you on this basis in numerous estimates hearings.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. We’ll come back to that. This is a simple matter. You simply search your database for the word myocarditis, and you give this committee the number of matches that are returned. Why do you
refuse to do that?

Ms Spence: Because, Senator, as I think—again—we’ve explained previously, if we were to do that, it wouldn’t necessarily align with any examples of myocarditis. I can’t explain it anymore than I have previously, and that Andreas Marcelja has and Kate Manderson has. We’ve got nothing more to add, I’m sorry, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Then you say it is an unreasonable diversion of resources. That’s freedom-ofinformation talk, and I don’t know if you realise this, but that excuse doesn’t fly in the Senate. You’re in parliament. How many hours did it take you to answer SQ23-003267, dated 13 February 2023?

Ms Spence: I’d have to take that on notice, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How many resources did it take you to answer that question?

Ms Spence: I’ll take that on notice, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. CASA seems to change between two different excuses on this issue—the same issue. Most recently you’ve said it’s too hard and voluminous. Before, you just said it wouldn’t be useful
without context. It seems like you can do the search; you just don’t want to. My question is: can you do this search for those words in your medical records system?

Ms Spence: Senator, the—

Senator ROBERTS: Yes or no?

Ms Spence: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I can’t imagine that answer is no, because you’ve already done it. Thank you for confirming it. What specifically has changed since you answered SQ23-003267 in February 2023 that means it’s impossible for you to answer the same question in the same way in SQ24-001131?

Ms Spence: My recollection, Senator, was—the issue that we’ve got is that we could do a search and the word could come up. We’ve got no way, without significant resources, to actually determine how often that word is actually linked to someone who has experienced that condition. We’d have to review every time that the word came up to determine whether it’s actually linked to a specific example, sorry.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned. You mean that you’re telling me that CASA won’t get off its backside and examine something unless the answer’s easy?

Ms Spence: No, Senator, that’s not what I said.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s a bit of work involved here. You’re responsible. You’re the sole person responsible for the safety of our commercial aviation system.

Ms Spence: And we put our resources where it makes the most difference.

Senator ROBERTS: I want the question answered. What specifically has changed—then we can come back to this hearing and talk about the context. Right now, I’m asking why the Senate shouldn’t refer you for contempt, for blatantly refusing to do something you can do—seemingly out of convenience or to try to hide the answer.

Ms Spence: Senator, I’ve got nothing further to add. I’m not trying to hide anything. I’m simply saying that to get the answer that you’re after would require us to go through what could be a voluminous number of examples of the word, with no way of being able to determine which one is actually related to a specific example of that, and that’s what we’ve said consistently throughout our appearances.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you just provide the answer to the question? The number of times—

Ms Spence: I’ll take that on notice, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. AstraZeneca has been withdrawn. AstraZeneca was found to be dangerous and not effective in the British court system. You refuse to give me, after many attempts, the name of any agency or person—expert—as to who you’ve based your assessment that vaccines were safe.

Ms Spence: Senator—

Senator ROBERTS: AstraZeneca has been withdrawn. What is CASA doing to test—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to let Ms Spence answer that, in all fairness. I’m going to—

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t get to my question yet.

CHAIR: I think you said ‘you refused’ or something like that. You were going along ‘who was the expert that said’. And I remember sitting in this building when our Prime Minister was carried out on a sultan’s chair with every Premier because of AstraZeneca and all that sort of stuff. But I think you should at least allow Ms Spence just to answer that claim—

Senator ROBERTS: Fine, but I haven’t asked my question yet.

CHAIR: No, but you made a claim—an assertion. I do want to give her the chance, Senator Roberts. Thank you.

Ms Spence: Unfortunately, Senator, you could go through Hansard and find it as well. We have relied on the health experts—

Senator ROBERTS: Go through what?

Ms Spence: Sorry, Senator; if you want to follow up on issues around AstraZeneca, they should be referred to the health department, not the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what you’re doing to make sure that pilots who took AstraZeneca are not at risk.

Ms Spence: We have not seen any example of a pilot being incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination.

Senator ROBERTS: Again it seems to me that CASA is waiting for the evidence to jump into its face.

Ms Spence: I have nothing else to add, I’m sorry, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you checked?

Ms Spence: Before we came to Senate estimates, yes, I asked whether there had been any examples of a pilot coming up in our system as having been incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination, and the answer has not changed from the last time we appeared before this committee.

Senator ROBERTS: Specifically, AstraZeneca?

Ms Spence: No, Senator, all COVID vaccinations.

Senator ROBERTS: Would it be worth checking, because we now know that AstraZeneca is dangerous?

Ms Spence: Senator, it wouldn’t matter what vaccination they had. The question is: has any pilot been incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination? That would include AstraZeneca, as well as the other types of
vaccinations.

Senator ROBERTS: I get that, but do we need to remind you that some pilots are afraid to report their injuries?

Ms Spence: Senator, if you’ve got pilots who you know are incapacitated, or if pilots are approaching you who said they are incapacitated, as a result of a COVID vaccination, I can only encourage you to get them to report that. They can do it anonymously through the ATSB response, but I cannot act on what I have no knowledge of.

/by

Australia Advocates for Joint Custody Reform in Japan

,

Senate Estimates provides an opportunity for us to raise concerns from our constituents. One such issue I brought up was the abduction of Australian children to Japan.

I asked the panel if they were aware of the situation and the Secretary, a former ambassador to Japan, responded by explaining that Australia has been actively working with Japan to update its family law system. He mentioned that joint custody would be introduced in Japan by 2026.  

Senator Penny Wong confirmed this and elaborated on the steps Australia has taken to address this tragic situation where families are being separated.

/2 Comments/by

Schools Go Woke – Parents Go to Home-Schooling

,

In five years there’s been a 111% increase in parents choosing to home-school their children. Despite an overwhelming amount of evidence, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) says there’s no problem with woke or politically biased content in the curriculum.

Our children are suffering from these authorities who are telling the education system to lose their focus on the basics like literacy and numeracy. It’s a simple problem to fix, but we can’t begin until people acknowledge the problem exists.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Between 2003 and 2015, national averages in mathematics declined 26.7 points. That’s 5.1 per cent. As of today, almost 50 per cent of Australian students in year 10 are failing science literacy tests. Around 30 per cent of students are not making sufficient progress in both literacy and numeracy, falling short of the NAPLAN proficiency benchmark. In the average classroom, eight out of 24 students—that’s one-third—cannot read at the expected grade level, lacking proficiency. Would you agree that improving literacy and numeracy should be the No. 1 priority of the agency?

Mr Gniel: Just to be clear, I think you’re quoting from some PISA reports there, from between 2003 and 2015—just so I know the reference point for that.

Senator ROBERTS: Normally I’m provided with it, but I don’t have it.

Mr Gniel: That’s alright.

Senator ROBERTS: They’re pretty startling figures.

Mr Gniel: Yes, and to 2015, which was a while ago now. There has been some movement. That’s why I’m asking whether those are PISA results. I think we’re all well aware, as I said previously to Senator Henderson, that there continue to be areas of challenge. You’ve mentioned two there. Of course, literacy and numeracy are the foundation for knowledge acquisition across the curriculum, and they are incredibly important, as you say. As to whether they are the only ones, I would say no, particularly in this day and age. They provide the foundational skills. I think it was in the Shergold review that there was an argument that digital literacy was becoming a third foundational component. That is something that we all need to consider—that the foundations are expanding in terms of what we want our children to learn and understand to engage with society at large at the moment. Part of our challenge is how we support those students with the broader range of skills that they will need in the future, whilst ensuring they have the foundational skills that they will need to support all of that for their entire lives. Just to be clear, yes, literacy and numeracy are foundational skills that are of utmost importance.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s pleasing to hear. Are you aware of any political bias in the educational system or the national curriculum?

Mr Gniel: No. Political bias—I think you’d probably need to give me an example.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll give you some examples in the next couple of questions. In 2005 the Australian Education Union president, Pat Byrne, spoke about the union’s success in influencing curriculums in the educational sector. She said: We have succeeded in influencing curriculum development … The conservatives have a lot of work to do to undo the progressive curriculum. Are you denying there has been any influence on curriculum development by political partisans? They seem to be taking credit for it.

Mr Gniel: The ministers across the country approve the Australian curriculum, so I think that probably answers your question. You’d have to talk to them about the factors that go into their mind. ACARA provides advice on the curriculum content through extensive consultation and work with experts about what should be the content.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you do research into what could be happening in the curriculum, in the implementation?

Mr Gniel: Yes. That’s part of our remit.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. I’ll quote from an article in the Australian from September 2023, ‘Universities deliver “woke” degrees to trainee teachers who demand more practical training’. It says: … lecturers have critiqued the “social and political content” of the Australian Curriculum, mandated by the nation’s education ministers—presumably states—for teaching children from primary through to year 10. A lecture slide notes, “we aren’t even doing a very good job”, tallying up 19 references to social justice, Aboriginal rights, invasion, colonisation, the Stolen Generation, assimilation, social justice and racism. It doesn’t sound like we’re focusing solely on literacy and numeracy; it sounds like we’re getting a lot of distractions that people can make up for in their own interest.

Mr Gniel: I think the curriculum has eight key learning areas already. Of course, mathematics and English are in there. Literacy and numeracy are part of the general capabilities, which, as you would understand, are across all of those eight key areas. You need literacy and numeracy skills to engage with science.

Senator ROBERTS: And even for digital?

Mr Gniel: Correct. Digital is one of those general capabilities as well. Part of the challenge is the breadth of the curriculum and what we’re asking our children to learn. The foundation is literacy and numeracy, but that is insufficient. It needs to be much broader than that. We talk a lot about knowledge acquisition. You’ve heard Dr Donovan here today talk about the best way to do that—the research that’s being done on cognitive load theory and how we get students to learn and understand the content we expect of them through the Australian curriculum.  You’re right: it isn’t just about English and maths; it’s much broader than that. I don’t think anyone would disagree that we need science and digital, as you’ve been talking about. This committee has also asked me previously about behaviour. We do expect teachers to teach personal and social capabilities as part of the curriculum as well. These are important building blocks to pull all of that together, so when they leave school they can work in and contribute to society, a society that is ever-changing.

Senator ROBERTS: What makes us unique as a species—maybe dolphins have it—is numeracy and certainly language, except maybe dolphins and whales. We have sophisticated language, and it seems like numeracy and literacy are playing second fiddle to many other things that are just being shoved into a woke agenda, as that teacher said. In just five years, between 2018 and 2023, Australia has recorded a 111 per cent increase in homeschool registrations. Do you take any responsibility for setting the curriculum that’s driving that shift? In other words, what I’ve heard, anecdotally, from many people in different states is that children came home during COVID lockdowns and they followed a curriculum. Parents were absolutely shocked and said, ‘You’re not going back to normal school. You’re staying homeschooled.’ I know a lot of people are homeschooling their children because of that. They’re not happy with the curriculum at all.

Mr Gniel: It’s not really something I can comment on. We set the Australian curriculum and then, in terms of the states and territories and the individual school systems, they regulate homeschooling. If there’s evidence out there that you’re talking about—I understand that you’re saying it’s anecdotal evidence.

Senator ROBERTS: The 111 per cent is measured, the increase in homeschooling.

Mr Gniel: Sure, but—

Senator ROBERTS: The driver I’m talking about is anecdotal.

Mr Gniel: That’s right. I’m not aware of any research that’s saying the driver is curriculum. I accept that that’s what you’ve heard.

Senator ROBERTS: It might be the states’ interpretation or implementation of the curriculum. I don’t know.

Mr Gniel: Potentially. Yes, that’s right. I guess that’s why it’s hard for me to comment; I don’t have that information.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any interest from ACARA to go and research that? What do you do research on? Do you research with parents about their satisfaction or otherwise with the curriculum?

Mr Gniel: As part of our work, when we reviewed the curriculum, for instance, there was a public review of that. We took all of that into account when we provided that reviewed curriculum to ministers. So, yes, there’s a forum for the public to contribute to that process.

Senator ROBERTS: A forum but no formal research, apart from a forum that’s one-off when you do a review?

Mr Gniel: They’re an incredibly important stakeholder group, of course.

Senator ROBERTS: Parents? Absolutely.

Mr Gniel: I met with parents associations a couple of weeks ago, and whenever I go to different states and territories I also meet with the local parents associations. That’s across the sectors of government schools, Catholic and independent as well, so I get feedback from them. One of the things I mentioned in my opening statement was the translation of some of that information into other languages. That specifically came from parent groups saying, ‘It’s really important that we have information that’s accessible to all parents, including those where English is a second language.’

ArticleDownload

/by

NAAJA Crisis: Leadership Turmoil and Funding Mismanagement Allegations

,

At the recent Senate Estimates, I inquired about the recent turmoil at the Northern Australian Aboriginal Justice Authority (NAAJA), which has seen six CEOs appointed over a two-year period. One of the CEOs was found by the Federal Court to have been unfairly dismissed and chronic staff shortages have led to the suspension of legal representation, leaving approximately 75 Aboriginal individuals unrepresented in court. I questioned how someone with a history of domestic violence could be appointed Chairman of the Board and still remain a Director of the agency. The answer – this individual was elected by the other Directors.  

Currently, a grant controller has been appointed to oversee the funds being given to the NAAJA to ensure they are spent appropriately. The grant controller is part of an external firm, adding another layer of bureaucracy to prevent misuse. Refunds of unspent funds are under review and an audit decision is expected by late November.  A new Annual General Meeting (AGM) is scheduled for later this year. I asked why the government opposes full audits. Senator McCarthy denied any misuse of funds, though community members claim that money is not reaching the grassroots level. Performance audits will be provided to me on notice.

/by

Minister Defends Government Amid Blood Safety Controversy

,

I asked the representative of the National Blood Authority if he was aware of the early history of the Red Cross and Health Department’s responses to ensuring the safety of blood products used in Australia.

He stated that the National Blood Authority had not been established at that time but recalled that Australia was one of the first countries to adopt measures to ensure the safety of blood transfusions.

Minister Gallagher took a defensive stance and denied any wrongdoing by the government at the time, and undertook to provide information to confirm this. However, I already have information showing she is mistaken and covering up for a government that disgracefully allowed many people to become sick, knowing this was a possibility.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Cahill, for being here. In the 1970s, were the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the Australian Red Cross and the federal health department aware that hepatitis C, which was then referred to as non-A, non-B hepatitis, was present in Australia’s blood supply and blood products?  

Mr Cahill: The issues you’re raising preceded the creation of the National Blood Authority in 2003, so they’re issues for the Department of Health that they might want to address. But I can say that, yes, there was an awareness at a point in time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for making it clear that your entity didn’t exist. In the 1970s and 1980s, were the federal health department, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the Australian Red Cross aware that the practice of mass-pooling blood donations for fractionation, specifically for manufacturing haemophilia treatments like factor VIII and factor IX concentrates, significantly raised the risk of contaminating these products with hepatitis C, which was then non-A and non-B hepatitis virus?  

Senator Gallagher: What’s the question? Prof. Lawler: Sorry, to whom is the question directed?  

Senator ROBERTS: It was to the National Blood Authority, but it might predate you.  

Senator Gallagher: It’s hard to answer things from 50 years ago.  

Mr Comley: Chair, we’re trying to work this out. I know we very rarely say ‘relevance to the estimates’, but I am—  

CHAIR: I apologise, Mr Comley. Sorry, Senator Roberts. I can’t hear you, because you’re a bit away from the microphone, so I didn’t hear the question.  

Mr Comley: His question is about blood product practices in the 1980s, and I’m just—  

Senator Gallagher: It was the seventies.  

Mr Comley: It was the seventies and eighties.  

CHAIR: Could you just repeat the question, Senator Roberts? Come a bit closer to the microphone.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. There are many people in Australia who are still crippled by contaminated blood. Some of that originated in the seventies and eighties. In the United Kingdom, they’ve addressed this and given compensation. In Australia, we’re apparently pretending that it doesn’t exist. This affected budgets. It affects livelihoods. Shall I continue?  

CHAIR: Could you put it as a question?  

Senator Gallagher: I mean, we do usually have pretty wide-ranging question opportunities, but, I have to say, going back over 50 years and asking officials at the table is a bit difficult, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: These people have recently made an official complaint to the Australian Federal Police.  

Senator Gallagher: Okay, well—  

Senator ROBERTS: In Britain, they have given people compensation fairly recently. In other countries they’ve done it too, but not in Australia.  

Senator Gallagher: Again, we’re happy to assist where we can.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a legacy that’s hanging over the Australian government.  

Mr Cahill: I can make some observations, even though the issues did precede—  

CHAIR: Sure, but I still haven’t heard a question. I’m sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, there was a question in there. Do you want me to do it again?  

Mr Cahill: The question as I understood it was, ‘Is there awareness?’  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Cahill: The answer is: yes, there was awareness.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s about the fractionation.  

Mr Cahill: There was an evolution of scientific knowledge around that time. All of these issues have been canvassed through a range of inquiries that occurred also over time, including a Senate inquiry in 2004 that took evidence about these matters. There was also an inquiry in 2001 by Sir Ninian Stephen, the former Governor General, and that actually led to the creation of the National Blood Authority in 2003. 

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s a problem that caused your [inaudible] formation.  

Mr Cahill: There have been compensation arrangements put in place. There has been access to antivirals for people affected by hepatitis C. The governments collectively across Australia have invested substantially in the safety of Australia’s blood supply since then. I think in the early 1990s or maybe the late eighties—but certainly by the early nineties—as soon as the scientific evidence emerged about the risks associated with HIV, the practices were changed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s skip all of the details—  

Mr Cahill: Drawing analogies with the UK inquiry, there are substantial differences between what occurred during the UK during that period, which has been the subject of the inquiry you’re referring to, and what transpired in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can the government clarify its stance on the handling of the infected blood scandal, particularly in light of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories’ decision to delay the implementation of viral inactivation or heat treatment for factor IX until 1993?  

Mr Cahill: I don’t think there is evidence that that’s what occurred.  

Senator Gallagher: I think we’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine.  

Senator Gallagher: If there’s anything we can provide you, Senator Roberts—I’m not sure we will be, but let’s just see.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that this delay occurred despite global practices by other manufacturers, such as British plasma laboratories, in heat treatment for hepatitis C, from 1985 onwards, to provide heat treated products to safeguard against this virus?  

Mr Cahill: I think the inquiry’s concluded that Australia was one of the first countries to respond to the emergence of the new virus.  

Senator ROBERTS: What actions are being taken to identify those Australians now at risk of having received tainted blood when the blood should have been safe? Other countries had it safe. We didn’t.  

Mr Cahill: I don’t accept that premise.  

Senator Gallagher: I’m not accepting that proposition. I think we have very safe systems here.  

Senator ROBERTS: We might have now, but we didn’t then. It was neglected and people are crippled as a result of that. That’s what I’m after. Some of my constituents are seriously in trouble through neglect. It’s time for those involved in this horrendous scandal to come clean. Why are we burying this? Why aren’t we looking?  

Senator Gallagher: Again, I don’t agree. The evidence that you’ve just been given would indicate an alternative view on that. Perhaps there’s a way that we can send you all the links, for all the reviews and things that have been done, and inquiries into it and the responses to those, and you can have a see.  

Senator ROBERTS: That would be fine, thank you. 

Question on Notice – No. 745

Senator ROBERTS: What actions are being taken to identify those Australians now at risk of having received tainted blood when the blood should have been safe? Other countries had it safe. We didn’t.

Mr Cahill: I don’t accept that premise.

Senator Gallagher: I’m not accepting that proposition. I think we have very safe systems here.

Senator ROBERTS: We might have now, but we didn’t then. It was neglected and people are crippled as a result of that. That’s what I’m after. Some of my constituents are seriously in trouble through neglect. It’s time for those involved in this horrendous scandal to come clean. Why are we burying this? Why aren’t we looking?

Senator Gallagher: Again, I don’t agree. The evidence that you’ve just been given would indicate an alternative view on that. Perhaps there’s a way that we can send you all the links, for all the reviews and things that have been done, and inquiries into it and the responses to those, and you can have a see.

Senator ROBERTS: That would be fine, thank you.

Answer

The safety of Australia’s blood supply during the 1980s was examined through the 2004 Senate Inquiry into Hepatitis C and the Blood Supply in Australia. The full report, ‘Hepatitis C and the Blood Supply in Australia’, is available at www.aph.gov.au.

The Australian Government has implemented a range of initiatives consistent with the Senate Community Affairs References Committee’s recommendations including ongoing funding for the Australian Red Cross Lifeblood’s (Lifeblood) Lookback program, which investigates infections possibly transmitted through blood transfusion. More information on Lifeblood’s Lookback program is available at www.lifeblood.com.au/blood/blood-testing-and-safety.

Further Government initiatives include implementing national strategies and programs to address blood borne viruses, including hepatitis C, and subsidising medicines to treat hepatitis C and other blood borne viruses through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Since 2016, the Government has invested over $7 billion to provide access to curative direct acting antiviral medicines through the PBS, to all eligible Australians regardless of how they acquired hepatitis C or their current circumstances.

A0745_Question on NoticeDownload

/by

Minister Makes ABYSMAL Defence of Net-Zero

,

When government discounts expire, Australia will be facing their highest electricity bills ever.

This is despite CSIRO claims that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity.

With the largest amount of wind and solar on the grid, electricity prices have never been higher – go figure. Australia is incredibly rich in resources and should be an electricity super power. 

Instead, we have Minister Ayres and the once respected Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) who continue to destroy our country.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are fairly short. CSIRO didn’t give a direct answer to my question on notice about the cost of Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro, but I have the latest figure the CSIRO is using for the Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro in Queensland: $12 billion. We now know the Queensland government internally have the actual cost at $36 billion—triple. Snowy 2.0 has blown out from $2 billion to $20 billion, and I forecast that in 2017. That’s if you include the connecting infrastructure—everything to turn the power on. Why do you continue to tell Australians this is a cheap pathway to follow when every step we take proves you wrong—repeatedly wrong. Why?

Dr Mayfield: These numbers are embedded in our GenCost report and, with every technology, we’re looking for actual projects to base our numbers on. I don’t believe we’ve been using the numbers for the Queensland project as part of that. Mr Graham can probably clarify that for me, but we update that on each cycle based on what’s actually happening out there. So the numbers are as up to date as they possibly can be, as we get more project information.

Senator ROBERTS: That worries me more—that they’re up to date. Your GenCost is nothing more than a fairytale. Considering the assumptions, when we include, then, all of the additional costs, like pumped hydro, that are needed to make it work in Australia, we’re not going to have a cheaper energy system, are we, under GenCost?

Dr Hilton: Chair, could I just object to the use of ‘fairytale’? I think that’s a pretty derogatory way of describing what is a well-considered report that has opened itself up to input from a large range of experts over an eight-year period and, I think, provides excellent guidance to the community about the levelised cost of energy.

CHAIR: I think you’ve put that—

Senator ROBERTS: As I said, when we go into the assumptions, it’s a fairytale.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts!

Senator Ayres: Can I just make a couple of comments about this? I think it’s—

Senator ROBERTS: The assumptions have been proven wrong repeatedly.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts!

Senator Ayres: It’s the kind of badgering of our key national scientific organisation that you should not do—you should not do. It’s an organisation that has served Australia well for decade after decade after decade. It is composed of scientists and staff who work diligently on these questions. It is, of course, open to people—particularly people who have got some peer-reviewed scientific background, but it’s open to people—to ask questions and to criticise the findings of the CSIRO and any other research institution. I don’t mind the scrutiny. I don’t think it does your cause any good when you ask these questions, but I don’t mind it. What I do mind is the use of derogatory language. The problem is it’s not just a One Nation Senator who does it. We sort of expect that. It’s the Leader of the Opposition who said on GenCost: It’s a discredited report—let’s be clear about it. It’s not relied on. It’s not a genuine piece of work.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct.

Senator Ayres: What is wrong with the Liberal and National Party that you allow a bloke to run the show who pours scorn—

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, this is taking up my time. It needs to stop.

CHAIR: Alright.

Senator Ayres: who pours scorn on science and engineering. It has it has got—

Senator ROBERTS: You’re just taking up my time to shut me down.

Senator Ayres: But you’re the one who applied the derogatory comments. It’s got to stop.

CHAIR: Minister!

Senator ROBERTS: It’s my opinion.

Senator Ayres: It’s got to stop.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s my opinion.

Senator Ayres: It’s got to stop. It’s disrespectful.

CHAIR: Minister. Senator Roberts, can I just have a conversation with you?

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.

CHAIR: You still have the call. You’ve asked a question in a certain way. Dr Hilton has put some comments on the record about that. The minister has put some comments on the record about that. My job is just to make sure that you ask your questions in a courteous way. And you can ask questions about GenCost. I’d just ask that you put them in a courteous way.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s get a move on to the next question. Can you guarantee—guarantee—the entire electricity system, from generation to poles and wires to the electricity bill to the cost of taxpayers, is going to be cheaper if we continue down your pathway? The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act was passed in the year 2000 under the Howard LNP government. So for more than 20 years, government has forced an increasing amount of wind and solar onto the electricity grid. I have here a graph of the cost of electricity over the past 20 years. It has tripled, largely under your guidance. Can any one of you experts here please tell me in which year on this graph putting more wind and solar onto the grid has brought down the price of electricity? I’m happy to table this.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Dr Hilton: Senator, we don’t have a pathway; we provide data to our elected representatives for them to make policy decisions about our electricity system. We’ll continue to do that through the GenCost report in a manner that is objective and that is open to feedback with each iteration of the report, as it’s been over the last eight years, and it’s up to our elected representatives to make the policy decisions about pathways, as they’ve done over the last 30 years, as you showed in your graph.

Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t guarantee a pathway.

Senator Ayres: It’s not up to Dr Hilton or the CSIRO—

Senator ROBERTS: The CSIRO has advised there are three pathways, Senator.

Senator Ayres: They don’t run the energy strategy of the Commonwealth or the states. They provide expert advice on what the cheapest technologies are in the Australian context. That’s what they do. They are scientists. They provide advice. It’s a matter for government to follow it. It’s not their pathway. The government—and the private sector too—takes advice about what the cheapest forms of technology are, and if you persist in supporting the most expensive ones, that’s a matter for you.

CHAIR: Okay. Thank you, Minister.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s take the word of the RBA governor this morning. She said the key factor is supply and demand. When you add electrification to this, what the hell are we going to do with prices? Are you aware that higher electricity prices cascade and multiply throughout the economy, devastating manufacturing, devastating agriculture, devastating household bills when you remove the subsidies. Are you aware that in every nation in the world, increasing solar and wind increases electricity prices? The real-world data shows that. Within you, does this fact about increasing solar and wind driving increasing electricity prices in every nation across the globe raise any questions and, if so, what questions?

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, it’s—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking.

Senator Ayres: I’m answering. If you’d approached this issue in a straightforward way, you would’ve explained that the graph that you waved around is the electricity CPI. Right? It’s not the real cost over time; it’s got inflation built into it. If you were straightforward about it, you would pose the counterfactual: what happens if you put more expensive than the—

Senator ROBERTS: I just told you what happens, around the world. Every nation that increases solar and wind increases electricity prices.

Senator Ayres: What the government has to do, serious government that’s actually interested in the future of manufacturing—we will need more electricity.

Senator ROBERTS: The most important factor in the manufacturing cost is electricity, and you’re driving the price up.

Senator Ayres: We’re going to build more manufacturing, and we’re going to drive the price down by delivering more supply and a modern generation facility.

Senator ROBERTS: When you add the demand of—

Senator Ayres: You can hold up your silly graph as long as you like, but it doesn’t alter those facts.

CHAIR: Okay. I’m about to—

Senator ROBERTS: One more question.

CHAIR: Hello, everyone! I’m about to share the call, but I take Senator Roberts’s point that we’ve also had some long answers.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m on my last question.

CHAIR: Ask your final question.

Senator ROBERTS: The federal government says it relies on the CSIRO for advice on energy and future climate. Do you take responsibility for destroying Australia’s position as the cheapest supplier of electricity in the world, with it now being among the most expensive and hurting people and industries, while Mr Mayfield, during a cost-of-living crisis, two years ago was on a total remuneration package of more than $613,000. I’m thinking of people with a median income of $51,000, and half the Australian population is earning below $51,000.

Dr Hilton: I’m always impressed with the quality and influence of the work that our scientists do, but the capacity to directly alter the cost of living for Australians is not one of those gifts our researchers have.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

Defence Claims No Housing Issues for Troops in Townsville

,

Defence generals tell me that, despite a large number of troops being relocated to Townsville during a housing crisis, there’s no problem with finding accommodation for our diggers. This claim comes despite Townsville having a “dangerously low” rental vacancy rate of just 1%.

If you or your family are experiencing difficulties in finding accommodation after being directed to move to Townsville, please email my office as I’d like to hear from you.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: How many extra people have been moved to Townsville? What numbers will Townsville increase by and are there adequate homes in Townsville?  

Senator McAllister: I think, as part of your answer, Lieutenant General Stuart, you might respond to the first part of the senator’s question, which was about making diggers homeless. You may wish to include a response to that in your answer.  

Lt Gen. Stuart: That’s just not a factually correct statement. We’re not making soldiers homeless. We have a plan that’s been worked through with our team mates in the Security and Estate Group, who are our liaison with Defence Housing, and manage the on-base accommodation. And, of course, we have a very strong relationship with local government in Townsville. It’s a staged plan, over the next three career management cycles, the first of which is—  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s a management cycle—how long?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: It’s a posting cycle—every 12 months. The moves occur roughly between December, January and February. This coming posting cycle will see the first of those soldiers that have volunteered, or have been asked to, go to Townsville to have those skills that we are building in the brigade there. To go to your point about shortages in some of our numbers, we are well under our authorised strength in Townsville. So the additional numbers don’t actually fall above the authorised strength in the next two years. That is notwithstanding the fact that the rental market in Townsville is quite tight.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s tight all over Australia—almost at record levels because of massive immigration. Immigration has doubled the previous records, so I understand the dilemma. So what you’re saying is that you understand the housing pressures, but you’re managing that?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes. 

/by

New Chief of Defence Johnston Faces Integrity Questions

,

Angus Campbell’s DSC (Distinguished Service Cross) is still a live issue and retiring won’t bury it. Now we know Campbell’s replacement, CDF Johnston, was the person who nominated Campbell for his DSC.

Johnston maintains he was just doing what everyone else did at the time. He did not disclose the specific action, with enemy forces in contact, he saw Campbell in that justified a combat award. 

Anyone hoping that there would be new type of direction and integrity leading the Defence Force might be worried that this doesn’t signal a change of pace.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: What about leadership and integrity and truth?  

Adm. Johnston: That was the third in terms of what I understood when you said ‘culture’: leadership is key to culture.  

Senator ROBERTS: We are on the same track. There’s been a long process, revisited over multiple years now, of estimates sessions, questions on notice and freedom of information requests on a particular issue. You’ve been in this room while I questioned your predecessor, Angus Campbell, over his Distinguished Service Cross, which I’m sure you will recall. Admiral Johnston, you were the officer who recommended Angus Campbell for that Distinguished Service Cross, weren’t you?  

Adm. Johnston: I was on the nomination for it, yes, that’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: According to Defence freedom of information request 522/23, you recommended him for that award on 29 September 2011. At that time, the criteria for the Distinguished Service Cross required the recipient to be ‘in action’. Admiral Johnston, can you, once and for all, as a person who recommended Angus Campbell for his DSC, clarify what contact with the enemy you saw General Campbell in, in action, that led to your recommending him for a combat medal?  

Adm. Johnston: If I could answer—the nomination was provided to me in my role as the Deputy Chief of Joint Operations at the time. That position has, as one of its responsibilities, to look at the performance of commanders in our deployed forces, of which General Campbell was one at the time. So I progressed the nomination because of the function that I had in Joint Operations Command. I did, as part of that, indicate that the submission of the nomination should be after the period when General Campbell completed his tenure, which was the case. The definition of ‘in action’ that I applied is consistent with that which had been standing for some time, as to commanders—and certainly in General Campbell’s case, I believe, he spent more than 100 days in Afghanistan, as part of his command role, in an area that was classified as a warlike zone.  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘A warlike zone’?  

Adm. Johnston: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was he in a war zone?  

Adm. Johnston: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: And facing fire?  

Adm. Johnston: He was, as part of his duties, rotating through the places where Australian soldiers and others were located, experiencing the same threats as they had in those locations.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is your definition of ‘in action’?  

Adm. Johnston: The definition I applied is the same as what had been applied by my predecessors and over, I think, eight commanders prior to General Campbell, who had been nominated for a Distinguished Service Cross. It was an individual who is operating in an area where it is a warlike zone and there are threats from hostile forces.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did that definition come into place the day after his nomination? I think beforehand it was direct action.  

Adm. Johnston: The definition changed before his nomination, but the application of what we understood that to be is consistent before General Campbell’s nomination. 

/by

Pornographic Book for Kids Shortlisted for Prime Minister’s Literary Award

,

The pornographic publication – Welcome to Sex – which is aimed at children, was shortlisted for the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards. This book is unclassified, meaning it can be accessed by children of any age, and is found in the children’s section of many libraries.

I asked Creative Australia how this could happen. The answer was disturbing and effectively amounts to a confession that their industry experts and selection panel have become so desensitised to sexual content for children that no one thought teaching young children about sexual techniques—topics that most adults would find inappropriate—was a problem. Instead, it was seen as something that should be encouraged, leading to it being shortlisted for the award.

One Nation is committed to implementing measures that will allow children to be children, protecting them from exposure to adult sexual material before they reach their teenage years.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Who decides which publications are listed in the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards? Is that entirely a decision of Creative Australia, or does the Prime Minister make recommendations?

Mr Collette: It is neither, in fact. It is certainly not either the Prime Minister making recommendations or Creative Australia. We have a robust process. We appoint industry experts to act as adjudicators. We then call for nominations. Then all those books are read. I can’t recall by how many—I can find that out for you—but literally hundreds of books are read over the course of six months. Our selection committee will then choose the shortlist and eventually the winners of each category.

Senator ROBERTS: How many people are on the selection committee?

Mr Collette: I think there are about eight. I’d have to check. I haven’t got that with me.

Senator ROBERTS: Industry experts—that means authors, or publishers, or both?

Mr Collette: It means people with a significant record in the book industry.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the age range for each of the categories young adult and children?

Mr Collette: The young adult range goes from 13 to 19 years.

Senator ROBERTS: And children?

Mr Collette: Under that.

Senator ROBERTS: Everything less than that?

Mr Collette: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: The book Welcome to Sex is unclassified, meaning it’s available for children of any age. The author of the book has stated it’s suitable for eight-year-olds. The book is sold by the publisher without an age guidance. Why was the publication listed under young adult rather than children’s?

Mr Collette: I wasn’t aware of that, Senator. I would have to check that. The entries were assessed by an independent panel of judges with expertise across young adult writing, which is a category for works written for readers, as we said, between 13 and 19. I can tell you the names of the judges. They’ve since been published. The title, as you probably know, has been a bestseller in Australia, widely respected by teachers, psychologists and academic researchers. The title won the 2024 Australian Book Industry Award Book of the Year for Older Children in May 2024.

Senator ROBERTS: What are older children?

Mr Collette: Thirteen to 19. The book is clearly aimed at a teen audience, and the book’s introduction states, ‘Welcome to a book about sex and being a teen.’ I note, too, that Welcome to Sex has now been recommended as an educational resource for young people 14-plus by eSafety Kids, which is a trusted e-safety provider endorsed by the eSafety Commissioner. I’m not aware of the details of the question you’ve asked me. I will certainly investigate it. But there is a lot to recommend the excellence of that book, and indeed it has now been endorsed as a text for older children.

Senator ROBERTS: Older children being teens and 14-plus under the eSafety Commissioner—okay. I think the answer to this is no, but I’ll ask it anyway. Did the Prime Minister or any member of his staff or department make any representation regarding this publication, either for it to be included at all or for it to be included in a particular category?

Mr Collette: No, certainly not.

Senator ROBERTS: I thought so. Can you confirm that it was your decision to list that publication for a Prime Minister’s Literary Award, or was it the committee?

Mr Collette: It was the committee’s decision.

Senator ROBERTS: Who made the decision for the publication not to win? If it’s won so many awards, why didn’t it—

Mr Collette: It would be the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: The book was reprinted with a splash on the cover, ‘Prime Minister’s Literary Award nominee’ and sold many copies based on your endorsement. Did you receive any representation on behalf of the publisher for that work to be included in the awards? I imagine publishers would love the extra sales that result from that recommendation?

Mr Collette: Publishers do love the extra sales. One of the things we’ve done since we took responsibility for the awards was to bring it forward in the calendar year because, as a former publisher myself, I understand that two-thirds of our books are sold in three months before Christmas. So we had publishers, but more importantly booksellers, urging us to announce these awards early because they mean so much to keeping bookshops afloat. So, yes, we did all that. But the entire selection of that book was made by the panel of experts, as was the winner.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

Millions Lost to Bureaucratic Stalling

,

The Digital Restack is a simple concept. When digital television was introduced in Australia, each station was given six channels but opted to use only five. In fact, they often struggle to provide entertaining content on even those five. The bandwidth from the sixth channel has been sitting unused between stations all this time.

A digital restack would simply move the channels closer together, freeing up a block of bandwidth that could be auctioned off for between $1 billion and $2 billion—funds that taxpayers could benefit from now. More importantly, this revenue could help grow the economy and create jobs.

One Nation believes a small portion of this bandwidth should be dedicated to two Community Television channels, providing community access to broadcasting, defeating the media monopoly on TV programming. Melbourne’s C31 is an excellent example of the quality and audience reach that community television can achieve.

I asked the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) what happened to the restack that was due this year. The answer was extraordinary. According to the Minister, they are conducting “a managed and staged process of thinking about the future of broadcasting, including broadcasters, ourselves, the department and the audiences for those programs, in looking at how that future state of broadcasting can be managed.”

In other words, they have no plans to proceed—just a stream of bureaucratic word salad instead.

This government is failing us.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. And we’ve seen how that goes. This is my final question. It is about the digital restack. I looked through your annual work program report and found this comment regarding the digital television channel restack. I quote:

Exploring possible parameters and solutions for channel planning relevant to possible new shared multiplex arrangements. This work will provide evidence to inform any future restack—

The restack was to be a closing up of digital TV channels. This sounds like you have something else in mind for the sixth channel, the gap between each station. What is the plan for the restack now?

Ms O’Loughlin: The Minister for Communications gave a speech a couple of weeks ago at our RadComms conference. They were talking about a program of work that needed to be done around the future of television. Her emphasis in that was that free-to-air television is incredibly important in Australia because it reaches 99 per cent of the population. It is free to air. How is that going to evolve over the next 10 years? Will it be terrestrially driven or will some of it go online? The minister was talking about a managed and staged process of thinking about the future of broadcasting, including the broadcasters, ourselves, the department and the audiences for those programs. It is looking at how that future state of broadcasting can be managed. A small part of that is what happens to the spectrum that may be freed up over that process. Part of our job is what that might be and when that might occur. The annual report says that requires channel planning. A whole lot of spectrum planning would have to be done to facilitate any movement of the broadcasters and the freeing up of that spectrum over time.

Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean in English, so that people can understand? What is the reality? You have said managed and staged, which indicates to me that it is more than just a premonition of an idea that something might happen. Something is happening.

Ms O’Loughlin: The minister’s announcement was about some things that have happened recently. For example, in Mildura, the Channel 10 services were turned off because the local providers who provided that service didn’t think it was financially feasible to continue it. It has an impact on consumers. WIN has made some changes to its arrangements in other parts of the country, where it is sharing its own infrastructure. That has an implication. That has actually not affected those audiences very well. I think what the minister is saying is that if there is going to be an end state where broadcasting wants to go, we need to think about all the steps that have to take place for that to get there effectively. That is what is alluded to. There is what is called a future broadcasting working group, which the minister has asked to be reinvigorated, to start thinking about these issues for the next 10 or 15 years, not the next two or three.

/3 Comments/by