The transparency and accountability systems that are meant to apply to government are broken.
Despite campaigning on honesty and transparency, this Labor Government is pulling out every trick in the book to keep Australians in the dark about how they’re spending money and what they’re doing.
Transcript
Former Senator Rex Patrick said to me that transparency is a word that’s only ever shouted from opposition benches. After years and years of virtue signalling from Labor while they were in opposition about the importance of transparency and accountability and the importance of Senate estimates hearings, now that they’re in government it’s an entirely different story. Before they were elected to government we heard endlessly from Labor that the government should be accountable and one of the ways they should be held accountable is an order for the production of documents. Labor has resisted, has voted against or refused to comply, with almost every order for the production of documents on which this Senate has voted. That same attitude is prolific, and they’ve show up again over two weeks of Senate estimates hearings.
I’ve got plenty of criticisms about the Labor Party, yet I’ve got to ask some of the senators from the Liberals: it’s a little rich, don’t you think? While you are in government, there were plenty of motions for the production of documents and evasiveness at Senate estimates. When it comes to accountability and transparency of government information, unfortunately, the Liberal and Labor parties are two wings of the same bird. As former Senator Rex Patrick said so accurately, ‘Transparency is a word that’s only shouted from the opposition benches.’ Once in government it’s all quiet.
Let’s have a look at just some of the transparency that Labor has blocked. Motion No. 124, an order for the production of documents to tell the Australian people how much extra Prime Minister Anthony Albanese cost them to call parliament back for a ridiculous one day of sitting to push his gas industry nationalisation through. It likely cost millions of dollars, just so Labor could pull a stunt and claim they were doing something on electricity prices. Six months later, it’s done nothing. Looking good, not doing good—that’s what matters to Labor.
What was Labor’s response to the Senate ordering them to tell Australia how much this exercise had cost? They may as well have just put a middle finger in the envelope. Not one dollar in costings such is the contempt they have for this Senate and for Australian taxpayers.
Let’s look at motion No. 176, an order to produce documents relating to millions of dollars being paid to political parties for ill-defined grants and programs. What was Labor’s answer? Contempt. Not a single document related to the funding was produced.
What about motion No. 200? Just yesterday, documents were requested in relation to the MRH-90 helicopter crash in Jervis Bay, documents that would uncover if we are putting our Defence personnel at risk of death flying in dodgy helicopters. The government refused to return a single document—not a single document.
Of course this culture of secrecy extended to Senate estimates. We saw witnesses tell outright lies to the Senate and the Labor ministers sit by idly. Ministers raised flimsy public interest immunity claims, if they bothered to raise them at all. In the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade hearings, Chief of Defence Force, General Campbell, simply flatly refused to answer questions from myself and from Senator Shoebridge. That’s not how Senate estimates works. If a witness does not want to answer a question, they are obliged to take it on notice and then it is up to the minister to raise a claim of public interest immunity—not the witness. General Campbell knew this. He’s attended many estimates sessions. The Labor minister at the table knew this, yet sat there in silence as the witness treated questions with outright contempt. Again, transparency is a word only shouted from the opposition benches.
Now, we’ve had two constituents, one from Queensland and one from New South Wales, telling us about specific instances that indicate a senior member of one of the departments lied. We’re chasing that up now with a question on notice following Senate estimates. Let’s not forget the unanswered questions on notice. Answers to questions on notice were flowing in while the next Senate estimates had already started. Make no mistake, many of these answers were no doubt available, yet they probably sat on the minister’s desk waiting for a final sign-off. That’s why many of the questions on notice don’t arrive in time: ministers are holding them up. So much for transparency. There is no reason a minister needs to sign off on answers anyway. The truth is the truth. The agency’s answer is their evidence; it’s not for the minister to change.
None of this will change until the Senate fulfils its duty to bring contempt charges against those who treat it with contempt. It is within our power to enforce accountability. A few contempt charges and a couple of witnesses in jail should send a message to the others.
The ACT Government has passed legislation to take over the Calvary Hospital, which is run by the Catholic Church and has provided healthcare to millions of Australians through their 14 hospitals around Australia.
This follows legislation in the ACT to provide free abortion on demand to anyone who is under 16 weeks pregnant. The ACT Government is also proposing legislation to allow euthanasia without “time to death”, which means anyone can ask for euthanasia at any time, even if they are not sick. That same proposal includes no age limit to deliberately allow children to be euthanised.
Calvary, through the Catholic Church, has gone on record to say they will not participate in either of these programs so the Canberra autocrats have seized the hospital so abortion and euthanasia cam occur.
When I spoke about this online the response from the left was to say “there is no place for religion in healthcare”. My response to this is simple – if you don’t want religious healthcare go to a state run hospital; if you don’t like religious aged care go to another aged care provider; and if you don’t like religion in schools go to a state school.
This is a power grab by Canberra autocrats who cannot tolerate dissenting opinion.
The Federal Government has authority over Canberra and must intervene to, at least, put this move to the people.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our wonderful Queensland community, I support this motion from Senator Cash, Senator Canavan and fellow senators to refer the takeover of Calvary hospital to a committee inquiry. This blatant attack on religion in health care has caused trouble for ‘PAN AM’—or Canberra, as some still call it.
Legislation to seize the hospital from the Catholic Church has passed the Australian Capital Territory parliament—legislation developed over a long period of time, partly in secret. In fact, this is the second attempt ACT Health autocrats have made to force Calvary out of health care. The only God autocrats respect is the god of power—power used in pursuit of a genuinely evil agenda. The ACT has legislated abortion and euthanasia. The Catholic Church insists on putting humanity around those rules, which has inflamed ACT autocrats. Nobody is going to get in the way of the health autocrats’ agenda to murder babies and murder our elderly—and now considering murdering children and the severely handicapped. As an aside, the right to die, as we are seeing in Europe, will become an obligation to die.
There are 14 Calvary hospitals in Australia delivering health services in a faith-based environment, healing of millions of Australians since their start in 1885. Churches around Australia provides hundreds of aged-care homes. Each of these must be looking over their shoulder at what Canberra Health autocrats are trying to do at Calvary.
My public address to a pro-life rally in Rockhampton two weeks ago and a subsequent video on this topic has been met with an interesting response from the Left—the control side of politics. I will address that now. The common reply, repeated verbatim from a legion of social media bots and mindless zombies, is this: there is no place for religion in health care. It seems to me that this is a most hypocritical statement. When religious groups protested drag queens exposing themselves and reading adult sex stories to kids in libraries in ‘drag queen story time’, religious groups were told, “If you don’t like it, don’t go.” Well, let me direct your argument right back at you: if you don’t want religion in your health care, don’t go to a Christian managed hospital. While we are at it, if you don’t like religion in aged care, go to another aged-care facility and, if you don’t like religion in education, don’t send your kids to a religious school.
See how it works? It’s freedom of choice. That’s what is irking the Canberra bureaucrats—freedom. We know how much autocrats have embraced utilitarian agendas and how COVID has normalised such behaviour. Clearly, these health bureaucrats have no intention of surrendering powers obtained dishonestly. I imagine they can’t wait to tear that cross off the front of the Calvary hospital. Calvary hospitals have treated millions of Australians who are happy to be treated in a religious hospital. Federal parliament has precedence over ACT law. This matter is rightly within the Senate’s purview, and I am strongly in support of Senator Cash and Senator Canavan’s motion.
This is partly about property rights and partly about freedom of choice. Property rights are fundamental to human progress, fundamental to innovation, fundamental to freedom and fundamental to responsibility. Federal Labor, in this term of government, has nationalised the gas industry. The federal Liberal and National parties stole farmers’ property rights in the Howard-Anderson Liberal and National government. Now the ACT wants to steal churches’ property rights and nationalise religious values.
We need a Senate inquiry. The federal Constitution has powers to deal with religion.
My message to Canberra health autocrats is simple: God decides who lives and dies, not you.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ky44BvpR2Tc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-16 17:49:222023-06-16 17:49:27The takeover of Calvary Hospital is an attack on Christianity
Martin Luther King’s dream was that his children would ‘not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character’. I share that dream.
Who would have thought we would be again fighting for such a basic concept nearly 60 years later.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I expressed my view about this legislation, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, and the brain-snapping folly that will occur if the Yes campaign wins the upcoming referendum. Martin Luther King’s dream was that his children would ‘not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character’. I share that dream. Although I doubt that he imagined we’d be discussing this same principle nearly 60 years later.
The Voice would result in constitutionally enshrining deferential treatment based on skin colour and heritage. I cannot endorse racism, and I will not do so. It’s difficult to discuss the ‘no’ case in relation to the Voice and its operations without being labelled racist. This has been Mr Albanese’s deliberate policy. He’s hoping to mislead voters into thinking this is a modest proposal, merely a goodwill gesture that needs very little thinking and should be supported because it’s simply good manners and will not change much or anything at all. He’s taken a leaf out of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s playbook. Mr Albanese is telling us, ‘Don’t you worry about that’—the details—’Just do as I say.’ Mr Albanese is telling a great mistruth.
The Voice, if established, will become a huge new institution with vast powers enshrined indefinitely into the Constitution based on race. It will change governance to Australia’s detriment. There’s no doubt that past governments failed to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s needs. This is despite billions of dollars successive governments have wasted lining the pockets of white and black bureaucrats, academics, activists, lawyers, consultants and all those whose incomes are based on the white and black Aboriginal gravy train siphoning off the money that rarely filters through to those who should benefit from assistance.
The government is already seeking mass endorsement of the ‘yes’ campaign. It’s calling in support from those already dependent on government funding. Sports organisations, the arts and big business are all dependent on government funding grants and contracts. They aren’t exactly independent but bribed. We’ll hear from more of those organisations in the lead up to the referendum.
While it’s interesting to look at the elites supporting the ‘yes’ case, we need to consider what real Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people want. I’ve travelled with my staff to Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and across Queensland. I’ve visited every Cape York community twice and in some cases three times—and to Torres Strait communities. I’ve listened to residents, and one thing that has struck me is the fact that there is little knowledge or even interest in this Voice. There is little interest or respect for the so-called Closing the Gap. A counsellor in the Torres Strait community of Badu summed it up accurately, saying that many in the Aboriginal industry do not want to close the gap; they want to perpetuate the gap to keep milking taxpayer funds.
There’s no common understanding as to what the Voice is or what it might offer residents in terms of improving people’s lives. Opinions differed from community to community. They differed from family group to family group. In fact, on most issues there’s little commonality of views. There’s no single Voice that could represent the differing views of each separate Aboriginal and islander community. I remain deeply concerned about the unworkability of what’s proposed.
Mr Albanese, when deflecting questions recently on how the Voice would work in practice, has constantly directed questioners to read the lengthy Calma and Langton final report on the Voice. It’s not a policy, merely recommended. The report says there’d be a need for 24 full-time roving commissioners and a secretariat. With 35 districts, there’s a need for local Aboriginal Voice to Parliament groups and committees. On each issue, these committees would seek to develop one opinion. There would be the likely risk of people in Tasmania giving their view on an issue for Torres Strait Islanders. The report did not say all representatives would be elected democratically. Retired High Court judge Ian Callinan has been vocal in opposing the Voice, questioning how it might not be truly representative of Aboriginal Australians and run the risk that the Voice might be made up of a hand-picked Canberra cadre. He noted practical difficulties with drafting the constitutional amendments that would need High Court interpretations. This Voice push is not from the grassroots; it’s coming from city elites, academics and others on the white and black Aboriginal industry gravy train. The Voice faces the real risk of a noisy minority of activist groups hijacking and driving it.
Across Australia are more than 3,000 Indigenous corporations and more than 12,700 registered charities with purposes including assisting Aboriginal Australians. Since 2018 more than 19,000 grants have been made, totalling more than $11.5 billion for Aboriginal purposes. All of this money has been directed towards the needs of a group representing less than four per cent of Australia’s population. For example, Noel Pearson’s Cape York Institute collected more than $50 million. He supports the Voice. The recent budget included $781 million for the National Indigenous Australians Agency, to be added to an already announced expenditure of $1.36 billion. Look around the communities. Where has this jaw-dropping amount of money gone? What has it done to lift the lives of remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? Previously, I raised in this Senate the sorry plight of Aboriginal people on Mornington Island, Australia’s third world disgrace. Has their life benefited from the jaw-dropping amount of wasted money? Clearly, no.
A core issue for me is there is the historic suppression of Aboriginal Australians under governments that continue to patronise and reinforce a victim mentality through misplaced paternalistic care, so-called care—control masquerading as care. This remains a national disgrace. The solution is not creating a powerful unaccountable body to satisfy a small group of activists with vested interests in maintaining an ever growing white and black Aboriginal industry.
There is not one word from the government on the cost of setting up the Voice. There is not one word from the government on the proposed annual costs. Why is this so, asked a famous and much loved and admired TV scientist. The Prime Minister does not want us to know the answer, as it would be a figure so large that no-one in their right mind would agree to such expenditure for yet another new bureaucracy, when many Australians are already wondering if they can afford to put a meal on the table for their family. Billions are already being spent. Billions more will be spent to run the Voice. Whoops, don’t tell the voters! A previous body created to assist and represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ needs was ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—and look how that experiment went. ATSIC’s abuse of Aboriginals and the related corrupt waste of taxpayer money led to ATSIC being abolished. It would be almost impossible to abolish the new version of ATSIC, which is the Voice, enshrined in the Constitution—how handy for the corrupt white and black Aboriginal industry, as the Voice, like ATSIC, would be a never-ending cash cow for those in the know, perpetuating bureaucrats, agency heads and board members living off taxpayer funds—parasites.
Let’s not forget the bloodsucking white and black lawyers, activists and academics, who are dipping their snouts in a new public funds trough. Is the Voice really necessary? Is it needed? The government says it’s needed to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people an opportunity for input into government. Currently there are already 11 members of parliament of Aboriginal heritage. Are they not doing the job of raising issues on behalf of Aboriginal Australians? If not, what sort of job are they doing? What about the National Indigenous Australians Agency? Isn’t its job to highlight to government areas of need? Will the Voice replace this body? The Prime Minister suggested that governance of the Voice would come under the jurisdiction of the future National Anti-Corruption Commission. This has been challenged. Retired senior judge Anthony Whealy said that further legislation would be required to extend the commission’s jurisdiction to cover the Voice, as it would not be covered under the current legislation setting up the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
This brings us to the issue of jurisdiction. The High Court would decide disputes about the Voice, because it would be created under an entirely new ninth chapter of the Constitution. The High Court is the only body having the role to interpret the Constitution—a whole ninth chapter added to the current eight chapters, with details in wording hidden. The High Court schedule could fill up rapidly with cases of this nature and slow down the judicial process. The Voice would be able to make representations to parliament and to the executive on matters relating to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. That’s almost everything. There’s little restriction on the sorts of issues that the Voice could raise, and the advisory role is not only to parliament; it’s to the executive government. That means that the potential for excessive involvement of the court system may necessitate expanding the High Court to consider Voice disputes and interpretation.
This leads to another criticism of the proposed Voice. At what stage can the Voice advise the parliament or the executive? Must the government consult with the Voice on all proposed legislation or the development of policy? Is the onus on the Voice to make representations about an issue with the government or the executive? The Aboriginal industry says it is to advise both. The Prime Minister has been unwilling to answer any of these vital questions. Will activists rely on the Voice to slow down government processes to the extent of blocking legislation and holding the government to legal ransom unless demands are met? That seems to be the activists’ intent. The Prime Minister’s comments that the Voice would be subject to the parliament are clearly wrong. Any law that was designed to rein back Voice activities may fail, as the power of the Voice is so broad that it is nigh impossible to minimise such power.
Any law that is passed related to the Voice must be subject to the Constitution. Surely that is a recipe for confusion and parliamentary disaster. The Voice does not practically solve any of the current issues facing remote Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders. These problems of people living in remote areas, Aboriginal or not, are already well known, yet solutions have not yet been offered. Allocation of vast sums of money, resources and programs have not worked. We’ve been told that the Voice is proposed to be advisory only, with no power to provide programs, resources or grants. How is that supposed to assist Aboriginals in need? The concept of native title was supposed to support Aboriginal Australians yet has failed miserably. Aboriginals living in a community are not able to own their own homes, are locked into rent cycles and unable to borrow to advance themselves, because they cannot use land under native title as security for a business or home loan or other loan. They’re locked into a system that keeps them from improving their lives and livelihoods or working towards buying their own home.
Native title freezes Aboriginal people out of the economy and keeps them from advancing personally. No-one should be surprised that the native title legislation’s preamble is littered with references to the Voice’s roots, the globalist United Nations. The Voice will further entrench Aboriginal disadvantage, promote victim mentality and sow further division.
One of the nastiest sides of this debate has been the coercive approach that ‘yes’ campaigners have taken, pitching any opposition to the ‘yes’ campaign as racist. Even within the Aboriginal community, where there are clear differences of levels of support, derogatory name calling and put-downs are the response from ‘yes’ campaign leaders such as Noel Pearson. He has derided Senator Nampijinpa Price and other leaders taking a strong ‘no’ stance. It’s interesting that in rural areas, where Aboriginals are most in need, the ‘no’ vote is way out front—much higher than the ‘yes’ vote. Aboriginals see little value for them in the ‘yes’ campaign. The ‘yes’ campaign support is in fact falling and remains strongest in cities, with support from the wealthy and the elites who have fallen for the cheap rhetoric of lies from government and lies from elite academia. Sadly, young people are being sold a pup, third hand, through a deceitful government media blitz providing huge sums to others to run a deceitful ‘yes’ campaign on behalf of the government.
What I dislike most of all is the fundamental flaw in this government’s whole referendum push, and that is the out-and-out racism underpinning the whole Voice concept. It is the insertion of a whole new chapter into our Constitution, as the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Ms Lorraine Finlay, recently highlighted by saying:
It inserts race into the Australian Constitution in a way that undermines the foundational human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination …
The proposed Voice will give Aboriginal people special rights. Only the members of the Voice will have a constitutional right to influence the parliament and the executive. No other Australian person or body would have that constitutional right to influence the parliament or executive based on race—not one. This is pure racism. If one goal of the Voice is to create harmony and reconciliation, this is doomed to failure, irrespective of the referendum outcome. This issue is so divisive that, whatever the result, a wedge will have been driven between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members of our Australian society, a wedge based on race, thanks to the Labor government. Australians should all have the same rights. If this referendum succeeds, that will not be the case in Australia, because one group, Aboriginal Australians, will have additional constitutional rights that other Australians will not have. That is racist and it is wrong.
We all share two identities. We are all human and we are all Australians. Our nation is the world’s only nation whose people voted for the national Constitution. Our Commonwealth Constitution is the people’s Constitution. Giving the government’s dishonest proposal an open slate—a blank slate—for changes made by politicians will degrade it to a politician’s Constitution. We have had enough of politicians in this country. In answering a question last week, the Prime Minister acknowledged the public has turned against the Voice. He then confirmed that if the people reject his racist Voice proposal he will legislate it. He will defy the will of the people.
Lastly, what is the point of a voice when the problem is not Australians speaking up; the problem is politicians not listening. It is the arrogance, the deceit, the unwillingness to listen. I will vote no.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/oLNhOMkEMRs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-15 17:55:152023-06-15 17:55:33Why the racist “Voice” will tear Australia apart
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has been warning of the impact of high migration on Australia for 25 years. We have been talking about the strain on health, housing, transport, crime and schools in particular.
All of those warnings have now come true. Australians can no longer afford housing, their mortgage or rental payments, or their electricity bills. Jobs are hard to find and breadwinner jobs are even harder to find.
All of this comes back to the rate of immigration over the last 25 years. It did not need to be this way.
Had the government listened to Pauline, we would have seen money going into schools, hospitals, police stations and housing to meet the demand from new Australians. This did not happen and now look at the problems we have.
One Nation will get the economy going again to create breadwinner jobs, get housing construction and infrastructure underway, and secure a future for all Australians.
Transcript
I want to turn my attention to another topic.
In 1996 Pauline Hanson named her new party ‘One Nation’ as an expression of her heartfelt belief that this beautiful nation must include all Australians, fairly and equally. She and I serve the people of Queensland and Australia. No single group should be favoured over another and no-one should be denied opportunity.
One Nation is committed to the belief that we must give all Australians the same opportunity to lift themselves up through their own hard work and endeavour. And we must provide a safety net for those who can’t provide for themselves. Where one group in our community is trailing behind, then the solution is not arbitrary or forced inclusion. That didn’t work in the Soviet Union and it will not work in Prime Minister Albanese’s soviet republic of Australia. Why? Because it doesn’t actually solve the problem of why people have fallen behind in the first place. It does, though, let politicians and compliant community leaders off the hook. ‘See here,’ they go. ‘Look at this thing we are doing. Aren’t we wonderful, vote for us and you too can feel good.’ Not solve anything, just feel good, look good. Not do good, just paper over the problems and pretend to do good.
One Nation stands for solutions not feelings. We will build the east-west corridor across the Top End, bringing power, water, rail transport and the internet to remote Aboriginal communities, opening up markets, expanding job opportunities, educational opportunities and tourism, which we know exposes the world to Aboriginal culture. And that’s a good thing. One Nation will build the Great Dividing Range project to bring environmentally responsible hydropower—cheap power—and water to North Queensland to drive agriculture and tertiary processing, adding tens of billions to our national wealth. One Nation will build the Hughenden Irrigation Project, the Urannah dam and hydro project, the Emu Swamp dam and the Big Buffalo dam in Victoria. All of these will make more productive use of land already in use for agriculture so as to grow more food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. This is the difference between One Nation and the parties of feelings. We offer Australians natural wholesome food and natural fibres, while the tired old parties in this place offer you bugs and used clothes.
What I don’t understand is the black armband view of prosperity that permeates the policies of the old parties in this place. Abundance is not a dirty word. Abundance is not mutuality exclusive with environmental responsibility. The attack on the food and manufacturing sectors is one of ideology, not environmentalism. It’s about controlling us using deliberately created scarcities. Food scarcities and energy scarcity are deliberately created and can be easily corrected by a One Nation government. Soviet politics of oppression are not the Australian way.
Australia is a place where a coalminer born in India can become a senator, where the daughter of a migrant from a war-torn country can come to Australia and find not only peace and prosperity but a place amongst the leaders of our beautiful country and where a refugee from the fall of Saigon can come to Australia stateless and take her place in the House of Representatives. There are so many examples just in this parliament of how Australia’s proud history of equality of opportunity has lifted up those who have chosen to embrace the opportunity given to them. Equality of opportunity though does not mean equality of outcome. I remember a story about a wise old Russian, just a regular citizen of the Soviet Union, and the Soviet approach to mandatory equality. The wise old Russian drew a series of stick figures of different heights on a piece of paper, and then he said, ‘In the Soviet Union everyone is equal,’ and proceeded to draw a line across the page to the height of the smallest figure. The heads of the successful were chopped off to bring everyone down to the height of the worst performing. That’s, indeed, how socialism works. That’s why the Soviet Union failed, and it’s why left-wing ideology permeating this government is failing and will fail.
What people do with the opportunity they’re given is their own business. Governments cannot provide an equality of outcome, because governments cannot control how people handle the opportunity we are all given. As a government, we can only ensure every Australian has access to a breadwinner job, a home that suits their needs, a safe community, transport, education, health care and, of course, a safety net. The rest is up to the individual. But mark my words: depriving Australians of these core government functions, no matter the geography or the background, will not be tolerated.
Sadly, deprivation is exactly what is happening not just in remote Australia but in our cities as well. After attending public forums across Queensland in the last few weeks, it’s obvious there is a failure to deliver basic government services by Premier Palaszczuk and by successive federal governments. Feelings will not fix failure—they just lead people into false security. Ideas, vision and hard work will fix Australia. One Nation is ready to take up the challenge. We have the policies, and Senator Hanson stands ready to lead. I must say the fire burns as strongly as ever in the heart of Australia’s favourite redhead.
The Club of Rome have led to call to reduce the world’s population for 40 years, based on their projection of the world population continuing to grow to as many as 15 billion people. Last month the Club of Rome updated their population projection for the first time in 40 years, and reduced the projection dramatically.
The new projection is as little as 8 billion people by 2050, which is less people than now.
The population apocalypse is the reason given for forcing bug and lab grown protein on the public, the entire net zero campaign is also based on a growing world population.
I hope the scaremongers can move on and let everyday Australians get on with enjoying this beautiful country without their destructive agendas.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people of our Queensland community, my comments tonight celebrate humanity. New data shows the world has been saved from the population apocalypse. Even more surprising, the data has come from the Club of Rome. Before I excite the chamber with the wonderful news that the Australia we know and some of us love is safe from green grinches, here’s some background.
For many years the Club of Rome maintained the world population was out of control and would exceed nine billion, most likely 10 billion and possibly 15 billion. This was being used to justify onerous antihuman restrictions in how we live. The antihuman green lobby has decided that, because of population growth, everyday Australians should eat less, travel less, have fewer children, live in hive homes stacked on top of each other and leave nothing to their children. The antihuman green lobby decided private interests should not own and develop natural resources—or, as they prefer to call it, the commons. Instead, a Soviet style elite, who in practice would be the world’s richest individuals, should own all resources. Even homes, cars, refrigerators and brown goods would be rented, not owned. Aboriginal and native title would be over land they occupy yet continue to not own; in fact, no-one would own it.
To make sure this happens, the antihuman green lobby will implement measures to force all physical goods to be repairable and recyclable, to include a very high percentage of recycled materials and to operate on such a low electricity rating that they may not work at all. This huge increase in cost would price household goods out of the reach of everyday Australians. This absurd wonder of Soviet central planning is called the circular economy, which is another way of saying everyday Australians will never own anything new. Wealthy investment funds and superannuation funds will own everything.
I’m sure you’ve heard the campaign slogan: ‘You will own nothing and be happy.’ This is what the antihuman green grinches serve. The party of the trees has turned into the party of the tall poppies. Recently they voted against my motion to investigate in vitro lab meat because they know the countryside will be locked up and food will be mass produced as bug burgers or, worse, fake meat grown in bioreactors in the same way cancer cells are grown.
Antihuman greens and teals openly promote this reduction in living standards. They say it’s necessary because there will be too many people in the world to sustain the old way of doing things. By ‘the old way’, I mean Australians having the freedom to work harder, accumulating wealth and assets, enjoying a comfortable retirement and then passing their wealth on to their children to give them a head start in life. There’s no room for that in the Soviet republic of Greensland! All this is based on a lie that the world’s population is expanding so rapidly that we must, today, start to destroy the wealth of everyday Australians and to lock up the sea and the countryside—which they call the commons—to save it from overproduction. We can now call off the population apocalypse. Here’s the good news for human beings the world over. Recently the Club of Rome released a follow-up to its infamous limits of growth study, which has caused 50 years of shivering bedwetting from the green lobby. This is a significant document as the first major review to the limits of growthin 50 years. Who conducted these new calculations? The Earth4All collective of leading environmental science and economic institutions, including the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Norwegian Business School.
The Club of Rome modelled two scenarios. If we do nothing, the world’s population will top out at 8.9 billion—it’s already eight billion—in 2050 before falling to 7.3 billion in 2100. Or, if we work hard on improving the living standards of developing nations, as One Nation supports, the world’s population will top out at 8.6 billion—remember it’s only eight billion now—in 2040 and then fall to just six billion in 2100. Six billion: that’s it!
This clearly shows that we do not need to lock up the commons in order to protect it. Over time our natural environment will be used less, not more. We don’t need to reduce everyone’s share down to subsistence levels. The reduction in population will make current consumption easily sustainable. We do need to provide sensible stewardship of the natural environment and reuse, recycle and introduce new materials like hemp plastics, of course. This is wonderful news.
What will the anti-human green grinches use now to generate fear, to generate their own bizarre brand of environmental self-flagellation? Soviet style? Without a doubt the answer is: they will do whatever it takes—whatever lie and whatever twisting of the data it takes to keep the fear campaign going. It’s time to take another look at the fundamental assumptions of the climate campaign. The emperor has no clothes. One Nation enjoys truth. One Nation shares the truth.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/e_HqTGWnzkI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-15 17:24:312023-06-15 17:24:35The Population Apocalypse is Cancelled
It’s estimated that 28,000km of power lines will be required to help the government’s net-zero pipe dream.
In many places, these powerlines are being proposed over prime agricultural land with the owners having their property compulsorily resumed.
I spoke in support of a inquiry to give affected landowners a voice as the government bulldozes over them on their way off the wind and solar cliff.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to acknowledge the people in the gallery. My brothers and sisters in Queensland amongst the rural sector were at a property rights conference just last Friday. The stories about the so-called green power—wind and solar—are well and truly horrific.
People are just starting to wake up to the blight that is coming upon this country. And it’s not just the city people paying for power; it’s rural landholders and farmers losing their land, losing their livelihoods and losing their health. The social, economic and moral impacts are enormous and devastating. And the anti-human Greens are responsible.
I want to compliment the farmers who have come here today. Thank you so much, because what you’re showing is democracy in action. You’re putting pressure on the people down here in this chamber. We are paid by these people. We serve them.
Recently I was in the wonderful Widgee community to listen to people about the Queensland government’s plan to destroy their national park and communities in order to build a high voltage powerline. Electricity transmission has become a controversial topic in recent years. The UN’s 2050 net zero—next to zero—needs a huge spend on wind turbines and solar panels, inevitably located in the bush and requiring tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines to bring the power all the way to the cities.
Long transmission lines were not needed when coal power kept lights on and fridges running, lifting our beautiful country into a period of prosperity and stability.
The woke Left—the socialist Left—are destroying what works and replacing it with a short-lived, unscientific exercise in feelings. Net zero will need $50 billion spent just on transmission lines, every cent of which will come out of the pockets of everyday Australians and electricity users, including manufacturers. Queensland Premier Palaszczuk’s plan for a big battery in the Pioneer Valley calls for peak generation of five million kilowatts of electricity to be delivered into a 275-kilovolt transmission line. It’s absolute insanity, deceit and arrogance. Premier, where’s the costing on the several thousand kilometres of additional lines necessary to carry that amount of power into the grid without melting the wires? Are you forgetting that melted wires is exactly what happened when the Kennedy renewables project was connected to the grid, and that was less than one per cent of the Pioneer project?
It’s a fact that Katherine Myers from Victoria addressed the Property Rights conference in Gympie on the weekend. She told us that 80 per cent of solar and wind in western Victoria is not connected to the grid. You guys have blown that money and now you’re wanting to tear up farms to get it to the cities. Once wind and solar wear out, which takes only 12 years—and that’s the reason they’re called renewables, by the way—and taxpayers become jack of this ruinous drain on public finances the bush will be left a wasteland of glass, toxic chemicals, rusted steel towers, concrete and fallen wind turbines full of oil and dangerous chemicals. Do you know why they’re called renewables? Because you have to renew the bloody things every 12 years. In the space of building one power station you need to build four generations of solar and wind. That’s why they’re renewables.
Wires melting is exactly what happened when the Kennedy renewables project was connected to the grid, and that’s less than one per cent of the Pioneer project. Nothing stacks up—nothing. Their owners are Bahamian shelf companies and Chinese shelf companies, which have no intention of remediating this inevitable environmental disaster. Who will be left with this legacy of blown toxic panels and wind turbines? You will be. That’s why we need this inquiry to explore this issue.
One Nation stands opposed to green vandalism underway in rural Australians’ backyards just so that wealthy, ignorant and uncaring inner-city anti-human Greens and teals can feel better about their inhuman energy consumption myths. Why do the Greens hate nature? Let’s look at their track record. They chop down trees to make way for steel and fibreglass monuments to the sky god of warming, who is celebrated with religious fervour by people who think themselves too clever for religion. Tens of thousands of hectares have been cleared and devastated for electricity interconnector easements. It’s a permanent scar across the landscape for no reason.
The seabed is marked with two new interconnectors to get hydropower from Tasmania to energy deficient Victoria. Suicide is what’s going on with the Victorian government. They’re suiciding their state. Productive farmland and native grasses are covered in a carpet of glass and silicon reflectors. The sea is supposed to shine, not the countryside. Productive land is dug up as a graveyard for expired wind turbine blades. There’s strip mining of the seabed for rare earth minerals to make EVs and big batteries. Beautiful natural lakes in China are polluted with toxic chemical run-off from the processing of rare earths. The Greens look the other way with this environmental vandalism because ignoring environmental standards is essential to bring the price of solar down so that they can claim the price of solar is falling.
This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. So there’s China’s environmental standards and the health of the locals, but who cares about children being devastated? Our beautiful bird life is sliced and diced in wind turbines across the country. If oil were the culprit, they would never shut up about birds. But with wind turbines: ‘Shoosh. No-one mention the dead birds.’
I make this offer to the Greens: come camping with me. Let me show you the beauty of this amazing countryside and then perhaps then you will be less likely to chop it down; cover it in glass, steel and concrete; pollute it; and lock it away so nobody but a chosen few can appreciate the beauty. One Nation is now the party of the environment.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/2YdRg6yeY9o/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-15 17:10:062023-06-15 17:10:11Australia turning into a spiderweb of high voltage transmission lines
During the recent Senate Estimates, I questioned the Reserve Bank about the effect of the ascendant BRICS alliance on the Reserve bank’s holdings of US Dollars (USD) and US Treasuries (UST). I also asked Mr Lowe about his expectations of the US Economy’s movement in the next few years and how this may affect Australia. Mr Lowe avoided any pessimistic projections regarding the US economy.
I then asked if the Reserve Bank was increasing its gold reserves as a precaution against the BRICS group releasing a gold-backed currency. The RBA has actually reduced our gold reserves from a peak of $5.2 billion to $3.9 billion now. The answer I received was also negative.
I think this is a mistake. Australia should be increasing our gold reserves as a hedge against international currency fluctuations in the uncertain times ahead.
Transcript
Chair: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: I have a question about the Reserve Bank’s reserves. Let me get to it by giving some background. At the BRICS meeting in Cape Town on 2 and 3 June, 13 nations will formally apply to join BRICS, which is currently Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa—and Saudi Arabia, with an each-way bet. Candidate nations include Mexico, Argentina, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Indonesia and Iran. BRICS is now the world’s largest trading bloc, accounting for 25 per cent of world trade which is expected to grow to 50 per cent by 2030. And it’s big in oil. BRICS member states are abandoning the US dollar in favour of using their own currency or the Chinese renminbi in an environment where other countries, including Australia, are doing the same thing. Pakistan is now buying Russian oil and renminbi. The US dollar is now denominating just 58 per cent of all world trade. The United States has printed $10 trillion over the last seven years, doubling their M2 money supply. That increase has been absorbed in part by an increase in international trade. As the world moves away from the US dollar the value of the US dollar may fall. The Reserve Bank holds United States treasuries and dollars. Have you modelled the effect on your balance sheet from that probable fall in the value of US holdings.
Mr Lowe: Not as a result of these other global changes you’ve talked about. We spend a lot of time and part of our risk management processes looking at volatility in currencies, because currencies move around all the time, don’t they? That affects the value of those assets on our balance sheet, so we model that from a risk-management perspective. Despite the developments you’re talking about, most countries still hold the bulk of their foreign reserves in US dollars. There’s diversification going on, which is good, but the US dollar is going to remain the dominant currency for some time.
Senator Roberts: What is the value of Reserve Bank holdings of US dollar and US treasuries in Australian dollars?
Mr Lowe: Our total foreign reserves at the moment I think are the equivalent of U$35 billion. What’s the share, Brad?
Dr Jones: I think it’s 55 per cent.
Mr Lowe: Roughly half of that $35 billion is allocated to US dollars, and then we have holdings of yen, Korean won, euros and rmb.
Senator Roberts: What about treasuries?
Mr Lowe: When we hold US dollars we invest it in US Treasury securities. We don’t invest in bank deposits or any other securities. We invest in US government securities.
Senator Roberts: What’s the reverse holding of Australian government currency and bonds held by the US government or their agencies?
Mr Lowe: We don’t have data on that.
Senator Roberts: Could you get that on notice?
Mr Lowe: No.
Senator Roberts: You don’t have it?
Mr Lowe: We don’t have data on specific holdings of other countries.
Dr Jones: If I understood your question correctly, Senator, the US holds euros and yen, from recollection, but not in large quantities.
Senator Roberts: While that arrangement helps with international stability across holdings, it is a method for backdoor quantitative easing. Does the Reserve Bank expect to increase your holding of US treasuries in the next 12 months?
Mr Lowe: We’ve just done an exercise where we were looking at how much of our balance sheet should be held in foreign assets. We said we’ve got $35 billion at the moment. As the size of the economy grows you would expect that to gradually increase. But, no, nothing dramatic. As the economy grows and the nominal value of the Australian economy gets bigger, then you would expect a bigger portfolio in US dollars and foreign currency.
Senator Roberts: The Reserve Bank has a mission to anticipate movements in major trading partners and in world markets. As it affects your provisioning and portfolio, does the Reserve Bank anticipate being affected by any out of the ordinary moves in financial markets in connection with the US economy or the US dollar over forward estimates?
Mr Lowe: We’ve recently been focused on the US debt limit issues in the US. If an agreement had not been reached there, that would have had implications for currency markets and economies around the world. So that’s one thing that we’ve looked at carefully. It looks like that has been resolved, thankfully. And, just as part of our general risk management exercise, we’re looking at developments in other economies and their implications for currency markets in own economy.
Dr Jones: As a general rule though, the way the bank has operated its reserves has changed quite a bit over the last, say, 25 years, and now the bank effectively sets key benchmarks and sticks to them. There are not big discretionary decisions going on every day. There’s wild speculation going on at the Reserve Bank, I can assure you, about the future value of exchange rates.
Senator Roberts: I wasn’t implying that. Worldwide purchases of US treasuries by central banks has fallen $600 billion in 2022 as compared to a baseline year of 2013. That’s just arbitrary—2013. Purchases of gold have increased $300 billion. So something is going on that Australia would be prudent to hedge against. Is the Reserve Bank increasing its gold reserves as an each way bet against BRICS introducing a gold brick currency of some form?
Mr Lowe: No, we’re not. We’ve got our gold reserves. We haven’t bought and sold for a long time and we have no intention of changing that at the moment.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Br6XLHZsdN8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-14 16:28:132023-06-15 17:26:51Is the Reserve Bank in Denial?
At Senate Estimates I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics about the accuracy of the data they publish.
Many Australians, politicians, government officials and media should be watching the ABS data for signals that there could be a problem with our COVID response. Births and deaths would be the main indicators.
The ABS are slow in producing this data and don’t appear to understand that these datasets should be produced faster than pre COVID times.
In addition, the ABS has been loading incomplete data and not labelling it as such. After this was pointed out to them during our last senate estimates, the dataset referenced was changed to include the label “incomplete”.
How many other datasets are labelled as final when in fact they are incomplete?
The answers showed that the data for Provisional Mortality only includes doctor-certified deaths (which we knew) but that the comparison baseline includes ALL deaths, including coroner-certified deaths (which we didn’t).
This means the ABS has not been comparing apples with apples, and the figure for Provisional Mortality understates actual deaths by 15%.
What this means is that unexplained deaths in Australia is over 30,000 in 2022. Around 10,000 of those are attributed to COVID.
What are the other 20,000 deaths?
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you all for appearing today. My first questions go to accuracy of data. In the last estimates session, we had a conversation around the accuracy of one of your datasets. I want to follow up on that. The dataset is births by year and month of occurrence by state. It’s available in your Data Explorer. The conversation was around the reduction in births shown towards the end of 2021, and that reduction was quite dramatic. I accept your position that this effect is caused by delays in reporting of birth, and a lot of December’s reports came through in January. Is this correct so far?
Dr Gruen: That is correct. There’s a pattern, which is repeated every year, which is that the first unrevised estimate of births in December is of the order of 6,000 or 7,000, and then, once you have the final numbers, the final numbers are of the order of 22,000 or 23,000. So, there is an enormous revision for precisely the reason you just mentioned—namely, not everyone has recorded the birth of their child. I think they have other things on their mind than making sure that the ABS gets its numbers right.
Senator Roberts: The dataset is titled ‘birth by month of occurrence’, not ‘births by month of reporting’. 2021 data was not available until 19 October 2022. Why was 10 months insufficient time to completely compile the full 2021 calendar year? I note that December is still showing 6,600 births against an expected 20,000 in your Data Explorer, as you’ve just said. Why is this data still incomplete 17 months later—and still wrong?
Dr Gruen: It’s unrevised; I wouldn’t use the word ‘wrong’. The answer is we have a schedule of births which has been the same schedule for an extended period. We haven’t yet got the revised numbers for 2021, but, when we do, we have a pretty good idea of the order of magnitude that they’ll be. This hasn’t changed. We’ve be doing it on this timetable for many years.
Senator Roberts: The database now carries a warning—thank you for this—’incomplete data’. Have you made a note of where else incomplete data is being loaded into your Data Explorer and ensured incomplete data warnings are attached as you load that data?
Dr Gruen: We provide preliminary data for a range of series, and we did more of that during COVID because we thought it was important for people who were making decisions to have the most up-to-date data that they could possibly have. So, we brought forward some releases, understanding that they would not be complete, and we were transparent about that. It is certainly the case that revisions are part of producing statistics, whether it’s births or the national accounts. The national accounts also get revised. It’s a common feature. We do not revise the quarterly CPI because there are legislative indexation arrangements. Again, it’s a longstanding practice that we do not revise the CPI, but, for many other series, revisions are a standard practice.
Senator Roberts: I don’t think anyone would complain, Dr Gruen, about data needing to be revised. Maybe the speed of it might be something we might inquire about, but what I was getting to was: are there any other datasets on your Data Explorer that need the words ‘incomplete data’ as a warning? Bad decisions are made off bad data, and it becomes misinformation.
Dr Gruen: I don’t think it’s misinformation. We are as transparent as we can possibly be about the nature of the data. For instance, we put out provisional data for deaths, which we have actually discussed in previous estimates hearings.
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Dr Gruen: That is based on the available information two months after the end of the reference period, and those are also revised subsequently. When we first started producing that data, again, that was during the early phase of COVID. We did it purely on the basis of doctor certified deaths, which is about 80 to 85 per cent of overall deaths. We’ve managed to include some coroner certified deaths in that series, but it’s still incomplete when it’s first published two months after the period. So there are several datasets where we are very clear about the fact that they’re not the final data and that extra data will come in for the period that we’re talking about.
Senator Roberts: I’m advised that the incomplete data warning arrived after our session last time.
Dr Gruen: That is possible.
Senator Roberts: So I’m just wondering if there are any others. The dataset ‘Causes of Death, Australia’ for calendar year 2021 was released in October last year. Can you confirm that 2022 will be released no later than October this year?
Dr Gruen: I’m sure there’ll be someone here who can tell you for sure. Around October is when we publish the annual data for the previous year, but we can take that on notice and give you an answer, for sure.
Senator Roberts: The provisional mortality figure is still showing that deaths are running above the previous known range. Has the ABS received any request from any minister or department—federal or state—for an explanation of where the increase is or what data the ABS has which could cast light on that substantial increase in mortality?
Dr Gruen: We do talk about provisional deaths, and we do talk about what proportion of those are people who died with, or of, COVID and from other causes, so I don’t think there’s a mystery about what is happening. We get lots of requests for our data, so I can’t answer the question. Since it’s on the website—
Senator Roberts: They wouldn’t need to ask you.
Dr Gruen: That’s right.
Senator Roberts: I was just wondering, in particular, whether Health had asked, but, as you said, they don’t need to. Do you send reports routinely, or do you just publish on the website?
Dr Gruen: We publish, and we answer media inquiries. We have outposted people in many of the departments in Canberra, and we have continuing discussions with them. If a department had a specific request, it would be straightforward for them to ask us.
Senator Roberts: There’s a disparity between datasets that I would like to ask about. Starting with the publication ‘Provisional mortality statistics, Jan 2020-Dec 2021’, which was released on 30 March 2022, the key statistic is that 149,486 doctor certified deaths occurred in 2021. If I then go to your Data Explorer, the figure for ‘Deaths and infant deaths, year and month of occurrence’, shows deaths in 2021 to be 160,891.
Dr Gruen: Is the subsequent number published? The number you first quoted is the number that was available from doctor certified deaths up until the end of March, and then the second number you quoted comes from more recent data. Is that correct?
Senator Roberts: I don’t know when that was published, but it shows deaths in 2021 to be 160,891, which is higher. So, I understand the difference in deaths because some would be autopsy certified and take time to come through; is that correct?
Dr Gruen: Yes, that’s right. As we say when we publish those provisional death numbers, they are provisional. They are the data that we have available on the date at which we finalised the numbers. As I said earlier, doctor certified deaths are something like 80 to 85 per cent of all deaths, so the number goes up when you add the coroner certified deaths.
Senator Roberts: It includes the autopsies. Is the figure on this graph for the baseline average calculated using provisional mortality or using final data from the ‘Causes of Death, Australia’ dataset?
Dr Gruen: We can check, but I’m pretty confident that it’s final.
Senator Roberts: Would that then include autopsy deaths?
Dr Gruen: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Provisional mortality is a widely shared dataset that informs much debate around our COVID response. It’s running well above our historical range. From today’s exchange, we know that the figure for provisional mortality understates actual rates of mortality. Your dataset does make that clear, so this isn’t a criticism.
Dr Gruen: No.
Senator Roberts: What I would like to know is: by how much does provisional mortality understate actual mortality in percentage terms on average? I think you’re saying 85 per cent?
Dr Gruen: I think the number that we get two months after the reference period is about 85 per cent of the final number.
Senator Roberts: I’d like to go briefly to data collection. A constituent of mine in Queensland has contacted me in person during a listening session in Rockhampton just recently. This elderly lady, who is single—widowed—and lives alone had a terrifying interaction with the Australian Bureau of Statistics that raises questions about either the staff training or your understanding of the fair exercise of power. The ABS maintained a dataset called the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey, which apparently involves Australians being selected at random to participate. The survey consists of an Australian Bureau of Statistics officer visiting the selected person’s home and taking their height, weight, blood pressure and waist measurement, which is compulsory. Then the citizen has the option of submitting a voluntary blood and urine sample. Is that correct?
Dr Gruen: I think so. I think that is correct.
Senator Roberts: The constituent in this case advised the ABS worker that she lives alone. After receiving a series of letters they thought was a joke, an ABS field worker came by her home in the dark at 6.30 pm, showed her credentials, asked for her by name and advised that the constituent must submit to the government mandated physical. When the constituent declined, she was threatened by your worker with a fine of $220 per day until she submitted to this physical examination by a complete stranger. Is that how the ABS runs its survey?
Dr Gruen: Well, I can’t comment on a specific event. We obviously do our best to treat people in a dignified way. It is true that the surveys that we run are compulsory, but we also allow for the possibility that people who have extenuating circumstances can apply not to be part of the survey, and people do do that on occasions. It is important, in order to be able to collect data that is representative, that we can indeed choose a representative sample, but it is also true that, for people who are in circumstances in which they find it particularly difficult or who are in the circumstances that you described, we are understanding.
Senator Roberts: That goes to my next question. Why can’t you get this information from hospital records for admitted patients with de-identified data? Why pull names out of a hat, knock on their door, call out for them by name and terrorise them into submission? It seems like a massive overreach when there are alternative ways of doing it. Maybe the alternative ways are not entirely random, but they could be made so, couldn’t they?
Dr Gruen: Just to make it clear: our aim is not to terrify people.
Senator Roberts: This lady was terrified.
Dr Gruen: Well, I’m sorry about that. We obviously train our interviewers to be sensitive to people. On the general issue of being able to find alternative ways to get the data, we are very much alive to those possibilities. What you’re talking about is an example of using big data instead of surveys, and there’s a worldwide move from national statistical offices to do precisely that both because the big datasets that are becoming available—there are increasing numbers of them. For instance, early in COVID we started using single-touch payroll from the tax office to be able to give high-quality, up-to-date information about employment. That’s an example of a big dataset. But it is also true that response rates around the world are falling because people are, for whatever reason, getting less happy to respond to the surveys of the national statistical offices. That’s another push factor to lead us to do precisely what you’re suggesting. Now, we haven’t accessed the particular dataset that you have talked about, but the general proposition that we are moving in the direction of using big data and taking the burden off individuals and businesses is very much a journey that we’re on.
Ms Dickinson: For some of the surveys that we run, there are not alternative sources that we could avail ourselves of, and the survey that you referred to—the nutrition survey—has quite a range of questions that we ask people before we come to the physical measurements. It’s things like diet. We ask people to recall what they have eaten and sometimes do a food diary. That’s the type of thing that we can’t get from big data and in which there’s quite a range of interests from users, including the Department of Health, Treasury and so on.
Senator Roberts: By big data you mean data that can be automatically collected or harvested from existing datasets?
Ms Dickinson: Yes, such from the example that you gave, such as hospital data.
Senator Roberts: Okay. Have you ever fined someone for refusal?
Dr Gruen: Yes. And we fine a small number of people for not filling in the census.
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Dr Gruen: But not a large number. We have 10 million households fill it in and the number of people we fine is very small.
Senator Roberts: Minister, are you happy that this elderly widow was terrified?
Senator Gallagher: I’m sure the ABS and Dr Gruen would be very happy to follow up an individual matter, if you’re able to support your constituent to raise that—if she felt vulnerable over that. I think that resolving these issues is important and there are ways to do that. I’d certainly encourage you to think about how you could facilitate that. I also totally support the need to seek this information, because it helps in so many ways to understand what’s going on. Currently, for example, I’ve been selected for one of the household surveys—I think it’s for nine months. Do you get selected for that—
Ms Connell: Eight.
Senator Gallagher: Eight months—
Chair: You can—
Senator Gallagher: It was made very clear to me when I inquired about having to do it—the compulsory nature of it—and the consequences for not filling things out every month—
Senator Ruston: They didn’t believe you when you said you were too busy, did they?
Senator Gallagher: I had very helpful advice from the ABS when I rang to try to get out of it! I was told, politely, that those were not grounds for getting out of it. But that’s how we get information about what’s happening across the country.
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Senator Gallagher: And I don’t think that anyone who’s sitting here would say that they took any comfort in thinking that an elderly woman felt terrified by it; that’s not the intent, and I’m sure there are ways to work through that.
Senator Roberts: I applaud your comments about the need to use data in government but I don’t see much of it—and I’m not talking about this government on its own, I’m talking about previous governments as well. One of the sad things is that government doesn’t use data when making policy and legislation, in my view.
Senator Gallagher: But it’s not just for government. So many people rely on the ABS datasets for their work.
Senator Roberts: Dr Gruen, you mentioned something that I took to mean people are becoming more reluctant to share data—
Dr Gruen: More reluctant to participate in surveys.
Senator Roberts: Is that due to the pushback because of—well, what is the cause? Is it due, partly or maybe majorly, to the intrusion into people’s lives during COVID?
Dr Gruen: It’s a phenomenon that predates COVID, and it’s global. It happens in all countries. I’m aware that there has been a gradual decline in response rates to surveys. We have higher response rates than most advanced countries for many of our high-profile surveys, like the Labour Force Survey, which I think must be the one the minister is enrolled in.
Senator Gallagher: Mine is the household one.
Dr Gruen: Oh, can I—
Senator Gallagher: They want to know how many people in my house, what we’re doing and how hard we’re working. I’m skewing the statistics!
Dr Gruen: That’s the Labour Force Survey.
Senator Gallagher: Is it?
Dr Gruen: We have the labour force expert behind us.
Senator Gallagher: Okay!
Senator Roberts: In which way are you skewing the statistics?
Senator Gallagher: Because I work so much! I’m off the scale!
Senator Roberts: Oh, off the scale.
Senator Gallagher: And it’s, ‘Why are you working so hard?’ I fill it all out.
Dr Gruen: On the web?
Senator Gallagher: Yes.
Dr Gruen: Good, I like to hear that.
Senator Roberts: Because a pesky senator is asking questions in Senate estimates! Thank you, Chair.
Chair: I’ve got distracted and entirely lost control of the committee!
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ktfHpyahicM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-13 17:36:192023-06-14 15:23:57Incomplete data leads to incomplete conclusions
I have many constituents email me their concerns about mRNA vaccines for cattle.
In the recent Senate Estimates I shared their concerns with Meat and Livestock Australia, who are project managing the development of mRNA vaccines for cattle in Australia.
I asked them about the project and MLA responded saying that mRNA vaccines for cattle are in the early stages of development in Canada, but not Australia.
They do not know if they will work and if they can be used without altering the health or the genetics of the animal. These are the things the MLA are watching out for.
If an mRNA vaccine is developed, then the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicine Authority will have to put the vaccine through its own safety testing before approval.
I can also add that the stories on the internet about death of cattle after mRNA vaccines are wrong. The video being used is from other incidents, including the use of poison feed.
mRNA vaccines are not in use in cattle in Australia, and as far as I am aware, anywhere in the western world.
Although we don’t need to worry immediately about these gene shots in our cattle, we will keep an eye on how this unfolds overseas.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing tonight. I refer to questions on notice dated 28 February 2023. Question SQ23-0002000 is going to be distributed. It is from February estimates regarding the development of mRNA vaccines. A copy will be coming. Do you agree with this answer as it was written at the time?
Mr Strong: This is a question to us and an answer we provided?
Senator Roberts: I’m not sure if you were in the room at the time. Maybe Mr Metcalfe took it.
Mr Metcalfe: Sorry, Senator. I wasn’t paying attention.
Senator Roberts: That’s alright. You undertook to take this question on notice for people who weren’t in the room. I think you did it for two or three groups last time.
Mr Strong: The highlighted piece that you are asking about on this first one?
Senator Roberts: Yes. Do you agree with this answer as it was written at the time? Has anything changed since then?
Chair: Which one are we on, Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: It is SQ23-000200.
Mr Metcalfe: I think MLA is being asked whether there is any update to the reference to 200, Jason. I think we are being asked about 128. Senator, I will undertake to see whether there is any update to 128. I don’t have the relevant staff here because they’ve all gone home. I am not sure whether MLA can assist you in relation to the question.
Mr Strong: Yes is the short answer, Senator. We would still agree with the answer that has been provided here. It is a research project that is still going through the research process now.
Senator Roberts: You are involved?
Mr Strong: Correct.
Senator Roberts: In supporting the development of mRNA vaccines for cattle? It’s under development at the moment, but it hasn’t been approved?
Mr Strong: So involved. I’m absolutely not trying to be cute. We are involved in the research to look at the potential use and development of mRNA vaccines. There is not the commercial use of an mRNA vaccine for a veterinary purpose at this stage.
Senator Roberts: That’s right.
Mr Strong: This research project is looking at that. Can it be done? Can it be done in a safe way? Can it be done in a way that produces a vaccine that provides a level of efficacy we need? Can it be done in a commercial way?
Senator Roberts: I think the third criteria you had was that it doesn’t contaminate the food.
Mr Strong: Of course. And it has to be commercial.
Senator Roberts: I want to unpick the whole third paragraph. Firstly, this answer indicates that a lumpy skin vaccine will undergo testing in Canada. Is it still being tested in Canada and not Australia?
Mr Strong: The research is being conducted in Canada to develop the mRNA type vaccine. For any vaccine to be approved here, it would have to go through an approval and testing process here. But the research is being done in Canada. We probably could have been clearer in the way that was written.
Senator Roberts: The TGA, which did not do live patient testing in this country, relied on the FDA. The FDA in turn did not do any testing; it relied on Pfizer. Unlike them, you will do thorough testing?
Mr Strong: We’re very confident of the standards in place and the requirements we have to comply with for veterinary medicines in Australia. We will absolutely comply with them. I think we all have a level of concern and confusion in this space from what we have seen and heard in the last few years. Luckily, in Australia, we have a very sound and detailed approval process. Absolutely we will make sure any research we do in this space is connected to that process.
Senator Roberts: I would like to get into that. The TGA admitted, in answering my questions at the last Senate estimates, that they did not do testing with live patients. They relied upon data from the FDA in America. The FDA also admitted that they didn’t do live testing. They relied upon data from Pfizer, the producers. Do our testing requirements require proper testing in this country?
Mr Strong: Yes, they do. I think there are some big differences between what we all experienced over that two or three-year period and what we are doing here. The main one is that we have more time and human lives aren’t at risk. If we don’t get positive results out of the tests with the research that is being done on these mRNA vaccines, we can stop. If there are different paths we have to take, we can do that. If we need to take more time, we can do that. I think the two examples are sufficiently different that we can have confidence that we will be able to stick to a very disciplined research and development and then testing, pre-approval and approval process for any potential new vaccine.
Senator Roberts: It is good to know that the mRNA technology is still new. It hasn’t been tested properly in humans at all. What makes you confident that your test will pick up any problems in cattle?
Mr Strong: Nothing is the short answer to start with. The follow-on from that is that it is exactly what you just said; it is new technology. A very important part of this research is to learn about that. If it has the utility that we think it should have and the ability to manufacture the type of vaccine which is actually safer for animals and easier to use and more effective, it provides a fantastic potential opportunity and we absolutely should explore that. But we absolutely have to do that in a way that protects the safety of the animals and the food chain and, obviously, the consumers.
Senator Roberts: Because the reputation of mRNA now has been tarnished well and truly. People will be wary about eating something that has mRNA in it and eating that meat.
Mr Strong: We will be very conscious of those consumer and community views in the space.
Senator Roberts: Will the meat be labelled?
Mr Strong: I don’t know the labelling requirements for what would happen with an animal that has been vaccinated. Like I said, that hasn’t existed previously. Labelling requirements is something that absolutely would be part of the approval process. Of course we would rely on the Australian authorities to make those rulings.
Mr Beckett: It is a bit early in the consideration. Those things will all be dressed.
Senator Roberts: What is that, Mr Beckett?
Mr Beckett: I said it is early in the consideration of the whole research. Those things will certainly be considered in the process.
Senator Roberts: Overseas experts with regard to the COVID injections for humans say this new technology should have had 15 years of testing, not 15 months or nine months, and not rely just on Pfizer itself. Now we are finding out that the efficacy is negative for these injections. It doesn’t stop transmission. The authorities have acknowledged that. It needs to be very well tested over an extended period with cattle to make sure there is efficacy and to make sure it is safe and it is safe for humans. The mRNA vaccine for foot and mouth is also being tested in Australia, though, isn’t it?
Mr Strong: No. Not yet.
Senator Roberts: No, sorry. It will be tested in Australia. The testing will be in Australia at the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute located in the middle of a large dairy production area in Menangle. Is that right?
Mr Strong: No. Not necessarily. Before anything can come into Australia, it has to go through a very controlled and specific quarantine process. Nothing would actually be brought in and tested or released without appropriate controls.
Mr Metcalfe: Our department has to approve the import of such a virus. We would give extremely careful consideration to any application such as that for obvious reasons.
Senator Roberts: You would have to bring foot and mouth virus in?
Mr Metcalfe: Absolutely. We would probably need the chief veterinary officer and others to provide evidence to you about the management of that issue.
Senator Roberts: They are up next, I think.
Mr Metcalfe: No. I am only here because I am supporting the minister. The department is formally no longer here.
Senator Roberts: Will you be involved in that test, MLA?
Mr Strong: It’s too early to say. The research that we’re investing in is whether it is possible to produce vaccines using mRNA technology that would allow the treatment of diseases such as lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. That is the research.
Senator Roberts: So it’s very early days?
Mr Strong: Very early days, absolutely, yes.
Senator Roberts: Are you aware that the testing on mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease includes ensuring that the vaccine does not alter the DNA of the animal, thereby destroying generations of genetics? Australian farmers, whether dairy or beef, should be very proud of the genetics they’ve developed over the years. We don’t want the genes altered.
Mr Strong: Absolutely we don’t. Again, it’s too early in the process. I am sure those things will be part of the consideration if there’s any potential risk from that.
Senator Roberts: The answer to question SQ23-000128 precludes the precautionary use of an mRNA vaccine for foot-and-mouth disease or lumpy skin disease as it would remove our status as being disease free. Can you reassure the committee that this is still the position of Meat and Livestock Australia?
Mr Strong: I don’t think that was our position in that question. Wasn’t that a department question? Isn’t that what you were saying?
Mr Metcalfe: That was actually advice from the department to you, Senator. I have indicated that we’re happy to update. If there are any changes, we’re happy to update it. It was only provided a couple of months ago. I would be surprised if there is anything to update.
Senator Roberts: If you could just let us know.
Mr Metcalfe: We’ve taken that on notice already.
Senator Roberts: Let us know if it remains constant or if it has changed.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/q2gP9au7gpo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-13 14:45:192023-06-13 14:45:24Is there an mRNA Vaccine for Australian Cattle?
The huge increase in immigration to over 400,000 new arrivals in 2023 is the primary cause of the rental crisis gripping our nation, and particularly in regional Queensland (ABC News 3/4/2023).
Queensland is short thousands of homes, with no plans to catch up on building all of the houses we will need in the future.
Join me on Saturday, 24 June 2023 to discuss our plans for a future with better housing and more affordable living.
