Fraud Investigation of Aboriginal Funding in the Northern Territory

In mid-September of this year, a Matter of Urgency was referred to Mr Grant Hehir, the Commonwealth Auditor General, Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) by Senator Michaela Cash.

The issue was allegations that millions of taxpayer dollars had been the subject of fraud and corruption amongst senior staff of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and that a decision was made by ANAO not to investigate these allegations. I wanted to know why.

During senate estimates, Mr Hehir informed me that it was true that a decision had been made by ANAO not to investigate the allegations and that this decision was made purely because a review into this is already being undertaken by the Attorney-General’s office. Mr Hehir said that ANAO is not an investigatory body and therefore any fraud investigation is not within its remit.

In the case of suspicion of fraud, ANAO could refer it to the appropriate body. ANAO’s role in this case would be to undertake a performance audit and an audit of the government programme that funded this entity. The North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency receives government funding of $20 million to provide legal services in the area. I think an audit is long overdue.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. In mid-September this year a matter of urgency was referred to the Commonwealth Auditor-General, Mr Hehir, and the Australian National Audit Office by the
shadow legal affairs spokesperson, Michaelia Cash. The issue was the allegation that millions of taxpayer dollars had been the subject of fraud and corruption amongst senior staff of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. Allegations were made of extensive criminal conduct by some members of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency’s leadership. Is it true that a decision was made by ANAO not to investigate the allegations?

Mr Hehir: We made a decision not to undertake an audit in that area after making inquiries into the space and identifying that a review in the area was being undertaken by—

Ms Mellor: Attorneys-general—around the jurisdictions.

Mr Hehir: Attorneys-general. We felt that it was best for that process to play out before we did anything, noting that we’re not an investigatory body, so we wouldn’t go in and undertake a fraud investigation. We would go in and do a performance audit of, effectively, the control framework of the entity, not a—

Ms Mellor: Corruption investigation.

Mr Hehir: corruption or a fraud investigation. That’s not within our mandate. That’s not what we do.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct me if I’m wrong here—I’m jumping ahead—but, if you went in and found evidence of fraud, someone else would come in and investigate it.

Mr Hehir: We would give it off to an investigative body, whether it be the AFP, the NACC or someone like that, to do it.

Senator ROBERTS: So there was already an investigation of that kind going on.

Mr Hehir: I understand there’s a review being—

Ms Mellor: The jurisdictional attorneys-general agreed to conduct a joint review.

Senator ROBERTS: So it had nothing to do with the referendum that was upcoming or anything like that. It was just purely—

Mr Hehir: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, that’s good.

Senator Colbeck: Do you conduct their annual audits?

Mr Hehir: It’s not a government entity.

Senator ROBERTS: So when will you review that decision and conduct an audit?

Mr Hehir: As I said, it’s not a government entity. So, if we were to audit, we would be auditing the government program that funded it. That’s the space that we would go in on. If there were information subsequent
to the review that the program looked like something that was worthwhile auditing, we would consider it in that context.

Senator ROBERTS: You may have to correct me if I’m wrong here, but is it possible that millions of dollars may have been misused when almost $20 million is provided to the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency each year to provide legal services? If that were your suspicion, you wouldn’t be doing it—you would hand it over to an investigative body.

Mr Hehir: If there were a suspicion of fraud, we wouldn’t investigate it—we would give it to an investigatory body. As I said, fraud investigation isn’t our purpose. When we do financial audits, we do control works to get assurance around whether fraud has been undertaken or not, but, again, if we suspect there’s fraud, we pass it onto someone else to do that sort of criminal-type investigation.

Senator ROBERTS: My further questions have to do with the corrupt use of money, so that’s not you—I mean, that’s not on you to investigate.

Chair: It’s maybe the agency that gives out the money. I might give the remaining time to Senator Nampijinpa Price.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d be happy with that.

Senator Colbeck: So, Mr Hehir, you would investigate the conduct of the program, not the operation of the organisation, because it’s not a government organisation.

Chair: No, you’d hand it over for criminal investigation.

Mr Hehir: We can follow the dollar into government funded entities and audit the entity. We do have the capacity to do that under our act.

/1 Comment/by

No Basis for Extreme Weather Predictions

The Australian Department of Treasury website states that extreme weather events are expected to occur with increased frequency and severity. I asked in the recent senate estimates what sources Treasury had based this prediction. I was informed that it was consistent with the government-stated position on climate change and climate action.

Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 6th Assessment Report on the Science says there have been no detectable increase in the number of natural disasters. It summarises the available scientific evidence on the signal of natural disasters and finds no change in signals for weather-related events, including river flood, rain in terms of heavy precipitation, landslide, drought, fire, wind speed, tropical cyclone, relative, sea level, coastal flood and marine heat wave.

The Minister was not prepared to take my question on notice regarding their source of empirical scientific data.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The next one is fairly straightforward. A statement on the Treasury website states that ‘Extreme weather events are also expected to occur with increased severity and frequency’. On what are you basing that statement?

Ms Kelley: We worked with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the AOFM in terms of the statement, and the statement is consistent with the government’s stated position on climate change and climate action. The statement uses publicly available information from the 2023-24 budget and the Annual Climate Change Statement.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure it’s consistent with lots of things, because you just told me where the sources of it are. I’ll go back to the quote: ‘Extreme weather events are also expected to occur with increased frequency and severity’. I’ll direct you to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s sixth assessment report on the science, chapter 12, table 12.12. That summarises the available scientific evidence on the signal of natural disasters. I’ll run through some of the types of disasters where the United Nations says there’s been no detectable increase in the number of natural disasters: frost; river flood; rain, measured in terms of heavy precipitation or mean precipitation; landslide; drought; fire weather; wind speed; windstorm; tropical cyclone; dust storm; heavy snowfall; hail; relative sea level; coastal flood; and marine heatwave. There’s been no change in signal for any of these events according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So I’m wondering what type of weather event this increased risk you are claiming is going to come from. What type of natural disaster are you talking about?

Ms Kelley: That’s probably not my area within the department, so—

Senator ROBERTS: Do you think I should take it up with the department that you copied your policy from?

Ms Kelley: Yes, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is probably the most appropriate department.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve taken their material and just placed it on your website? You’ve trusted them.

Ms Kelley: We have been wholly consistent with government policy in terms of the statement. It’s informed by a range of different pieces of evidence.

Senator ROBERTS: Great. Thank you very much.

Senator Gallagher: Senator Roberts, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Senator ROBERTS: No, we don’t have to agree to disagree. We just have to get the data. Perhaps you could take it on notice, Minister, to get me that data.

CHAIR: Thank you very much—

Ms Kelley: Sorry, could I just add to the question about—

Senator ROBERTS: I wouldn’t be winking about it, Senator Gallagher.

Senator Gallagher: Eh?

Senator ROBERTS: I wouldn’t be winking about it.

Senator Gallagher: No, well, this comes up a lot—

Senator ROBERTS: This is costing this country trillions. This is costing our country trillions of dollars.

Senator Gallagher: I think, fundamentally, we have a different—

Senator ROBERTS: Mine’s informed by the data.

Senator Gallagher: You strongly object to climate science. We don’t.

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t reject it. That’s a false statement. I don’t reject the climate science; I follow the climate science.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, thank you. Ms Kelley would like to make a final remark.

Ms Kelley: I just want to answer your question about the costs. I’ve got some clarification. We’ve borne our own costs, and Ms O’Donnell is bearing hers. There are no other decisions to be made about costs.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. I just make the point that the minister is not willing to provide me with a source for that advice to the government. You’re a senior member of the government.

Senator Gallagher: I think at a number of estimates hearings, on a number of questions on notice, that information has been provided, Senator Roberts. If there’s anything further we can provide, I’m happy to add—

Senator ROBERTS: Senator Gallagher, I need to correct you. The logical scientific points, with the empirical scientific data, have never been provided to me by anyone.

CHAIR: Thank you. Thank you, Minister. Senator Roberts, I’m just going to make the decision that there’s a repetition to your line of questioning. Thank you very much for your brevity in general.

/6 Comments/by

MEDIA RELEASE: CHINESE DIPLOMACY USELESS UNTIL AUSTRALIAN INTERESTS PUT FIRST

,

Senator Malcolm Roberts declared Prime Minister Albanese’s trip to China redundant while critical Australian manufacturing is offshored and essential commodities are shipped to the communist regime. He said:

“The net zero Transition is a national security risk to Australia and China knows it. China has a monopoly over almost every element of the wind, solar and battery supply chain.”

“China hasn’t had to apologise at all for its campaign of economic coercion against Australia to secure this meeting with Albanese. They will do it again if we try to stand for our interests.”

“China continued to be our number one trading customer throughout the diplomatic freeze, proving they need our high-quality coal and iron ore more than we need them.”

“We ship coal and iron ore to China, they use it to make cheap electricity and steel, then our net-zero chasing government pays to buy solar panels and steel wind turbines back off them.”

“The Labor government’s continued kowtowing to China on critical industries and dropping our sure-to-win WTO complaint over wine and barley will not work.”

“China will only ever respond to strength. If the previous years have taught us anything, it is that we should be doing everything we can do get out of Communist China Party supply chains and bring manufacturing back to Australia.”

231107-Statement-on-Albanese-Travel-to-China-Malcolm-RobertsDownload
/2 Comments/by

Event: Courage and Strength

MCJ Report is heading to Brisbane | Saturday, 18 November 2023

I will be joining:

  • Morgan Jonas (your host for the evening)
  • Avi Yemini
  • Rukshan Fernando
  • Craig Kelly
  • Renee Eaves
  • Steve Dickson

Secure your spot here: https://mcjreport.com/brisbane/

PLEASE NOTE: The venue is located in South Brisbane, and the address details will be sent via sms.

DATE

Saturday, 18 November 2023 | 6:30 PM – 9:30 PM (UTC+11)

/1 Comment/by

CSIRO’s GenCost is Just a Wind and Solar Fairy-tale!

Politicians keep telling Australia that “wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy” while they force Net-Zero down our throats. As proof, they point to a CSIRO document called GenCost, which supposedly estimates the cost of different types of electricity. Yet, it doesn’t estimate the costs of electricity today.

GenCost uses a whole bunch of assumptions that are favorable to wind and solar to claim they will be the cheapest… in 2030. GenCost doesn’t even include the cost of transmission, one of the largest expenses for wind and solar. Huge transmission costs are the reason wind and solar projects are sitting stranded in the outback connected to nothing. This is the same CSIRO that seemingly knows nothing about Snowy 2.0, which has blown out from $2 billion to over $20 billion for the project and associated infrastructure. They forecast the cost of pumped hydro storage will average less than a quarter of the current estimates for Snowy, the pumped hydro that’s actually being built.

To say I don’t trust CSIRO have the right answers on the actual cost of “renewables” is an understatement. The claim that wind and solar are the cheapest is simply a lie that ignores storage, transmission and intermittency. GenCost is just a fairy tale about the future, not an impartial analysis of what wind and solar costs today.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Welcome, Professor Hilton. I will put some questions on notice about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from human production. I would like to question the expert spokesman on GenCost.

Prof. Hilton: We are delighted you are asking questions about GenCost. One of the greatest challenges facing Australia is the transition of our energy sector. I am proud of the contribution that the GenCost report makes in this area. The report has been generated annually since 2018. It has evolved over time to take account of the changing technology landscape and the availability of new data. I anticipate that the report will continue to evolve.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to get to the heart of some of the issues that I see with GenCost. What was the cost first budgeted for pumped hydro energy storage Snowy 2?

Mr Graham: I might take that on notice. I am aware of the recent update to the cost, but I don’t have the original figure on me.

Senator ROBERTS: The original figure was $2 billion. What is it currently budgeted at?

Mr Graham: It is in the order of $12 billion.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct. How long are the tunnels for it?

Mr Graham: I don’t have that on hand.

Senator ROBERTS: It is 27 kilometres. How much of the tunnel have they bored so far in the last year, or just over a year?

Mr Graham: I am not tracking that measurement.

Senator ROBERTS: It is 150 metres. It has been bogged for about a year. When was it initially scheduled for completion?

Mr Graham: I don’t have that on me.

Senator ROBERTS: It was 2021. What has that blown out to now?

Mr Graham: Around 2029.

Senator ROBERTS: Earlier; 2028.

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, the official is indicating to you that he is happy to accommodate your line of questioning. However, detailed questions about the project details for Snowy Hydro are best dealt with in the environment estimates. I know you addressed these kinds of questions to Mr Barnes, the CEO of Snowy. You might direct questions to CSIRO which they can assist with. You mentioned your interest in the GenCost report— you might get better answers about that from the official.

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. They are now estimating the cost of the transmission infrastructure—which was left out of the original package—at $10 billion for it to be connected to the grid and be useful. That now makes it up to $22 billion for 2,200 megawatts of pumped hydro energy storage, which is $10 million per megawatt, or $10,000 per kilowatt. We won’t even get into the fact that it is only forecast to put out that capacity for an average of 26 minutes a day. What is the cost per kilowatt of pumped hydro you provided in GenCost?

Mr Graham: The Snowy 2.0 project is incredibly unique. It was approximately 170 hours duration for 2 gigawatts originally, but it is higher than that now: 2.2 to 2.5.

Senator ROBERTS: It is 2.2.

Mr Graham: No other project on the books in Australia that we are looking at has that type of profile. In GenCost we report pumped hydro projects more in the order of 12 to 48 hours, that kind of duration, which is
nowhere near the 170 hours for Snowy 2.0.

Senator ROBERTS: What is your capacity?

Mr Graham: We have a table in GenCost with a series of figures on the cost of pumped hydro. I’ll get the exact data for you.

Senator McAllister: Are you asking what role Mr Graham performs—

Senator ROBERTS: No: what is the cost per kilowatt-hour of pumped hydro you have provided in GenCost?

Mr Graham: I didn’t bring that table with me. I’ll have to get back to you with that on notice. That cost isn’t related to Snowy 2.0. It is related to other projects, which are much smaller.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I understand. In GenCost, what would it be, roughly? I won’t hold you to it.

Mr Graham: It is of the order of $2,500 a kilowatt.

Senator ROBERTS: Snowy 2, which is a real-life project that is not even finished yet, is $10,000. GenCost is built on modelling based on assumptions projected out to the future; is that correct, broadly?

Mr Graham: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: We don’t know from GenCost what it would cost to replace our coal-fired fleet with solar and wind today, and all the transmission lines and back-up storage. How useful is GenCost?

Mr Graham: We made the decision to focus GenCost on new-build generation and storage and some hydrogen technologies. There are other processes for, and reports that deal with, transmission. We don’t deal with
transmission. GenCost is designed for people to calculate the cost of building and replacing existing generation. But you can’t go to GenCost necessarily to look at issues around transmission.

Senator ROBERTS: Some of your opponents argue that GenCost is detached from reality. If we look at Snowy 2—I am not implying that you have anything to do with Snowy 2—right from the start, Minister, the
decision to build Snowy 2 was made without a cost-benefit analysis, and with a heavily redacted business case that could not be scrutinised. You have acknowledged that you are basically building models based on
assumptions and projecting them into the future. I don’t think the government has anything on what is going on right now. Is that right, Minister?

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I might get the official to revisit the evidence he has just provided about the way the calculations are developed for understanding the cost of hydro because I don’t think it is as you have described.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we have major solar and wind installations, industrial complexes, which are not connected to the grid. This is the level of planning that is going on at state and federal. They are not connected but they have been paid for, and I think that they are earning revenue. That is the reality.

Senator McAllister: I am not aware of the particular projects you are referring to, but they are certainly not things this agency can assist you with.

Senator ROBERTS: My question to you is: something that is projected into the future based on models and assumptions now is divorced from reality, and we need to know the cost now. Why are we embarking on this
journey with so much uncertainty?

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, you are asking me about energy policy. We have talked about it earlier in the week. We consistently have advice from a very wide range of sources—

Senator ROBERTS: Can you name some of them?

Senator McAllister: about firmed renewables being the lowest cost form of new energy in the Australian context. When AEMO looks at what is required to replace all of thermal generation that is coming to the end of its life over the next decade, they try to model—because they need to—the transmission that will optimally connect the optimal configuration of new generation. That AEMO work is not principally led by CSIRO. CSIRO have a capacity to contribute; I think the official can speak to the ways they do. I don’t wish to frustrate your efforts to have this discussion, but it is not in this portfolio.

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Minister. Thank you, Chair.

/1 Comment/by

Minister Gallagher Dodges Question About COVID Royal Commission

The Labor government has done everything it can to avoid the scrutiny of a Royal Commission into COVID despite promising a Royal Commission on several occasions. Instead, PM Albanese has announced an inquiry that is guaranteed to be a whitewash to try an appease the Australian public who have been waiting for the Royal Commission.

I asked the minister why the government is afraid of a Royal Commission. Her answer was instead directed at the inhouse inquiry which is essentially three insiders investigating their mates. This is a travesty after the suffering, disruption and death that the COVID years brought to Australia.

This inquiry is a cover-up. Australians deserve a Royal Commission to bring the truth to light and prevent the same mistakes from happening again.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, why do you fear a COVID royal commission, and is your support for the Chief Medical Officer and the TGA unequivocal?

Senator Gallagher: In relation to the second part, yes, absolutely. In relation to the first part, there is nothing to fear about the COVID inquiry.

Senator ROBERTS: There certainly isn’t.

Senator Gallagher: Hopefully genuine learnings will come out of it and we’ll all be better prepared for the next time we have a pandemic like that.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister.

/1 Comment/by

Does Australia have a Vaccine Queen Calling the Shots?

Australia’s premier vaccine sales advocate, the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) is in charge of recommending if the federal government should add more vaccines to the schedule. Yet it’s the same organisation monitoring for adverse events from the vaccines it promotes. I asked the Minister if that sounds like a suitable arrangement to her. I also asked why the Chair of NCIRS is also the chair of the government’s advisory committee on vaccines. Should the person who promotes new vaccines be a different person to the one looking for harms caused by the vaccine?

I understand that grant funding received by the Chair of the NCIRS is substantial and raises conflict of interest issues.

There is an obvious reluctance to confront the possibility of conflicts of interest by the government and its drug regulatory authority. We only need to look at the situation with Dr Fauci, with his vast research grants and his position as both the advisor, the safety officer and the marketeer of the products to understand the potential for conflicts of interest leading to harm.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we are coming towards the end of your block.

Senator ROBERTS: This is a scoping question to find out why the federal government funded National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance is not present at estimates. They bill themselves as Australia’s leading immunisation organisation that provides expert evidence on vaccine preventable diseases and all aspects of immunisation to inform policy and planning in Australia and our region. Why aren’t they here at estimates?

Prof. Kelly: Senator, they are not an agency of the Commonwealth. They are a research institute, in fact. They do some work for us in relation to surveillance and research into immunisation, as their name suggests. We do have the chair of ATAGI online. He does not work at NCIRS. NCIRS is a very strong supporter of the ATAGI work. If there is a question specifically in relation to that—

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I understand the chair of NCIRS is also the chair of your advisory committee on vaccines, which recommends vaccines to the government. Is that correct?

Prof. Kelly: That’s a matter for the TGA. She is on that committee.

Prof. Lawler: I understand that’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. A program within the NCIRS is AusVaxSafety, which monitors safety signals, meaning adverse events from vaccinations through the body. There is the Adverse Events Following
Immunisation Clinical Assessment Network, or AEFI-CAN. How do you come up with all these acronyms? Here we have an organisation which, according to their About Us website page, is Australia’s premier vaccine sales advocate. The NCIRS is in charge of recommending if the federal government should add more vaccines to the schedule. That same organisation also monitors for adverse events from the vaccines it promotes. Minister, does that sound like a suitable arrangement to you?

Senator Gallagher: Sorry, Senator Roberts, you will have to repeat that.

Senator ROBERTS: We have an organisation—

Senator Gallagher: Is this ATAGI?

Senator ROBERTS: No, NCIRS. It is in charge of recommending if the federal government should add more vaccines to the schedule. That same organisation also monitors for adverse events from the vaccines it promotes. So it advocates for vaccines and it supposedly monitors for the events.

Senator Gallagher: That is not part of the regulatory framework of government.

Prof. Kelly: The TGA is the main provider of information about adverse events from vaccination. The NCIRS does run something. It’s actually on behalf of NSW Health, as I understand it, but we can place that on notice.

Senator Gallagher: The TGA provides reports regularly online.

Prof. Lawler: So in addition to what both the minister and Professor Kelly have said, the TGA undertakes both approval and post-approval monitoring of adverse events associated with approved goods. We do produce
and publish the database of adverse event notifications. I don’t know whether Elspeth Kay, our assistant secretary from the pharmacovigilance branch, would have anything to add.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. My interest here is possible conflicts of interest. Minister, you had the same person, Professor McCartney, as chair of all these bodies—the ones I went through before that question.
Should the person who promotes new vaccines be a different person to the one looking for harms caused by the vaccine? You seem to set up Professor McCartney as some sort of vaccine queen. Is it correct that Professor McCartney has received $65 million in research grants over the last five or so years? If so, what were those research grants for? What body of work did those grants produce, if anything? Could I have that on notice?

Senator Gallagher: I think Professor Kelly might be able to answer some of that.

Prof. Kelly: I can answer that.

Senator Gallagher: Can I just say as a general rule that I do think it’s unfortunate that individuals are named in this way with no right of reply in the context that you are raising this. I will put that on the record.

Prof. Kelly: Professor McCartney is the head of the NCIRS. She is a world-recognised expert in immunology and infectious diseases. She is a paediatrician who works at Westmead Hospital. She has multiple hats. She is part of an advisory group for the minister.

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Professor Kelly. I’m not interested in her qualifications. I want to know her research grants.

Senator Gallagher: I think it’s deeply relevant to the aspersions that you seem to having about her.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know her research grants—

Senator Gallagher: And her role.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know her research grants and how much money she has received.

Prof. Kelly: I will finish, Senator. She is, as you’ve said, the chair of an advisory committee to the TGA. It does not make decisions. She is a member of ATAGI, which is an advisory group for the minister and does not
make decisions. In terms of research grants, we have the NHMRC, but they might need to take that on notice. She probably has other sources of funds. I can’t talk to the $65 million.

Senator ROBERTS: Can I get the answers on notice, please?

Prof. Kelly: We can take that on notice, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: I want a list of the $65 million in research grants over the last five years.

Senator Gallagher: I think that information would be publicly available. You seem to be able to do a fair bit of research on her. I’m sure you can do the same. If there are NHMRC grants, they will all be available publicly.

Prof. Lawler: I will add to Professor Kelly’s comments. I’m taking the imputation that the funding somehow does lead to a conflict. The two elements that you wrote—

Senator ROBERTS: No. It’s not only the funding.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you do need to let the witnesses finish their sentences.

Prof. Lawler: You raise two elements. One is that Professor McCartney decides which vaccines are added. As Professor Kelly has indicated, her role is as the chair of an advisory committee with the NHMRC that advises the delegate to make those determinations. Her role is to identify the harms that derive from these vaccines. That is the role of the pharmacovigilance function within the TGA.

/5 Comments/by

Government’s Health Authorities Baffled by Excess Deaths

I tabled a graph based on data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics which shows a significant spike in excess deaths. This significant increase in 2021 and a further spike in 2022 are unexplained. The graph excludes respiratory diseases and COVID, which takes out the ‘COVID confusion’ and allows us to look at other factors, such as heart disease, strokes and organ failure. The Chief Medical Officer has a primary responsibility to keep Australians healthy (and alive). He must be called on to explain why 10,000 Australians more than average have died from causes that were not COVID related.

The spike in deaths correlates to the rollout of the COVID jabs. CMO Kelly testified the jabs were not the cause, but offered no explanation of what the alternative cause could be.

They don’t have any answers for us and that is simply not acceptable. I promised to hound down those responsible for our COVID catastrophe and I will keep that promise.

The principle of Occam’s Razor, whereby the most obvious explanation is the most likely, is being deliberately ignored by agencies and advisors to the government who are reliant on the flow of funding from the companies that made these jabs. Is it any wonder there is a flat out refusal to confront the truth of what is becoming a scandal of the century?

It’s time Dr Baffled was referred to a Royal Commission.

Graph-of-vaccine-signalDownload

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I need to get through all my TGA questions.

CHAIR: I will endeavour to move to five-minute blocks to assist the committee progress. We will go as quickly as we can.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. My questions are to the TGA. I would like to table these graphs.

CHAIR: We’ll consider them, Senator Roberts. We’ll distribute them. I am happy for this to be circulated to officials, but the decision on tabling will have to wait, Senator Roberts, until we have a source for the document. I don’t want to—

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Bureau of Statistics.

CHAIR: I just need a link so we can verify the information. We’ve had issues today already with the content tabled. It can be circulated for officials to consider as part of your conversation, but it won’t go on the website until we’ve had time to consider it.

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. This is a graph of all causes of mortality in Australia over the last 10 years, with respiratory and COVID removed to focus on all other causes of death graphed as a percentage of the population. The source is the recently released ABS, or Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of death report, which added 2022 data. You’ll also note that the COVID measures themselves in 2020 did not have a noticeable impact on deaths, meaning there was something else in play here. You can see that the deaths bounced around the FRP, which is typical, of natural variation around 0.59 per cent deaths each year. In 2022, it shot up. That is clearly significant. What is more, the provisional deaths are still not included in the 2022 deaths. According to the Bureau of Statistics in Senate estimates last time, I think, they said that those deaths are 15 per cent below where they will end up once the coroner’s investigations are completed. That peak that you see there is clearly significant. It is going to be higher. That’s 10,000 deaths per annum unexplained and another 5,000 to 10,000 once the provisional deaths are changed with the autopsy included. This is about half to two-thirds of all casualties in World War II. If this is not cause—

Senator URQUHART: We traversed this morning. I think Senator Rennick asked similar questions this morning when you weren’t in here. I’m not sure whether they are the same and we’re going over the same ground.

Senator ROBERTS: No. I also have papers here that are available online by statistician Wilson Sy. There is a statistical evaluation of COVID-19 injections for safety and effectiveness in the New South Wales epidemic.
There is also an evaluation entitled ‘Australian COVID-19 pandemic: A Bradford Hill analysis of iatrogenic excess mortality’. He provides many graphs that clearly show correlation up and down with the injections. If this excess death in 2022 is not caused by the COVID injections, what the hell is the cause?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, please try to keep your language parliamentary.

Senator ROBERTS: At the moment, it is 10,000. It will be 15,000 to 20,000 once the coroner’s report has come in. I will not leave this estimates session without an answer as to why so many people are dying all of a
sudden.

Prof. Kelly: I might start, Senator. Thank you for your question. I would point out that we have provided multiple answers to these similar questions over the last few months in questions on notice. It was actually, in
fact, very closely related to questions that came from Senator Rennick this morning. Your question really goes to excess deaths and the reason we are having excess deaths in Australia in the past couple of years. I will pass to my colleague Dr Phillip Gould for an explanation briefly.

Dr Gould: Senator Roberts, the statistic that you refer to around a 15 per cent underreporting of deaths in the ABS statistics is incorrect. The ABS has advised that since 2022 they’ve actually updated the way they report on deaths. That 15 per cent that was quoted to you—I understand it was quoted to you—was based on deaths which the coroner would not have included in the ABS statistics. In the data you are referring to, that has been amended.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. I didn’t know about that. I was going on what the ABS told me. That’s still a huge spike. It’s clearly significant.

Dr Gould: On that point of fact, that 15 per cent is not correct.

Senator ROBERTS: That is a huge spike. No-one has told us what is causing it.

Prof. Kelly: We did talk about it this morning. The perception you’re trying to put forward is that because there was vaccination at that time and there is excess death, that is not—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not putting forward a perception. All I’m saying is that is statistically significant. It is a huge increase in deaths. I’d like to know the cause.

Prof. Kelly: And we don’t dispute that, Senator. I take the point that you are trying to make that there is some relationship between that graph you’ve got there and the temporal association with vaccines. We do not accept that as a premise. What we did talk about earlier today is a peer reviewed paper that has now been published that I mentioned at the last estimates. It clearly demonstrates there’s no link between the vaccines and all-cause mortality and that there is an extremely strong link between protection from COVID related mortality from vaccination. That is going back to the issue earlier of it being effective. It clearly is effective. It is not associated with this increase in mortality. There has been an increase in mortality; we don’t dispute that. You’ve removed respiratory mortality from this. It is an even more spectacular rise when you include that. In 2022 in particular, there was an increase in excess mortality respiratory related.

Senator ROBERTS: Respiratory diseases have been removed because of COVID. We know that all of the respiratory diseases have been removed. This is something other than COVID.

Prof. Kelly: Well, it may actually still be related to COVID, but it is not a respiratory disease. If we take into account that it goes to 2022. In this year, the testing for COVID has decreased, so there will be undiagnosed
COVID out there in the community, which may be associated with longer term issues, in which case—

Senator ROBERTS: Which tells me that you don’t see it as a threat. Otherwise you would still be testing.

Prof. Kelly: It’s still a serious disease. We know that there are some long-term effects. Many other countries in the world have seen cardiovascular death, for example, related to COVID. We haven’t seen that as much here in Australia. There are many of those other causes that Dr Gould went into earlier that have been potentially associated with long-term effects of COVID.

Senator ROBERTS: I will move on. Wilson Sy’s paper, by the way, shows clear up and down close correlation. I’m happy to give you the references to them later, if you want.

/4 Comments/by

$400m in Running Costs for Nauru?

,

I asked Home Affairs if $400 million in annual running costs was reasonable. In their opinion it is reasonable, however what exactly are Australians paying for? I couldn’t get an answer out of them about how many people the facility can hold. We know there were two people there until a boat interception took place in September, which means the facility is now playing host to another 11 residents.

This facility is a sinkhole for hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars. The department is tight-lipped about details around the cost-effectiveness of this clearing facility. I touched on Senator Lambie’s question about a potential threat to our security which came from a whistleblower. The Minister responded and a statement was provided to allay any concerns around the vetting of asylum seekers in the current geopolitical climate.

How much does Nauru cost per person? I don’t think we’d like the answer. It isn’t reasonable at all to expect Australians to foot the bill for this facility without a breakdown of the costs versus the benefits. We need better decisions around asylum seekers and better outcomes at a time when too many Australians are struggling to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.

$400 million for a handful of asylum seekers doesn’t make sense, so who is profiting out of this?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions have to do with the costs and, since hearing some things in the last two hours, the cost-effectiveness of maintaining Nauru. We’ve learned that there were two people in detention on
Nauru until September and now there are 13; correct?

Ms Foster: There are two people on island. We didn’t say they were in detention. There are now 11 people who are being held in the regional processing facility. I just make that distinction—that there are 11 people being detained in that facility and there are two others on island.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that clarification. The two people are free to roam, are they?

Ms Foster: I’ll ask Mr Thomas to help me here.

Mr Thomas: There are different circumstances for the individuals. I’m just trying to think of the best way to explain this, noting the privacy reasons for the individuals.

Ms Foster: We are hesitating only because it’s a small number of individuals and speaking about their particular circumstances could well identify people and be an invasion of privacy. They are in different stages of
arrangements with the Nauruan government. That meant that they were unable to leave Nauru earlier this year.

Senator ROBERTS: So they are not in detention but are living in Nauru?

Mr Thomas: They are not in the regional processing centre. So they are not part of the regional processing detention arrangements in terms of their location.

Senator ROBERTS: How much is it costing taxpayers per year to maintain Nauru as an offshore processing facility for asylum seekers?

Ms Cargill: In relation to regional processing, the portfolio budget statement for 2023-24 lays out the project budget for IMA offshore management. For 2023-24 the budget is $400 million.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the capacity in terms of the number of people it can hold?

Mr Thomas: It varies depending on the make-up of any individuals in that. There are a number of facilities in Nauru associated with regional processing.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total capacity?

Mr Thomas: It will depend on the make-up of any grouping—for example, family groupings, different genders and different ages. There might be requirements to house people differently. It just depends on the make-
up. It’s variable. Different sites will come online at different times to accommodate different numbers of individuals depending on the make-up of them.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand it’s complex, but what would be a rough estimate of, in practice, what you could hold at Nauru?

Mr Thomas: I’m sorry. I hesitate to give you an estimate of the number just because it goes to operational capability.

Senator ROBERTS: How many single males could be held there?

Mr Thomas: For the same reason, putting that number out in public would potentially breach operational sensitivity.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go, then, to the arrivals. I think a few of us were caught by surprise that there had been arrivals. How many new arrivals have arrived at Nauru since May 2022?

Mr Thomas: Just the recent 11.

Senator ROBERTS: That it? Okay. That’s September. Can you give us the breakdown by gender and age?

Mr Thomas: As noted to the previous senator, I am hesitant to provide that level of detail. I will take it on notice and come back to the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Also, I’d like to know their source in terms of where they boarded the boat and their country of origin.

Mr Thomas: Same as previously, I would ask any operational questions be directed to the ABF at the next outcome.

Senator ROBERTS: On your figure of $400 million per year as a cost, is that reasonable to maintain an offshore facility?

Mr Thomas: The short answer is yes in terms of the requirements to maintain the facilities and services, noting that the enduring capability requires a certain baseline level of capability to keep it at a ready state.

Senator ROBERTS: The key, Minister, is to ensure Australia selects who enters and that we allow no security risk; correct?

Senator Watt: I said before that I’m confident that the security issues surrounding individuals are taken into account by ministers.

Senator ROBERTS: The key is to ensure that Australia selects who enters our country?

Senator Watt: Yes, that is obviously the Australian government’s position.

Senator ROBERTS: And a big part of that is to make sure there are no security risks coming in?

Senator Watt: Yes. There are always, whatever type of entrant to Australia we are talking about, basic health and security checks that are undertaken.

Senator ROBERTS: Surely the best way to reassure the people as to whether or not Hamas sympathisers are coming in is to produce the facts? That’s all Senator Lambie was asking for.

Senator Watt: Yes, there are, and surely the best way to not inflame the community is to have some evidence for making those sorts of claims, like those you’re making now, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Unfortunately, with this misinformation-disinformation bill and so on being bandied around by the Labor government—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you know that’s not—

Senator ROBERTS: Senator Lambie said quite clearly to you that she got inside information. She’s not going to give you the names.

Senator Watt: I know, and we are getting this matter checked. But, Senator Roberts, I would encourage you and all senators be really, really sure of what you’re saying if you’re going to suggest that terrorist sympathisers are entering Australia. That is a very big call to make, and—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s an inflation of what I said.

Senator Watt: at a time when the community is really worried, understandably, around the Middle East conflict—and we’re seeing a lot of tension within the community—it doesn’t help to suggest, without providing
evidence to back it up, that terrorist sympathisers are entering the country.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I did not suggest anything. I was supporting Senator Lambie’s call. Senator Watt, what you’re saying means that you need to be very, very clear and very, very prompt.

Senator Watt: We’ve got a bit of an update on this matter, and it might be helpful for Ms Foster—

Senator ROBERTS: Did you hear what I just said?

Senator Watt: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: You need to be clear and prompt in your answers—

Senator Watt: We are—

Senator ROBERTS: and not make sensational claims.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the minister is attempting to answer your question while you’re interrupting him doing so. If we could get that update, that would be helpful, I think.

Senator Watt: Ms Foster has an update, yes.

Ms Foster: Senator, we undertook to get back as quickly as possible in response to Senator Lambie’s question. I can provide an assurance that no-one with security or terror links has been brought to Australia for a temporary purpose. I understand Senator Lambie may have been informed that there were some, amongst the cohort, who had character concerns; that’s a much broader definition. The ministerial intervention process allows consideration for management in Australia for individuals with character issues, including keeping them in held detention. Some of these, of course, may have been resettled in third countries.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Foster. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Senator Roberts. I’m glad we got that answer in the end.

/5 Comments/by

AHPRA Muzzled GPs for Questioning COVID Jabs

,

Many doctors have been targeted or notified by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (AHPRA) simply for questioning the COVID injections.

These injections have since been found to be unsafe, not effective, and testing was inadequate. Doctors were targeted by AHPRA simply for fulfilling their professional duty by proactively warning of risks and providing information in reaction to questions from their patients. In providing patients with the advice and information required to give informed consent, health practitioners were providing a standard of care that is universally accepted as competent. Is political interference acceptable?

When questioning AHPRA recently, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) jumped in and said they do not accept any of my three statements. The government still maintains, in the face of overwhelming international evidence, that the vaccines are safe, effective and that they work. During Senate Estimate in February, I asked Professor Skerritt for details about the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s (TGA) testing of the COVID injections in Australia. He responded that they did no testing here. He said the TGA relied on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In turn, the FDA have stated they did no testing. Why? Because they relied on Pfizer’s in-house tests, yet Pfizer’s trials were shut down because of the poor results.

There have been strong criticisms of their methods and falsified results. The post marketing release of papers exposes both the flaws and the risks of these mRNA injections. If health practitioners are choosing to practice their duty of care as professionals in providing the advice that allows their patients to make an informed choice around the medicines they take, then this should be celebrated. Any health authority or regulatory body that vilifies or punishes this standard of care is acting only on behalf of pharmaceutical interests and not in the best interests of patients or the healthcare profession.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. Ahpra has made many unjustifiable decisions against doctors and other allied health professionals. Many doctors have told us this. What proportion of Ahpra members are practising doctors? Why is there such a lack of medical input into Ahpra’s investigations of doctors?

Mr Fletcher: Thank you, Senator. There are about 130,000 registered medical practitioners in Australia. I can give you the exact number on notice. It is roughly that figure. The regulation of medical practitioners in Australia is overseen by the Medical Board of Australia. That board has two-thirds medical practitioner members and one-third community members and is chaired by a medical practitioner.

Senator ROBERTS: Many doctors in Australia were suspended for commenting on COVID vaccinations. Many of the concerns expressed have now been shown to be evidence-based. Can you please explain Ahpra’s actions which deprived Australia of valuable medical manpower at a key juncture when doctors were sorely needed?

Mr Fletcher: I think we have previously advised the committee that there were, in fact, 31 practitioners suspended associated with concerns in relation to COVID-19 and the pandemic. There has been no further use of our IA, or immediate action, powers or suspensions since we last met with the committee. There are 15 practitioners who are currently suspended. In nine of those cases, there is an investigation ongoing. In six of those cases, a referral has been made to the tribunal. We make a referral to the tribunal—it is the independent tribunal in each state and territory—where there is a concern about possible professional misconduct. Those tribunal matters are either at a hearing stage or awaiting an outcome. That’s the current status of practitioners who have been suspended. Of the ones who are no longer suspended, there have been two where we’ve completed tribunal proceedings and the tribunal has taken action. In other words, it has upheld the view that there was a finding that required action on the part of the tribunal. Six of those practitioners have either surrendered their registration or moved to a form of non-practising registration. We’ve closed those matters on the basis that there wasn’t a public interest in continuing to pursue those matters. One has surrendered, awaiting a tribunal outcome. Five have had their suspension lifted. Another restriction was imposed by a board. That might be a condition on their registration or an undertaking that they’ve agreed to accept in relation to certain requirements on their registration around additional education, training or supervision.

Senator ROBERTS: Are we able to get the details of those cases on notice?

Mr Fletcher: I can certainly provide that data to you, yes. We need to be careful not to identify individuals. We can certainly give you some of the general themes in relation to the actions we’ve taken.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. I know a number of doctors who have said, ‘To hell with it’, and they’ve left medicine. They are very good doctors. That is because of the way Ahpra has chased them. Ahpra has been reported as having targeted 20 of the 60 addiction medicine physicians in Victoria. It also targeted a leading addiction medicine physician in Queensland. The Queensland doctor’s and the Victorian doctor’s stories were covered in the press. In both cases, they were reinstated. Why was that? Please explain this vendetta against addiction physicians across the country. How can Ahpra suddenly forget their case against community minded doctors who are supported by the media?

Mr Fletcher: Senator, I can’t agree with the opening statement in your question. We don’t target medical practitioners. We don’t target any registered health practitioner. We respond to—

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. A lot of doctors think you do. A lot of doctors.

Mr Fletcher: Well, they are wrong to think that. We don’t target practitioners. What we do is respond to concerns that are raised with us, often by members of the public, sometimes by employers and sometimes by other practitioners. We assess each of those in the context of the concern that has been raised and the context of that person’s practice. If there is a concern that we have about a potential future risk for patient safety, that’s when a board would take regulatory action. So we don’t target practitioners. We certainly don’t have a campaign against particular areas of medical or clinical practice.

Senator ROBERTS: So how is it that some doctors have been targeted by Ahpra or notified by Ahpra simply for questioning the COVID injections, which have since been found to be unsafe and not effective and were never tested? Why is it that those doctors have been questioned by Ahpra simply for giving informed information and asking patients to give informed consent?

Prof. Kelly: Before Mr Fletcher answers, we don’t accept—

Senator Gallagher: We don’t accept that proposition.

Prof. Kelly: any of those or all of those three statements. The vaccines are safe.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, let’s have a look at the one they tested.

Prof. Kelly: They are effective—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you need to let the officials answer.

Prof. Kelly: and they do work.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s have a look at the one they’re testing. I asked Professor Skerritt, and he said, ‘No, they did no testing here.’ That was in February Senate estimates. He said they relied on the FDA. The FDA said they did no testing. They relied on Pfizer. Pfizer shut down its trials because of the poor results. They’ve been heavily criticised. Where is your testing of the COVID injections?

Prof. Kelly: There was a full regulatory assessment, Senator. Our colleagues from the TGA, when you get to ask them, will assure us of that. They were safe, they were tested and they were effective.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll come back to that.

/16 Comments/by