In the middle of a housing crisis, developers are locking up land, waiting for it to get worse so they can sell it at higher prices.
While cutting immigration is the number one solution to the housing crisis, we also need to look at foreign-owned companies that seem to be waiting for house prices to get even more expensive before they build more.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: A car is the third-biggest investment cost of a person’s life, usually. Housing would be No. 2. Government is far and away the biggest cost during a person’s life. Let’s move on to housing. Are you doing any work in the property market in terms of land development? Some developers are acting like a cartel and keeping land locked away in the middle of a housing crisis, waiting for the demand get even bigger to raise their price. What are you doing in this space?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Our exposure will arise in mergers, and we reviewed what was voluntarily notified to us— a merger in terms of the function of masterplanned communities. It was an acquisition that brought together assets; Lendlease was selling some assets which went to Supalai. In relation to the Illawarra area, where we considered there would be too much concentration post the transaction, we required a divestiture in order to retain continuing competition. One exposure we have to this, and an important role we have, is merger control. With the reforms, if passed by the House, we will have much more visibility in relation to the transactions we need to look at. If we were to become aware of cartel conduct or reports of anticompetitive conduct, that would absolutely be within our enforcement remit against anticompetitive conduct. We do not have an overall supervisory function in relation to housing. It arises in relation to maintaining and promoting competition.
CHAIR: The committee advises that it is releasing the Productivity Commission; you go with our thanks.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of any developers withholding land from the market to bump up prices?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: I don’t believe we are aware of that, no.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/gGWFuojDhMg/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-01-02 14:10:002025-01-02 14:55:25Developers Locking Up Land
There’s nothing worse than spending tens of thousands of dollars on a car for it to breakdown after its driven out of the dealership. Unfortunately, lots of Australians are left without any help when this happens.
I asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) about what they’re doing to protect Australians who end up in this situation.
The protections in place aren’t good enough. One Nation believes every Australian should be able to get an easy refund if their new car breaks down.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I’m pleased to hear you say in your opening statement that the cost of living is important and that competition impacts the cost of living. I’d like to understand a little bit about the motor vehicle industry and your involvement in it. There seems to be some systematic level of ‘lemon’ cars being sold by some manufacturers. If they feel there are no consequences for selling dodgy products, won’t that have a significant impact on competition in the motor vehicle industry?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: This is an important issue that the ACCC and the state and territory consumer protection regulators are very engaged in. In terms of a range of new vehicles, they are each subject to consumer guarantees so that there is an underpinning of fitness for purpose and that they meet the qualities and specifications on which they’ve been sold. The ACCC is seeking, and the government has announced, reforms to the law such that if there are contraventions of a guarantee, including on a motor vehicle, the ACCC can take action not solely to require giving a consumer the remedy, which currently is an action that can be taken—
Senator ROBERTS: ACCC can do that?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We can. However, consumers find it very difficult to do so. We find it is a poor way to get actual compliance. The law reform proposes that that will actually be a breach of our act. Where you see repeated indications of this, that we can seek significant penalties as well as consumer remediation—it is reported to us and to state and territory regulators that this is a problem particularly a problem for low-income families and consumers, and it is a problem we seek to take action on with the states and territories. Being able to take action for a serious and systemic breach and to get significant penalties will be the best deterrence.
Senator ROBERTS: In other words, you will strengthen your provisions and add provisions to it.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes. That is what we are seeking.
Senator ROBERTS: Specifically because you’re aware there are systemic quality issues among some manufacturers.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Exactly.
Mr Greiss: We’ve also taken, over the years, quite a number of actions for those types of systemic issues against a number of car manufacturers—Ford and Mazda, just to name two. They are very intensive exercises, very resource intensive. As the chair just pointed out, the ability to penalise for failure to abide by the consumer guarantees will be a very important reform.
Senator ROBERTS: That was a comprehensive answer; thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/yW_7YV0IeJE/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-01-02 14:00:002025-01-02 14:54:51Lemon Car Dealers Let Off the Hook
I inquired with the Australian and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) about the responsibility for the safety of chemicals. I was informed that the APVMA is responsible for the safety of the chemicals they issue permits for, while the States are responsible for their application and that permits are issued based on the safety data on the chemical labels.
I mentioned that there were discrepancies between the data in the safety brochures and the actual permits and was asked to bring that information to their attention.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I will just continue. What was going to be my second set of questions, I will do now because I will continue on from Senator Canavan. There is label use and there is permit use. Where are the Australian environmental impact studies for both these chemicals regarding widespread applications in South- East Queensland and northern New South Wales? Do they have to do an EIS?
Mr Hansen: Not an EIS, but they need to meet the environmental thresholds of the statutory criteria in terms of not being harmful to the environment, and that’s an assessment that gets done by APVMA before we issue the permit.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s built into the permit?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Who is responsible for that? Is it APVMA?
Mr Hansen: It’s our responsibility to look at how they are proposing to use it, to put the restrictions on how it should be used to make sure there is no impact to the environment, and then the actual following of those instructions are the responsibility of the state jurisdictions.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; I’m appreciating your succinct answers. How does the program justify treating areas with no evidence of nests, and how can this be effective if the bait is only active for 24 hours after application?
Mr Hansen: I’m sorry, that’s something for the program.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know why there are discrepancies and contradictions between the latest permit and the safety data sheets regarding safety precautions and application guidelines? I think the permit they are talking about is the permit of the helicopter.
Mr Hansen: For the aerial applications.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Hansen: I heard that question before. I would be interested to see what the variations are—particularly the variations between label and not necessarily the safety data sheet but the label and the permit. If there were differences on that, I’d be interested to see them if you had them.
During the recent estimates, I raised several questions regarding the approval and use of mRNA vaccines by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). I inquired if the APVMA has authorised any mRNA vaccines. Mr Hansen confirmed that, as of now, no such vaccines have been approved. To ensure thoroughness, Dr Maria Trainer, joined the discussion. She reiterated that no permits or authorisations for mRNA vaccines have been issued, although she stated that there is a general permit for small-scale research (Permit 7250) that might cover such activities.
I questioned whether the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries had acted with APVMA’s consent in importing, testing, and manufacturing an mRNA vaccine for border disease. Dr Trainer clarified that while no specific permits were issued, research could legally occur under the general permit. For clarity, I asked for confirmation on whether the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute holds such a permit and was told that this would be provided to us on notice.
I also addressed concerns about the development of mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease by the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute. Dr Trainer confirmed that no applications for these vaccines have been received, with Mr Hansen adding that notifications about genetic material for vaccines would likely fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and Biosecurity.
Lastly, I raised the issue of foot rot vaccines for sheep, noting that an overseas manufacturer has been approved while an Australian manufacturer has had its approval withdrawn. The overseas vaccine is more expensive and less effective.
I urged the government to commit to a process that ensures the availability of the more effective and affordable Australian-made vaccine for our sheep farmers. Senator Chisholm agreed to take this on notice, and Mr Hansen expressed openness to discussions with the Australian manufacturer for product registration.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to my first and most important set of questions. At previous estimates, I have asked if an mRNA vaccine has been approved by your agency, and the response was, ‘No it hasn’t.’ So let me first update, has the APVMA authorised for use any mRNA vaccines?
Mr Hansen: I understand the answer is still no, but if we are going to go down a line of questions on registration of vaccines, do you want me to get an expert to the table?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you like. That’ll make it quick.
Mr Hansen: Excellent. It will be Dr Maria Trainer, but, as far as I’m aware, the answer is still no to that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The New South Wales department of primary industries has imported, tested and now manufactured an mRNA vaccine for border disease for New South Wales at the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute. Was that action taken with the consent of the APVMA?
Dr Trainer: We have not issued any permits or authorised any messenger or any vaccines in Australia anywhere, but we do have a general permit for small-scale research, permit 7250, that potentially would allow for the research being conducted.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t know if they are doing research, but they could legally be doing research under a permit?
Dr Trainer: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice to provide whether or not the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute has such a permit?
Mr Hansen: Provided they met the criteria around the small scale, and that’s spelt out under the permit, then we wouldn’t be informed about it. But that’s something we can certainly make an inquiry about.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, and could let us know on notice, please. The Elizabeth Macarthur Institute has also declared they are developing mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. Have they applied for or advised you of their handling of this incredibly dangerous genetic material?
Dr Trainer: At this point in time, we’ve received no applications to register or authorise any messenger RNA vaccines.
Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t heard from them?
Mr Hansen: No, not on that, and I’m not sure that we would be the people that they would notify about bringing in the genetic material for the vaccine. That would be more likely DAF and biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I was told when looking into this matter that once we have foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease material in Australia, we can risk our disease-free status. Is it a true statement that if the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute mishandles this material and one animal is infected with foot and mouth, Australia will lose our disease-free status and the $20 billion a year this brings in?
Mr Hansen: That’s well and truly in the domain of DAF and biosecurity.
Mr Lowe: That’s an outcome 2 question.
Mr Fennessy: I can tell you that some of the work we may have done in the past is done offshore, so not in Australia. We might work with overseas labs. But it doesn’t come into Australia unless there is a biosecurity permit, and there haven’t been any permits allowed for that.
Senator ROBERTS: Who should we put a question on notice to in regard to that?
Mr Fennessy: To the department.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get on to something quickly. I’ll put most of it in a letter to the minister on a question on notice. There’s also foot rot for sheep. I’m advised that an overseas manufacturer has been given approval and the previous Australian manufacturer has not had its approval withdrawn. The overseas manufactured vaccine is more expensive for sheep farmers based on the need to more frequently apply it plus the cost. It is less effective, and the locally made, therefore, is more effective, cheaper and of higher value than the foreign made. We also have a declaration from a veterinarian that the local product is far more effective. Minister, is your government prepared to commit to a process—I’ve condensed a lot of things into this, and I will put it in detail in a question on notice—whereby it identifies or quantifies the need for this Australian manufactured vaccine and work on foot rot with the relevant parties to ensure the availability of this vaccine for Australian sheep farmers?
Senator Chisholm: I’ll take that on notice.
Mr Hansen: I can provide one more sentence to that, which is that the Australian-made vaccine had an emergency permit because there was no other registered product available in the market. The moment that there became a registered product that had actually come through the front door and had met all the safety criteria, the criteria for an emergency use permit no longer met. We would love the producer of that Australian-made product to come back through the front door for registration as a product, and we’re open to conversations with them on that when they are interested.
Senator ROBERTS: So would veterinarians and so would farmers. They would love that Australian manufacturer to come back. I must say, Chair, Mr Hansen’s comments have been exactly as you said: precise, succinct and direct. I love your forthcoming and forthrightness.
Senator Chisholm: You were the problem!
CHAIR: You got the MR tick of approval, so you’re on a roll here. Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.
The climate division at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is just another part of the alphabet soup of agencies that are dedicated to bringing in net zero goals.
Although no one at the desk wanted to tell me their salaries, the fewer than ten senior executives in the department rake in $4.5 million a year. Secretary David Fredericks, who responded to my question, is on a total package of $907,000 a year.
Are you getting value for money?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: As simply as possible and as specifically as possible, what do the people responsible for outcome 1 at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water do? What is your basic accountability, especially in regard to energy?
Mr Fredericks: In many ways, I can’t do any better than our corporate documents.
Senator ROBERTS: How long is that?
Mr Fredericks: Very short. It’s the outcome that we are held to account for by the parliament and ultimately by the ANAO, which is to support the transition of Australia’s economy to net zero emissions by 2050; transition energy to support net zero while maintaining security, reliability and affordability; support actions to promote adaptation and strengthen resilience of Australia’s economy, society and environment; and take a leadership role internationally in responding to climate change.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. That’s exactly what I was after. What is the total salary package of everyone at the executive?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the corporate questions were at 9 o’clock this morning. We’ve released the corporate people.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/QKiSbasMiRg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-28 20:02:112024-12-28 20:02:13Alphabet Soup Agencies: Are Taxpayers Getting Value for Money?
According to information from the crew working on Snowy Hydro, the reason the Florence tunnel boring machine became jammed while drilling a bend is because it was used for too long between scheduled maintenance. This practice reduces production costs and increases boring rates, however as the cutting wheels wear down, the tunnel is cut to a narrower width. In this case, the machine jammed on a bend where the full width was needed for clearance.
I asked about this at the last Estimates and received a partial admission that the jam was due to worn cutting wheels, but that it was a one-time occurrence. I have requested the maintenance logs for Florence to determine if this was indeed an isolated incident or part of a wider problem.
One Nation believes the Snowy Hydro project is a fool’s errand. While the sunk cost (money spent so far) is around $4 billion, completing the project will cost an additional $20 billion. This does not include the drilling region, which is full of asbestos – a can of worms yet to be addressed.
Another problem is that the electricity from Snowy 2.0 is being sent to Victoria and South Australia via Hume Link, which began construction this week. Hume Link involves putting two high-voltage power lines (two towers) across 360 km of bushland, which will require clearing, as well as farmland and forcibly reclaimed private property. This will cost another $5 billion.
All this expense just to provide firming of unreliable wind and solar power, when a zero emission coal plant could do the same thing for a few billion.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know if this was asked before, but is Florence moving?
Mr Barnes: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: How long has she been moving?
Mr Barnes: She has been moving in a more predictable fashion since July and a total length of 1.6 metres and we are now achieving—kilometres. That was true a year ago. We’re now achieving the rates we need to achieve the target date of December ’28.
Senator ROBERTS: How far has it drilled since July?
Mr Barnes: I would have to come back to you on that specific.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Can I ask about maintenance on the tunnel boring machines. I understand a cutting head inspection must be performed every mere six to eight metres, stopping every two metres for concrete behind. Is that a fair statement of the normal operation of a TBM?
Mr Barnes: The way the TBM advances is that it excavates a two-metre length, and the concrete segments that form the tunnel lining are then placed into the—the circumference of the tunnel. And that takes about 40 minutes, typically. So in that 40-minute period someone will inspect the cutter head to make sure that they can then do the next two metres. Periodically, we stop it for longer and do maintenance and replace some parts.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, weekends are normally used for the inspections on the cutter head.
Mr Barnes: Snowy 2.0 is a 24/7 operation, so it happens as it occurs. So if it was a Wednesday evening when we have to do some maintenance, that’s when we would do it.
Senator ROBERTS: How long has it been 24 hours?
Mr Barnes: Since the start of the construction.
Senator ROBERTS: Since the start. Okay. Thank you. Is it true that the cutting wheels were not replaced at the correct time sometime in the last few months and that the tunnel is, as a result, being built to 11.4 metre width?
Mr Barnes: The tunnel—
Senator ROBERTS: I think the specification is 11.5.
Mr Barnes: I can’t remember the exact figures, but the tunnel boring machine does construct a circumference which is over 11 metres and then there is ground and a concrete segment that brings the interior of the tunnel to just under 10 metres.
Senator ROBERTS: What are the specifications on the drill before you put the lining? Is it 11.5 or 11.4?
Mr Barnes: It’s just over 11, I think is the number.
Senator ROBERTS: Just over 11?
Mr Barnes: We can come back on notice but it is over 11 and then the internal circumference is under 10 because—
Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought they would be very important specs.
Mr Barnes: Well, they are very important specs but I don’t keep every number in my head.
Senator ROBERTS: No, I understand that, but that would be fundamental to the project, wouldn’t it?
Mr Barnes: Yes, they are fundamental and we have an international design joint venture of Tractebel and Lombardi who have signed off on these as specifications that will last 150 years.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there anyone in the room who knows what the designed cutting diameter is? 11.5, 11.4?
Mr Barnes: No.
Senator ROBERTS: No one?
Mr Barnes: No, but we can provide you that information on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: So, as I understand it, the cutting width spec is 11.5 and that because the cutting wheels were not replaced at the correct time, the tunnel as a result is 11.4, which caused Florence to get wedged on a bend. Is that correct?
Mr Barnes: That’s not because of the design characteristics. There was a period in May when we hit very hard rock as we were going around a bend, and that hard rock wore down the edge cutters quite dramatically. I think that happened—I will get these dates wrong, but it happened on a Thursday. We were public on the Friday with that information, and on the Monday we had a specialist crew on site who used high-spec water blasting to relieve that pressure. Florence has now moved forward and is on the straight so doesn’t have any corners to deal with.
Senator ROBERTS: So for clarity, you are saying that Florence never cut a width of less than 11.5. I just said that the spec was 11.5 and the reason it became stuck on a bend was not because the tunnel was being cut to a lesser width, 11.5, as a result of overextending the life of the cutting wheels to speed up excavation?
Mr Barnes: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could you please provide the maintenance log on notice of inspections and replacement of the cutting wheels on Florence for the last two years?
Mr Barnes: Probably. I’m not sure what that would help the minister with—
Senator Ayres: We will take that on notice, if we can, and see whether that is something that we can sensibly provide.
Senator ROBERTS: Swinging quickly to Kurri. What is the completion date of the Kurri gas pipeline? I understand the power station will have to burn diesel until the gas pipeline is connected. Is that correct?
Mr Barnes: The current schedule is for the gas infrastructure to be completed by 10 March.
Senator ROBERTS: 10 March next year. Where is the gas coming from and how secure is your supply over the timeframes of 10 years and 25 years?
Mr Barnes: So we rely on a gas portfolio drawing on the national gas grid. We have a range of contracts. Sometimes we access the wholesale market on the day. We announced earlier this year that we had entered into a gas storage arrangement in western Victoria. So I think the simple answer is that it’s a portfolio approach.
Senator ROBERTS: Who owns the storage facility in Victoria?
Mr Barnes: It is owned by a company called Lochard Energy.
Senator ROBERTS: Above ground energy?
Mr Barnes: It’s underground storage. The Iona Gas Storage Facility, I think is the name of the facility.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s rock. It is not lined?
Mr Barnes: No, it’s an old geological storage cavern.
Senator ROBERTS: The Newcastle Herald reported on the Albanese government commitment of $7 million on top of the current $950 million construction cost to allow the plant to run on a blend of hydrogen and gas. How far advanced is the hydrogen component at Kurri?
Mr Barnes: We have now had confirmation of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that with some notification, we can run at 30 per cent hydrogen.
Senator ROBERTS: How far advanced is the hydrogen component of the Kurri plant?
Mr Barnes: We have proven technically with our equipment provider and with some modification, which we have not yet committed to, that would enable us to run 30 per cent hydrogen.
Senator ROBERTS: Any idea of the completion date?
Mr Barnes: We are not currently executing that project.
Senator ROBERTS: So where is the—you are not executing the project on hydrogen?
Mr Barnes: No. We know it is technically capable.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the end of it for now.
Mr Barnes: For now, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Where would the gas come from? Mitsubishi?
Mr Barnes: Mitsubishi are the turbine manufacturer. The question of hydrogen supply we haven’t assessed.
Senator ROBERTS: Any idea at all? Because hydrogen is very expensive to produce, as I understand it.
Aluminium adjuvants (preservatives) in vaccines are commonly blamed, at least in part, for the increase in autism. Recent work has been done that confirms this theory, so I asked the TGA about the subject. Research on aluminium was conducted on aluminium salts, but the jabs use a quite different type of aluminium which has not been safety tested. This is my exact question:
“A study published in September took biopsies from the brains of older children diagnosed with autism and found their brains contained significantly elevated levels of aluminium, especially aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate, which are present in the hexa jabs. Has the health testing on aluminium build-up in our children’s bodies been done using water-soluble aluminium salts, which are not used in vaccine products, or has this research been done using the actual aluminium used in vaccine products, aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate?”
This question was straightforward and simply put: have you tested the right type of aluminium for safety? The TGA feigned not understanding the question to avoid answering it. When pressed, they took the question on notice and then refused to provide further information, with Minister Gallagher covering for her bureaucrats. This is unbecoming for a senior bureaucrat and for the Minister.
Australians want an answer to this, and I will keep at the subject until I get one. The fact they are hiding from the question suggests the answer is as recent science is showing – aluminium preservatives in vaccines are causing autism in some children.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My third and final set of questions is about aluminium adjuvants. Again, constituents are raising this. A study published in September took biopsies from the brains of older children diagnosed with autism and found their brains contained significantly elevated levels of aluminium, especially aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate, which are present in the hexa jabs. Has the health testing on aluminium build-up in our children’s bodies been done using water-soluble aluminium salts, which are not used in vaccine products, or has this research been done using the actual aluminium used in vaccine products, aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate?
Prof. Lawler: Sorry; did you reference research? There was a question there about whether research has been done?
Senator ROBERTS: Has the research been done on babies’ brains using the aluminium found in vaccine products, aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate, or has it been done using water-soluble aluminium salts?
Prof. Lawler: Sorry; I’m just trying to be clear. Is the research that you’re asking me about the research that you cited?
Senator ROBERTS: No, I haven’t cited anything. To your knowledge, has the health testing on aluminium build-up in our children’s bodies been done using water-soluble aluminium salts, which are not used in vaccine products, or has the research been done using the actual aluminium found in vaccine products, aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate Prof. Lawler: I’m sorry; I don’t know the research that you’re specifically referring to.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll send you some papers. Is the type of aluminium in vaccine products bioresistant? Does it ever leave the bodies of our children?
Prof. Lawler: Again, there are a number of very specific and very technical questions that you’re asking us. For the purposes of answering them, as I’ve previously indicated, we’re very happy to take these questions—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. I’ve got nothing against taking them on notice.
Prof. Lawler: Okay. I would like to provide you with as fulsome a response as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are repeated doses of low concentrations of aluminium adjuvant in a vaccine product more harmful than a single large dose? A related question: how many vaccine products containing aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate has the TGA authorised for administration to children? You’ll have to take that on notice.
Prof. Lawler: I certainly will have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I only had a concern about the one I objected to. I have no concern about the rest at all. I appreciate that it’s a better answer. Individual vaccine products have been safety tested. Has any safety testing been done on multiple, concurrent administration of vaccine products to babies under six months, with special attention to multiple administration of low dose aluminium adjuvants?
Prof. Lawler: Professor Langham can add to this response. There has been not only significant research undertaken with respect to the administration of vaccines but there is significant real-world evidence over decades on the safety of the administration of the vaccines that we approve.
Prof. Langham: I have nothing further to add on that. As you’re aware, we have a number of avenues whereby safety signals from all registered products in Australia are overseen from a pharmacovigilance perspective, as Dr Larter has already mentioned. We work closely with other global regulators and also with other research that’s published. As Professor Lawler has said, with the vast body of information that exists about these vaccines and their use in children, there have been no signals.
Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t answer the question as to whether or not—
Prof. Langham: I think I did answer the question.
Senator Gallagher: Yes. I think that’s definitely an answer.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask it again. Has any safety testing been done on multiple concurrent administration of vaccine products to babies under six months, with special attention to multiple administration of low-dose aluminium adjuvants? Can you tell me if multiple injections have a different effect from one or two injections?
Prof. Langham: The evidence that exists from a safety perspective is not only the clinical trial data that we receive upon registration but also the ongoing evidence from a real-world perspective of the use of these vaccines in those multiple dose formulations in many millions of children around the world.
Prof. Lawler: For many years.
Senator ROBERTS: I have a last question. Are aluminium adjuvants causing the spectrum of neurological conditions that are commonly called autism?
Prof. Lawler: I’m not aware of any accepted evidence that that is the case.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you may sigh—
Senator Gallagher: Do you know why I sigh, Senator Roberts? It’s because I have a child with autism, and I have vaccinated children, and I find it offensive.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, I find it offensive to not respond to a constituent, and I’m responding to constituents. That’s my job. They pay me.
Senator Gallagher: Well, I’ve had enough.
Senator ROBERTS: Professor Lawler, have you heard of these papers? I think this will be my last question, Chair.
CHAIR: Yes, it will be.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve mentioned one by Dr Karla Lehmann from 2024 titled ‘Suspected Causes of the Specific Intolerance Profile of Spike-Based Covid-19 Vaccines’ in the European Society of Medicine. There’s one from 2022 by El-Arif G et al called ‘Angiotensin II Type I Receptor (AT1R): The Gate towards COVID-19 – Associated Diseases’ published in Molecules. In 2023 Fajloun and Sabatier published ‘The Unsuspected Role of the Renin-Angiotensin System (RAS): Could its Dysregulation be at the Root of All Non-Genetic Human Diseases?’ in Bentham Science. In 2023 Parry, P et al wrote, ‘”Spikeopathy”: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA’ in Biomedicines (Journal). The last one is from Pelumbo, Avila and Naftolin in 2016 called ‘The Ovarian Renin-Angiotensin System (OVRAS): A Major Factor in Ovarian Function and Disease’ in PubMed by the National Institute of Health, the National Library of Medicine USA.
Prof. Lawler: I’d be very happy to receive those studies—I’ll speak on behalf of Professor Langham if she doesn’t mind. I would say that there is a very well established understanding of the importance of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in a number of various elements of regulation of human function. I think it is well recognised that they are impacted by the COVID disease itself.
Senator ROBERTS: What part of the COVID disease?
Prof. Lawler: It will be very useful for us to review those articles so that we can be sure that they are reflective of the impact of COVID not, as suggested, an impact of the vaccine.
Senator ROBERTS: Good. Thank you very much. Would you like the references sent as paper copies, as attachments or by links?
Prof. Lawler: At your pleasure.
Senator Gallagher: Carrier pigeon.
Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I’ll be putting forward a number of questions on notice on the spike protein.
At the recent Senate Estimates, I inquired about the suitability of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) being a recipient of aid for children caught up in the war zones of Lebanon and Gaza, particularly in light of reports connecting 9 UNRWA staff members to terrorist group Hamas.
I was informed that UNRWA is widely used to support refugees and that strict conditions are now in place to ensure aid reaches refugees rather than being diverted to terrorist organisations. I was also told that new agreements have been entered into with UNRWA to ensure these safeguards are implemented.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will now move to my second topic. It’s a difficult issue. Without buying into a finger-pointing exercise of fault, it’s a fact that thousands of children are caught in the war zones in Gaza and Lebanon at great risk of death or injury. These are the innocent victims of war. I recognise, Minister, your point a few minutes ago that Australia cannot solve this alone. I recognise that. What is the Australian government, though, doing from a humanitarian and international aid perspective for these innocent children and from a diplomatic point of view with other countries?
Mr Maclachlan: Senator, as I think you have already heard, there is an extensive level of diplomatic work. It might seem somewhat distant from the children, but in fact it is very much about putting pressure on Israel to increase what are insufficient deliveries of aid into Gaza in particular. In addition, the government has committed $94½ million in humanitarian assistance to the region. The bulk of that is for the situation in Gaza. We heard earlier this morning about the work of UNRWA. Earlier this year, the government provided $6 million to UNRWA for shelter kits and hygiene kits. We continue to do a lot of this work and advocate on behalf of UN organisations that are trying to secure access into Gaza. It’s clear that it’s a war zone. It’s a very difficult area. It’s very difficult for humanitarian workers to enter Gaza, to operate there and to do so successfully.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will make a statement followed by a question. It has been suggested that UNRWA may not be the most suitable aid agency to be used due to its alleged associations with the terrorist group Hamas. What due diligence has the government done with regard to that? Has there been any consideration to using an alternative avenue?
Mr Maclachlan: My colleagues will elaborate on this. We’ve used multiple agencies, including UNRWA, to provide assistance to the situation in Gaza. But the reality is, as we heard earlier, that no organisation has the footprint that UNRWA has in terms of staff, capability and capacity, including in Gaza. It operates on a scale unlike any other agency. Frankly, other UN agencies depend on UNRWA in their own operations. We are very concerned to ensure that Australian support that is provided through UNRWA does not fall into the wrong hands.
You will be aware that the revelations that some UNRWA employees were engaged in the horrendous attacks on 7 October were investigated. Nine of those individuals have been dismissed by UNRWA. In our own work to disperse $6 million to the UNRWA flash appeal, we entered into a new agreement with UNRWA. It built in additional checks and balances. Indeed, the way in which we funded the activities through that agreement was more constrained because we were delivering, as I said, shelter kits and hygiene kits to minimise the risk that money would fall into the wrong hands. I also note that a lot of the work we’re doing is work that like-minded partners are also doing. They too are remaining committed to UNRWA. They are continuing to fund UNRWA. They are also, like us, asking UNRWA to implement the recommendations of the Colonna review that was done earlier this year, which did not find a systemic link between UNRWA and Hamas. These are matters that we take very seriously. We will continue to ensure that our work operates within Australian law, which, of course, as officials we have to abide by.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your considered responses.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/X50RgyD80CA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-26 16:42:002024-12-26 17:31:17Accountability in Refugee Aid
Treasury officials dodge basic questions about Australian power station coal prices while claiming they “monitor” them for inflation forecasts. Despite promising to get back to me on notice, the officials refused to provide how much coal for generating electricity costs.
Australian coal prices for our power stations remain stable under long-term contracts, yet Treasury keeps pushing the narrative of high international prices to justify soaring electricity costs. Why hide the real numbers? Because cheap domestic coal exposes the true cost of the renewable energy transition to Australian families.
Time for transparency, Australian families deserve to know the real cost of their electricity and it’s not because of Ukraine.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: This is for the Treasury, on coal pricing. The Treasurer said in March, regarding Australian power station coal prices, that thermal coal burned in power stations in Australia was ‘more or less tracking’, according to Treasury’s December forecast, to be down about a third from a year ago. Do you track the price of thermal coal burned in power stations in Australia?
Mr Yeaman: We look at overall market movements in coal prices both for export and for generation, yes, as part of our CPI forecast.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you get that information on thermal coal prices in Australia for domestic use?
Dr Heath: In tracking coal prices on a regular basis, the most publicly available coal prices tend to be shipped coal. So if you’re looking—
Senator ROBERTS: Exported coal?
Dr Heath: Exported coal—that’s what is publicly available. The arrangements that individual coal-fired power plants have to access their coal means that the prices they pay could be quite different to those public prices. That’s not publicly available information, so we would have to basically go directly to the coal-fired power stations to find that information.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand the local price is much lower because they’re locked into long-term contracts. So it’s a vague process. When you’re talking about power stations, is it only power stations that buy their coal or is it also the power stations that are at the mine mouth—where it just goes straight from the mine into the power station?
Dr Heath: I think that’s getting to a level of detail that I don’t have.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice, please?
Dr Heath: We can take that on notice, but I’m not sure—
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know how you get that price—or, if you don’t get that price, that’s fine.
Mr Yeaman: I am aware that we have in the past. Our colleagues at the department of climate change and also the department of industry, along with our colleagues at the Australian Energy Market Operator, look at prices by facility, and I think that does include those that get coal directly from the mine.
Senator ROBERTS: So you get that information from those other agencies?
Mr Yeaman: I’m not sure how systematised that is, but I’m aware we have in the past drawn information from those sources.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the latest figure you have for the price of thermal coal burned in Australian power stations?
Mr Yeaman: If it’s that specific a question, I’ll take it on notice, if that’s okay.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you aware that the CSIRO uses a coal price of $11.30 a gigajoule in its GenCost studies to say that wind and solar are cheaper than coal?
Mr Yeaman: We generally look at the GenCost report, but, for our purposes, we don’t tend to go down to that level of detail around their assumptions.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not aware that CSIRO uses the coal price of $11.30 a gigajoule in GenCost?
Mr Yeaman: I haven’t been aware of that and I’m not sure that my colleagues would be.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I can accept that. Are you able to provide the aggregate figures for coal prices over the last five years, please?
Mr Yeaman: We can certainly have a look and see what we can provide.
These questions are about Infanrix Hexa and SIDS and are based on information contained in Freedom of Information documents 3828 (document 9) and 1345 (document 1). This vaccine is approved to protect against nine different strains of six diseases: Diphtheria, Tetanus, three strains of Pertussis, Hepatitis B, Influenza type B, and three types of inactivated Polio viruses. Each vial containslactose, sodium chloride, aluminium chloride, hydroxide, aluminium phosphate, phenoxyethanol medium, potassium chloride, polysorbate 20 and 80, formaldehyde, glycine, sodium phosphate, dibasic dihydrate, potassium phosphate monobasic, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin B sulfate and 2-phenoxyethanol. There is a lot happening in that single jab.
All of these chemicals are given to six-week-old babies, again a month later and then again as a booster, in many cases. There are 17 reported deaths on the DAEN (Database of Adverse Event Notifications) from this product and another 26 reported deaths on your internal Adverse Event Management System (AEMS) going back to 2010. The report from 2010 is that the child died on the same day as the injection, with no other suspected medications or health issues. The child was injected and then died. Why is that death still on the AEMS and not on the public DAEN after 14 years?
Once again, the public servant feigned not understanding the question before deflecting and failing to answer, offering instead to take the question on notice. The reason our vaccines are considered safe and effective is because cases where they were not safe are covered up, as is happening here. There is no reason for the specific case I am asking about to still be withheld from the public. The facts of the matter were clear in 2010 and they are clear now: the vaccine is full of harmful substances and killed that child.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My next set of questions are about Infanrix hexa and SIDS. My questions are on the vaccine Infanrix hexa using information contained in freedom of information 3828 document 9 and freedom of information 1345 document 1. Constituents are raising this issue with me. This vaccine is approved to protect against nine different strains of six different diseases, and, for brevity, these are diphtheria, tetanus, three strains of pertussis, hepatitis B, influenza type B and three types of inactivated polio viruses. Each vile contains lactose, sodium chloride, aluminium chloride, hydroxide, aluminium phosphate, phenoxyethanol medium, potassium chloride, polysorbate 20 and 80, formaldehyde, glycine, sodium phosphate, dibasic dihydrate, potassium phosphate monobasic, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin B sulfate and 2-phenoxyethanol. There is a lot happening in that single jab.
You give all of those chemicals to six-week-old babies, then again a month later and then again as a booster, in many cases. To my question: there are 17 reported deaths on the DAEN—that’s the Database of Adverse Event Notifications—from this product and another 26 reported deaths on your internal Adverse Event Management System, AEMS, going back to 2010. The report from 2010 is that the child died on the same day as the injection and there were no other suspected medications or health issues. The child was injected, and he died. Why is that still on the Adverse Event Management System and not on the public Database of Adverse Event Notifications? Isn’t 14 years long enough to have processed the report?
Prof. Lawler: So there are two questions there. On the first, I think it’s going to be very difficult for us to give you a satisfactory answer now on the basis of a 14-year-old report, so we will have to take that on notice as well. And the second question, sorry?
Senator ROBERTS: Why is the report still on the Adverse Event Management System and not on the public Database of Adverse Event Notifications?
Prof. Lawler: Was that the first or the second question?
Senator ROBERTS: The second one.
Prof. Lawler: Then the answer is probably the same.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay; 10 of the 28 deaths on the Adverse Event Management System record cause of death as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and three on the Database of Adverse Event Notifications. Can you confirm that, in a limited number of cases, routine childhood vaccinations have caused Sudden Infant Death Syndrome—SIDS?
Dr Larter: It’s very important to remember that the reporting of an adverse event or death to the TGA does not necessarily mean that the vaccine caused the death, or even that the reporting doctor necessarily considered that the death was caused by the vaccine. We strongly encourage all consumers and health professionals to have a very low threshold for reporting suspected adverse events, even if there is only a very small chance that the vaccine was the cause. To date the TGA has not identified SIDS as an adverse event associated with Infanrix.
Senator ROBERTS: There are 14 other cases of babies dying within three days of injection with this product, including three others that died on the same day. Why hasn’t the TGA investigated these deaths, and why are they still hidden on the Adverse Event Management System, which I understand—correct me if I’m wrong—is internal?
Dr Larter: That is correct. The TGA’s Adverse Event Management System is the database that contains all the detailed information regarding adverse events reported to the TGA. The Database of Adverse Event Notifications for medicines is our public database, which includes de-identified adverse event information. The vast majority of reports made to the TGA are included in the public database. However, where the case has been rejected or where it’s a duplicate, these cases are not published. In terms of why an individual case is not included in the public database, we would need to take those questions on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you also tell me then, as part of the other part of the question, why the TGA hasn’t investigated these deaths?
Dr Larter: Again, we can confirm on notice. The TGA does have robust processes in place for investigating reported deaths after vaccination, as we’ve previously advised. We work very closely with state and territory jurisdictional immunisation committees and public health units to investigate any death that’s reported to us after vaccination. So, while I cannot confirm the details of the individual cases, they will have been investigated by the TGA.
Senator ROBERTS: We don’t want personal details. Here’s your ideal opportunity to show off the TGA now, on notice. There are 14 other cases of babies—
Prof. Lawler: Sorry, can I just respond? It is actually very difficult to give a fulsome response on cases that are, in some instances, 14 years old.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, perhaps you could tell us why you haven’t done the response.
Prof. Lawler: I would hope, Senator, that you would not want us to be providing information to you without the information that we require. So I understand—
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by that?
Prof. Lawler: What I’m saying is that I’m assuming that you would not want us to prevaricate or invent information simply for the purposes of providing an answer. As you said earlier yourself, an appropriate reason for taking a question on notice is because we don’t have the information in front of us.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine.
Prof. Lawler: So Dr Larter has endeavoured to make clear the processes that we do follow for the purposes of giving you specific information about some specific cases that you have raised. We will need to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Absolutely. That’s fine. That’s in accordance with the witness guide. There are 14 other cases of babies dying within three days of injection with this product, including three others that died on the same day. Why hasn’t the TGA investigated these deaths? Sorry, I’ve asked that question. But 29 of the deaths were male babies and 14 were female. Have you investigated why the hexa product is twice as likely to kill male babies as female babies?
Prof. Lawler: I’ll go to Dr Larter in a moment. The assertion or implication that you make, that it is twice as likely to kill babies, I think is an inappropriate statement to make, and it’s not reflective of an understanding of vaccine safety or statistics.
Dr Larter: Again, reporting of an adverse event does not mean that that adverse event is causally related to the vaccine. We do investigate all deaths and adverse events following immunisation.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. That finishes my second set. I’d like to have a third set after Senator Rennick.
CHAIR: You’ve still got a couple of minutes.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t want to start the third set and then leave it halfway through
