Australia has now established a Centre for Disease Control (CDC) with a substantial budget, however the enabling legislation failed to outline a clear set of guardrails for this organisation.
The legislation states that the CDC will serve as the “source of scientific truth” on pandemic-related matters, which is concerning.
During COVID-19, the Government required health authorities to lie consistently to promote a medical response that we are now seeing was deadly and damaging to Australians.
With the credibility of our health professionals in tatters, the government has created a new body to serve as the “one source of truth.”
I asked several questions to understand the scope of this new body and the process by which they will establish this “one truth,” yet I remain none the wiser.
As you watch this video, ask yourself: is the attitude of these senior public servants acceptable for a Senate Estimates hearing?
Transcript
CHAIR: I also need to move the call. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I need to ask some questions about the recent enabling legislation for the CDC. I note the enabling legislation for the CDC received royal assent three weeks ago, so I am surprised to see you here so
quickly.
Ms Wood: Is that a question?
Senator ROBERTS: How long had preparations for the CDC been going on?
Ms Wood: The commitment by the government to create an Australian Centre for Disease Control was made in the election before the one last held.
Senator ROBERTS: In 2022?
Mr Comley: Yes, 2022.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. How much was spent preparing for an Australian CDC prior to the legislation passing parliament?
Ms Wood: The preparation activity for the CDC is one of the activities undertaken in the interim CDC group, so there are a lot of different activities. We can probably give a funding amount for one of the divisions which is largely responsible for the establishment activities: the policy development, the drafting of the legislation and the staffing considerations associated with setting up a new agency. We could probably take that on notice but it’s not a figure I have.
Senator ROBERTS: You could take it on notice to find out how much was spent in a parallel agency or department?
Ms Wood: The interim CDC is part of the department at the moment. We can take you through the high-level budget descriptions for that group and the activities, inclusive of which is establishment activities for the statutory agency.
Senator ROBERTS: This may be a guess—was it around $250 million? Can you take it on notice?
Mr Comley: There were actually three tranches of funding that came through budget and MYEFO measures. I think that number is broadly correct.
Senator ROBERTS: $250 million is broadly correct?
Ms Wood: That’s correct.
Mr Comley: Over four years, not up to the year.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s a lot of money. It’s not really enabling legislation.
Mr Comley: Let’s go back a step—
Senator ROBERTS: A lot of money spent on it.
Mr Comley: There are functions and then there’s legislation. The CDC was an election commitment by the government in 2022. Work immediately commenced on what it would look like. There was already a public
health group within the department that did the sum of this work, some of which had been built up through COVID and the pandemic response. Some of those functions continued, but some money has also been appropriated to build up new functions of the CDC, such as data integration and surveillance systems, which will prepare Australia better for a pandemic. The legislation has the effect, though, of creating an independent body. So there are probably two different things here: one is the functions of the CDC, much of which transfer from the existing department; and the second is the legislative basis on which it operates, particularly the Director-General of the CDC, independent of government when providing advice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That was an excellent summary. Who’s the director? Is there an interim director?
Mr Comley: At the moment, Ms Wood is the head of the interim CDC. There has been a selection process that I’ve been undertaking for the new director-general—no decision has been made yet as to who that is—bearing in mind that the CDC commences on 1 January next year.
Senator ROBERTS: What is your intent to fund, commission, conduct or cooperate with others on virus research, including what is commonly called gain-of-function research?
Ms Wood: As the secretary has indicated, there will be a commission appointed by the minister for the CDC once it’s a statutory agency. They’ll obviously have responsibility to determine the work program in detail. We can take you through the research as a concept under the legislation, if that assists.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. What about gain-of-function research?
Ms Wood: The CDC won’t be—I think this was indicated earlier—conducting research on matters that are in the remit of other organisations. The CDC is a complement to the Commonwealth public health capability. It will not be taking over or otherwise leaning in on research conducted by any other Commonwealth entities, whether that’s NHMRC or the Gene Technology Standing Committee.
Senator ROBERTS: We know that the CSIRO has admitted to conducting gain-of-function research, both here and in China. Will you assume responsibility for any aspect of the CSIRO’s Australian Centre for Disease
Preparedness in Geelong?
Ms Wood: The CSIRO is obviously a different organisation. The CDC will work with it, but the CDC is not inheriting or having functions transferred to it from the CSIRO, if that’s the question.
Senator ROBERTS: That is the question.
Prof. Kidd: If I can insert, the oversight of gain-of-function research is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s been bandied around. It’s sometimes in his purview; and sometimes it’s not in his purview. So it’s in his purview?
Prof. Kidd: Responsibility for the oversight of proposed gain-of-function research is.
Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO has a substantial live animal experimentation agenda, although the animals aren’t alive for long. Will you sanction live animal experimentation as part of your new role?
Prof. Kidd: Do we have the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in this section, Secretary?
Mr Comley: I don’t think so, but I think the senator’s question goes to a different question, which is more about research methodology. The other thing I’d comment—and Ms Wood or the others at the table can expand
on it—is that it’s not envisaged that the CDC would undertake research itself. That’s not the primary role of the CDC. I don’t think it needs to turn its policy mind to that question of animal research.
Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I’ll finish early, with the mind to get back on the treadmill with the TGA.
CHAIR: You’re getting better and better, Senator Roberts. I’m very impressed. Senator Liddle?
Absolutely sinister results of Regulatory Agencies being captured / funded by the very industries they are supposed to strictly control for the utmost protection of all life and Medical Ethics / Individual Rights to Fully Informed Consent OR REFUSAL of any Medical Treatment – and one of the other Most Sacred Medical Oaths FIRST DO NO HARM.
This is a slap in the face to the Australian people after the disgraceful covid era crimes against humanity by the Australian Government and its so called Stazi organisations such as TGA and AHPRA. They are still going about their agenda even if people have died from or been seriously injured by their last strong- arm antics (forced jabs). When will Nurenberg 2 happen and include these individuals as well if they had any intent. The cagey responses were enough. Do not trust these SOB’s
Same failed decision makers with a new name -CDC
Thank you Senator Roberts. We saw what a useless bureaucracy the US CDC was in the last scamdemic. We do not need an Australian equivalent. Yet another surveillance system. We are rapidly becoming a national panopticon.
After the debacle of the Australian government’s Covid 19 response and more importantly their actions before the Covid vaccination rollout to the present day has me seriously concerned about the Australian governments of late being in a position of any responsibility whatsoever over my health, due to their, in what would amount to in any other situation criminal actions,of intentionally lying to and deceiving the Australian public as to both the safety and efficacy of all of the vaccines when they had important relevant information to the contrary i and several thousand Australians have had their health and lives destroyed,consigned to a life of constant pain and illness most likely permanently of which the total ramifications are too great to put in print here as it would easily fill volumes of literature simply due to trusting their government to protect them to the best of their ability from harm but the Australian governments of the day wilfully chose to do the opposite in favour of corrupt dollars for themselves and their pharmaceutical paymasters with no evidence at present to suggest any change to this Dangerously corrupt amalgamation in the near future,whilst the Australian government is prepared to accept both mRNA technology and gain of function research both of which are proven incredibly unsafe and dangerous to the continued existence of all human life on the planet then they are prepared to gamble with the lives of the Australian public, though I’m sure in the future they will also make sure that they protect their own health by willingly excluding themselves from any and all mRNA Covid etc vaccinations that are being foisted onto the Australian public as they did during Covid 19 .