Posts

The Labor Government is running scared of scrutiny. Their atrocious bill to establish an Australian Centre for Disease Control (CDC) is significant legislation—and I’ll go so far as to say it’s the worst I’ve seen in my nine years in the Senate. It’s dangerous.

There were countless amendments that required answers, and many speakers were denied the opportunity to contribute. Serious questions remain unresolved.

The Albanese Government manipulated the speaking list to push One Nation Senators to the bottom. Just before it was my turn to speak, Labor guillotined the bill, preventing any further speeches from being delivered. I managed to use the debate on the guillotine to deliver part of my speech, which is the video you see here.

This marks a new low for the unscrupulous and arrogant Labor Government. The Greens should be ashamed for supporting the guillotine on such an important bill.

The CDC will provide the government of the day with cover to do whatever it wants. It’s expensive, it will control dangerous research, and the reporting and scrutiny provided in this bill are virtually non-existent. This is unacceptable.

One Nation will repeal this bill.

Transcript

Yet again, a guillotine stops debate immediately before I was scheduled to speak against this bill, and after pushing all three One Nation senators, who were going to speak, to the bottom of the list. One Nation opposed the guillotine. We want to know why the coalition and the Greens join with Labor in supporting big pharma.  

Senator Canavan interjecting— 

Senator ROBERTS: Except Senator Canavan. Thank you, Senator Canavan. This is significant legislation, and I’ll go so far as to say that it’s the worst legislation I’ve seen in nine years in the Senate. It’s dangerous. There are many, many amendments that need answers, and there are many speakers that missed out. There are many questions.  

The first question I have for you is: why are you avoiding scrutiny? This is half a bill! The bill establishes what the CDC director can do. It does not, though, establish what the director cannot do. There’s nothing in this legislation to establish rules around the following, so can you please clarify. What is the process for determining where the CDC will be located and what the site features should be—what protections for the community? What research will be conducted at the CDC, if any? Will that research include gain-of-function research, which was the cause of the COVID outbreak in 2019, which killed millions of people? Who will own the taxpayer funded CDC research? There are no answers to these questions. These are fundamental. What research will be conducted in cooperation with research facilities overseas, and what countries should be excluded on national security grounds? Start with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and exclude Anthony Fauci’s haunts, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and America’s National Institutes of Health, and Fauci’s colleagues including Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak. 

Will live animal testing be conducted, and, if so, on what animals and how? Will research be conducted on behalf of commercial corporations, and, if so, who owns the taxpayer funded research. What annual reporting will be produced to alert the parliament and the Australian people about the risks to which they’re being exposed? If the CDC facility handles sensitive material, what level of containment will be used, and what will be the process for investigating and rectifying breaches? And what is the purpose of and limit to research? Is it just ego—’Look at what we can do!’—or is there a genuine medical outcome they’re working towards? 

We know the CSIRO at its Geelong facility is already conducting risky experiments on deadly viruses such as Ebola, and they’re experimenting on animals. Those are my questions. Additionally, what’s happening with taxpayer funds? We know the CSIRO monetises its research, or used to, and we know lately the CSIRO has been publishing the results of their research allowing corporations to piggyback off that research free of charge, saving them years in developing new drugs from which the Australian taxpayers will have no commercial benefit. The taxpayers pay and get no benefit. This is the state of medical research in Australia. What impact will the CDC have on the CSIRO? We don’t know. The bill doesn’t set out these matters. It’s a glaring omission. 

The minister says the Australian CDC will undertake technical and advisory functions based on its public health expertise and knowledge and access to relevant information. What expertise? It hasn’t started yet. You’re assuming bureaucrats and health officials actually have the expertise and knowledge to perform these studies, yet there’s nothing in this bill to say they must have that knowledge—nothing. This is a pretence to give ‘thank you’ jobs to COVID era health officials who have a track record of very dangerous, dishonest and inhuman decisions. These bureaucrats will be given powers. The Chief Medical Officer, for example, must be a doctor, but the director of the CDC does not. What could possibly go wrong? 

Continuing cover ups from the government and freedom of information—an issue which One Nation senator for Western Australia Senator Whitten has raised is the changes the bill makes to the Freedom of Information Act. The bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to exempt the CDC from freedom of information applications to which the same documents are currently open. I wonder if this is to cover up information from the COVID years or just to get ahead of the next lab leak. 

Finally, I’ve already discussed sensitive biological agents with regard to Ebola. The CDC bill transfers responsibility for the Security Sensitive Biological Agents Regulatory Scheme from the department to the Australian CDC. This scheme regulates certain biological agents that are considered dangerous. Now, let’s take a closer look at this one. Who would decide if a biological agent is sensitive and subject to extra checks? The CDC. Who would be most likely to be importing sensitive biological agents like Ebola and heaven knows what else? The CDC. Who would now be their own regulator? You guessed it, the CDC. This is a recipe for no accountability, a recipe for disaster, a recipe for rampant, unbridled control over the people. 

Officially, this bill simply brings together powers spread across several departments into one place. If that’s really the case, why does the bill have a price tag of $250 million for the first three years and $73 million per year after that? Shouldn’t the cost of the CDC be offset through savings in other departments? If that’s all they intend, then that would be true. Clearly the Australian CDC will be doing much, much more. You’re given them the money to do it, and they’ll be doing it away from prying eyes and protected with freedom-of-information blocks and negligible reporting criteria, regulating itself and sending the bill to the taxpayers. In nine years in the Senate, this is one of the worst bills I’ve dealt with. Minister, I’ve given you many questions. I’d like some answers. 

Australia co-operated with the Wuhan Institute and America’s NIH on gain-of-function research on COVID, which led to the COVID pandemic. Subsequently, both of these institutes conducted similar research on bird flu and now we have a mutant bird flu outbreak.

When I asked the Health Department if this was a good reason to discontinue gain-of-function research, their response was NO and instead, indicated a focus on refining messaging to deflect criticism. Even more troubling is the admission that gain-of-function research into pandemic-potential pathogens is being conducted in level 3 labs rather than level 4.

One Nation opposes gain-of-function research and believes that the “scientists” responsible for developing the novel COVID virus should be held accountable for the deaths it caused. Gain-of-function research for pandemic-potential pathogens does not pass a cost-benefit-risk analysis and should be halted immediately.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, China did gain-of-function research in Wuhan on COVID, and we had a COVID outbreak. Then China did gain-of-function research on bird flu, and now we have a bird flu outbreak, so I’m told. Minister, will your government ban Australian involvement in gain-of-function research?  

Senator Gallagher: I think Professor Kelly has stated the Australian government’s position in relation to reviews that are underway. I don’t know whether there’s more that he can add to that.  

Prof. Kelly: I’d just suggest that be directed to the CEO of the NHMRC, who’s undertaken some of these processes previously, and we’ve had a recent discussion about what else we might need to think about.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

Prof. Wesselingh: Gain-of-function research is an important component of genomic research across the board and leads the development of a whole lot of things, like drugs and vaccines et cetera. I think the issue that you’re talking about is the gain-of-function research on pandemic potential pathogens and, obviously, that does need to be closely regulated. Australia has a very strong regulatory environment to do that, particularly through the OGTR, biosafety committees across the country and, obviously, the facilities we have, which are PC3 and PC4 facilities.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are they levels or standards for infection security?  

Prof. Wesselingh: Yes. PC2 is a sort of standard laboratory, PC3 is additional security and PC4 is very high security.  

Senator ROBERTS: And ours are 2 and 3?  

Prof. Wesselingh: No. All of the work done on gain-of-function in PC3 and PC4 is on pandemic potential pathogens. We have, I think, a really strong regulatory environment to control gain-of-function research in Australia. But as Paul said, we’ve had some additional conversations between the Chief Medical Officer, the OGTR and the NHMRC, in terms of whether there are additional assurances that we should apply to the very small number of gain-of-function activities that occur with these pandemic potential pathogens. We’re certainly looking at that to see the risk benefit and the public benefit of those aspects.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has research stopped while you’re doing that review?  

Prof. Wesselingh: No. We did a very big review of gain-of-function activities, and that has been reported to this committee previously. There were 17 projects that were being conducted. Only four were being conducted with pandemic potential pathogens, and they were all conducted under the controls of the OGTR in PC3 and PC4 facilities; none were being done on COVID; and we continue to use the current regulatory processes in regard to that.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the status of gain-of-function research in the United States? I understand that it was outlawed under Obama.  

Prof. Kelly: I’m not really able to talk about what may or may not be the regulations in a foreign country.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you do much benchmarking with other countries?  

Prof. Wesselingh: I can comment on that. Gain-of-function research still continues in the United States. We have been watching, with interest, recent developments in the United States, and they have developed a system, similar to the one that I was saying we are currently discussing with the chief health officer, where gain-offunction research can continue; but increased assurances, in terms of the risk-benefit and the public benefit of those activities, are conducted through the US agencies. We’re looking at that carefully, and that’s the basis for our ongoing discussions with the OGTR and the Chief Medical Officer 

25 June 2021

Hon Greg Hunt MP

Minister for Health and Aged Care

PO Box 6022

House of Representatives

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Minister Hunt

I draw your attention to an article published in the Australian today[1], which states that “CSIRO and several Australian universities have engaged in at least 10 joint projects with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the past decade, a laboratory that US intelligence has linked to the Chinese military and which is suspected of being at the centre of the Covid-19 outbreak.”

The same article states “a spokesperson for Mr Hunt said he had ordered a review of “gain-of-function” research in Australia by the National Health and Medical Research Council.” 

Concerningly, this article points out the roles of CSIRO and Australian universities in research and development at, and/or with, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, roles which CSIRO at first denied in Senate Estimates.

What is worse is that the CSIRO trained Chinese infectious diseases expert Shi Zhengli’s protege, Peng Zhou, who is now head of the Bat Virus Infection and Immunity Project at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 

Further, there are links into many universities, one being the University of Queensland, including Dr Hume Field[2] who is one of many academics from Australia engaged with the EcoHealth Alliance as a Science and Policy Advisor for both China and southeast Asia regions. Dr Hume has been working on emerging diseases, environmental science and infectious disease epidemiology.  On 12 May 2020, the Washington Post reported that EcoHealth is a “longtime partner” of the Wuhan Institute of Virology[3].

Minister, so called “Gain-of-Function” (GoF) is a euphemism for biological research aimed at increasing the virulence and lethality of pathogens and viruses. GoF research:

  • is government funded and supported by CSIRO and Australian universities and academics.
  • academics may not understand the underlying political or military agendas of such research.
  • its focus is on enhancing the pathogens’ ability to infect different species and to increase their deadly impact as airborne pathogens and viruses.
  • ostensibly, GoF research is conducted for biodefense purposes in many countries. 
  • GoF experiments are extremely dangerous and there is evidence of outbreaks[4].
  • these deadly science-enhanced pathogens can and do escape into the community where they infect and kill people – it is biological warfare.

Government officials and the recipients of government grants and contracts for GoF research argue that these experiments are critical for understanding the subtle changes that can make a virus a pandemic threat. GoF experiments have neither prevented a pandemic, nor provided useful information about safe and effective pandemic countermeasures.

We believe these high-risk experiments deviate from morally justifiable research, and these experimentally altered viruses and pathogens have put the entire human race at risk.  Especially given the potential for a country such as China to ‘weaponise’ the products of Australian supported and funded research.

If you, and/or your government support these programs then it is time to stop.

The risks posed by influenza/virus GoF experiments include frequent documented escapes of deadly pathogens into the community, which have a potential for triggering a pandemic. These risks far outweigh any speculative benefits.  What’s more, as Dr. Marc Lipsitch of Harvard and Dr. Alison Galvani of Yale argue:

the creation and manipulation of potential pandemic pathogens are too risky to justify…there are safer more effective experimental approaches that are both more scientifically informative and more straightforward to translate into improved public health.” [PLoS Medicine, 2014][5]

The risk of laboratory enhanced transmissibility of influenza viruses is obvious. Dr. Andrew Pavia, Chief, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Utah stated:

“A readily transmitted H5N1 virus could be extraordinarily lethal; therefore, the risk for accidental release is significant, and deliberate misuse of the data to create a biological weapon is possible.”[6]

Many everyday Australians are asking why your government is not being proactive and protecting us from viruses by having both an end-to-end plan for managing the COVID-19 outbreak, and by cancelling support for research and collaboration with nations that may weaponise a virus and harm everyday Australians.  Australians deserve to be safe.

Minister: can you advise what you and your government know about this GoF research and of the participation of CSIRO and Australian academic institutions?

Additionally, I have submitted a question on notice (QON): I have requested a copy of the terms of reference of your proposed review as well as detail on the composition of the review group, meeting times, how submissions may be made, attendance at meetings and importantly an undertaking from you that this will be a public inquiry with published results.  I would be happy to discuss this matter with you further and await your advice.

Yours sincerely,

Senator Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland


[1] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/csiro-unis-in-10-joint-research-projects-with-wuhan-lab/news-story/5856c25b8a9036535eef9e9057f5d127

[2] Dr. Hume Field – EcoHealth Alliance

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/suspicion-of-wuhan-lab-ensnares-new-york-nonprofit-testing-bat-coronaviruses/2020/05/12/22d0d642-8f3c-11ea-8df0-ee33c3f5b0d6_story.html

[4] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/lab-incidents-lead-safety-crackdown-cdc

[5]  Ethical Alternatives to Experiments with Novel Potential Pandemic Pathogens, Marck Lipsitch and Alison P. Galvani, PLoS

[6] Laboratory Creation of a Highly Transmissible H5N1 Influenza Virus: Balancing Substantial Risks and Real Benefits, Andrew T. Pavia, MDAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2012