Posts

In this session with the Australian Centre for Disease Control (CDC), I pushed for a straight answer on whether it will conduct or drive research. The response I got? A “bit of yes and a bit of no”.

They admitted they’ll “participate” in research yet won’t actually do it. No beakers, no test tubes, just another layer of bureaucracy.

I raised the seriousness of gain-of-function research. I pointed out that the regulator hasn’t met since 2023, its website hasn’t been updated since 2024 and the body responsible for overseeing gene technology won’t even use the term “gain-of-function”, yet it’s still approving these projects.

When I asked whether the government would ban gain-of-function research, the Minister dodged yet again.

So, I made it clear – One Nation will ban gain-of-function research. It’s simply too dangerous to allow.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here tonight. I refer to an answer by Ms Wood in the December 2025 estimates regarding the potential research function of the CDC. Your answer was very carefully worded. You said: The CDC won’t be … 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 … That’s not a no. Can I have a clear answer, please? Will the CDC be conducting research or causing research to be conducted—yes or no? 

Mr McCormack: One of the functions for the CDC in our legislation is to advise on research requirements specifically as they relate to public health matters. We will be undertaking that, and we’re therefore an active participant in research. We are not researchers ourselves in the sense of producing primary evidence, though we are an expert organisation, and we would expect a number of our staff, through the course of their work, to be participating in research undertaken cooperatively with institutions such as universities et cetera. But we’re also not a funder of research. The principal funding mechanism for medical research in Australia is, of course, the NHMRC, complemented by programs administered by the department, including the Medical Research Future Fund. It’s not a question that necessarily provides for a very simple yes-or-no answer. It’s a bit of yes and a bit of no. We’re a participant. We’re not a principal researcher. We’re a supporter of research strategy. We’re not a significant funder of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ll be participating in research, but you’re not researching.  

Mr McCormack: It’s not a simple yes-or-no thing.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s right. I understand.  

Mr McCormack: We have a role in research under our legislation, but it’s not to be a prime driver of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got hold of the beakers and the test tubes.  

Mr McCormack: We do not have hold of the beakers and test tubes. No.  

Senator ROBERTS: A further part of that answer was that the Gene Technology Standing Committee oversees gain-of-function research through the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. The standing committee has not met since 2023, and their website was last updated in 2024. The website of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator does not mention gain-of-function research. The only time they have interceded on the topic was for medical research, where they defended and approved the application. I’m pursuing this line of questioning because gain-of-function research gave the world the MERS virus and the COVID virus. President Obama banned gain-of-function research funding in 2014 owing to lab mishaps with anthrax, smallpox and avian flu. Every time I ask this government about this topic, I get an evasive answer. The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator just approved a public trial of gain-of-function research that produced an influenza virus replica. Australia is doing gain-of-function research, and the regulator is approving it. Minister, will this government ban gain-of-function research?  

Senator Green: I don’t have anything to add to answers that, I assume, have been given to you over many estimates and the information given by the officials tonight.  

Senator ROBERTS: You won’t. One Nation would ban—will ban—gain-of-function research.  

Senator Green: It’s great to hear about your policies, because then we know exactly what the Liberal-National policies will be in a few months.  

Irrigators are heading north to escape nightmare restrictions in the Murray Darling Basin. Many are coming into the beautiful black soil plains of the Flinders river in North Queensland. At the moment this area is natural pasture covered with deep rooting grasses that support grazing.

While the soil supports broadacre crops, this introduces an erosion risk in the floodplain, and most of the black soil plains are flood plain. Replacing deep rooted grasses with deep rooted grains, to create mixed grain and grazing properties seems to make sense.

In 2008 the CSIRO released a paper which suggested making this change could provide a 40% increase in revenue per hectare. I asked what we were doing to look at these developments which could turn the North into a new foodbowl.

Transcript

I’m going to go to Senator Roberts for questions.

Thank you Chair. And thank you both for being here today. I’d like to commend your work on perennial wheat and preventing soil erosion. It’s something that we’ve only just become aware of and the Chair knows, from her experience in North Queensland, that this is very important to the Flinders area in particular, stopping the soil erosion up there when we convert to crops. I’d like you to talk about, I’ll give the the other senators some background so that it makes sense, I’d like you to talk about deep-rooted, perennial grains, please. A quick background: irrigators are heading North to escape the nightmare restrictions in the Murray-Darling basin. We’ve spoken with some of them in the Gulf. Many are coming into the beautiful black soil plains of the Flinders River in North Queensland. At the moment, this area is largely natural pasture covered with deep-rooting grasses that support grazing. While the soil supports wheat, cotton and other broadacre crops, this introduces an erosion problem in the flood plain, and most of the black soil plains are flood plain, and they get their rain in a short part of the year. Replacing deep-rooted grasses with deep-rooted grains to create mixed grain and grazing properties seems to make sense. In 2008, the CSIRO released a paper which suggested making this change could provide a 40% increase in revenue per hectare, so that would be phenomenal on top of the figures you’ve already stated. So I understand that the Grains Research and Development Corporation are working on perennial wheat. The Woodstock Research Centre near Charters Towers is, I understand, trialling perennial wheat. Can you please provide an update on the progress of perennial grain development as it would apply to Queensland cropping?

Thanks Senator, look, at this stage we obviously have a number of investments, certainly in Northern Australia and in the Northern region of the grains industry. Some of these are very highly adaptable to the new area that you’re talking about. Perennial grains is actually not an area that GRDC has been concentrating at depth in, in recent times. It is something that people are raising with us as being an opportunity to look at in that Northern or the Far Northern zone. And if it obviously falls into the remit of GRDC, which is amongst our 25 leviable crops, which obviously wheat is, we can certainly have a look at it. At this stage, we’re not doing a lot of work, there is some trial work, as you say, going on up there on a run, alternative and different crops. Some of them aren’t in our remit, but we’re certainly happy to look at what those opportunities are. And we’ve got some discrete initiatives up there at the moment to look at what could be possible. And we also have some very good rotations, agronomy solutions and husbandry opportunities with our traditional cropping programmes, bring rotations into the North that might be extremely beneficial, and also mitigate some of those issues that you’ve actually raised around erosion and accessing those unique opportunities in those deeper soils.

So, it looked as though the perennial wheat was first raised about 2011, I think, from the GRDC, and then we saw some more material, just in 2021, from an external body: the rising potential of Australian perennial wheat. And it really does seem amazing, because you increase the fodder for the cattle or the sheep, as well as reducing soil erosion. So the way I took the conclusion, from what you’re saying, is that you’ve done little work on that at the moment, is that right?

That’s right, Senator. I mean, there’s certainly obviously opportunity that we’re happy to look at, but perennial wheat in the North has not been deemed a priority by growers as part of our current RD&E plan, but, as I say, we are doing discrete work and we’re in consultations in the Far North about what could be possible. So, we have investments, as I say, up there and we’re consulting heavily with, particularly, growers on the ground and some of those other stakeholders that work in that region, such as QDAF, to see what other opportunities we could bring to bear and what research needs are required. And we’re at the table for that.

What are the obstacles at the moment to do more work on that?

Well, there’s probably minimal obstacles. We just need to make sure that we actually design whatever research may be required up there to bring to bear some opportunity. We need to make sure that we’re actually gonna meet the agro-ecological zone and also the climatic and soil conditions. I know that your report that you mentioned, that’s recently been done, they’ve identified an opportunity. We’re more than happy to look at that, in consultation with the players up there, and see what might be possible. Perennial grain, particularly in our traditional region, Senator, had not provided either short- or medium-term opportunity. We’ve been able to bring to bear far better outcomes with our husbandry and agronomy outcomes in our traditional grain-growing areas with our new rotations and the technologies that we bring to bear using annual, as opposed to perennials.

So, what I interpreted, Mr Woods, from your opening response to that second question is that you’re careful to not develop something that people are not interested in. Is that right?

We prefer not to have an unroadworthy vehicle before we start, Senator.

Okay. And Henry Ford said, when someone said, “Why are you building cars? There are no roads.” He said, “The roads will come.” And they did. So, it seems very exciting. And your main obstacle at the moment is the lack of market reception, or customer reception, is that it?

That is correct, Senator. There’s not a lot of acceptance or engagement or excitement with regards to perennials, in the grower spectrum, so I think there’s some work to be done.

Okay. That will do me. Thank you very much. I’d like to contact your agency if we could. Can we do that?

Very happy to, Senator. Thank you.

[Roberts] Thank you, Mr Metcalf. Thank you Mr Woods.

[Chair] Mr Woods, thank you.