Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Collins, I present the 169th report of the Committee of Privileges entitled Persons referred to in the Senate: Professor Simon Chapman.

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to have Professor Chapman's statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

Professor Simon Chapman AO

Pursuant to Resolution 5(7) (b) of the Senate of 25 February 1988

Reply to speech by Senator Leyonhjelm

(5 December 2017)

On the night of December 5, 2017 Senator Leyonhjelm made comments about me in the Senate. He referred to two matters (1) comments made about oral evidence given by me to the current House of Representatives enquiry into e-cigarettes and (2) comments about my recently published book, co-authored with Dr Fiona Crichton, Wind Turbine Syndrome: a communicated disease (Sydney University Press, 2017).

I now seek to exercise my rights as a person adversely named in the Senate to have this response incorporated in the parliamentary record.

My qualifications

Senate Leyonhjelm states that I am not qualified to provide expert advice on health matters, and specifically names wind farms and health and gun control.

"Chapman's qualifications are an undergraduate degree in sociology and a PhD in social medicine, specifically related to the semiotics of cigarette advertising. If you need to know the meaning behind an ad for Marlboro, Dr Chapman might just be the man for you — or at least he can claim to know a bit about the subject — but, if you need professional advice on health matters or, indeed, anything of a scientific or technical nature, you'd be best to steer well clear of him."

My full CV can be found here:

http://api.profiles.sydney.edu.au/AcademicProfiles/profile/resource?urlid=simon.chap man&type=cv

Senator Leyonhjelm's assessment of my expertise would appear to be very different to the following agencies:

Expertise on wind farms and health

In recent years, I have been invited to review scientific manuscripts on this area for seven specialised international research journals (Noise and Health; the International Journal of Acoustics and Vibration; Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control; Environmental Research; Environmental Pollution; the Journal of Psychosomatic Research; and Energy Policy). The National Health and Medical Research Council appointed me as an expert reviewer of their 2010 rapid review of the evidence on wind farms. The Australian Acoustical Society, the Australasian College of Toxicology and Risk Assessment and the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand, all asked me to give plenary session talks to their scientific meetings of acousticians and environmental health specialists in recent years.

Expertise on gun control

I have published two papers on gun control, reviewing the impact of Australia's gun laws on the incidence mass shootings and over all firearm deaths. Both of these papers have had huge impact.

Chapman S, Alpers P, Agho K, Jones M. Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings. Injury Prevention 2006;12: 365-72 doi:10.1136/ip2006.013714. See rapid responses. [Citations:176) [Viewed 174,150 times by Nov 30, 2017] [Altmetric=2,319 #1 of 1,223 papers published in Injury Prevention] Republished in 2015 as one of 6 most influential papers published in Injury Prevention in their first 20 years. [Viewed 5,224 times by Nov 30, 2017; Total views: 179,374 by Nov 30, 2017 Altmetric=10]

Chapman S, Alpers P, Jones M. Association between gun law reforms and intentional firearm deaths in Australia, 1979-2013 JAMA; 2006 published online 22 Jun 2016. [145,392 views by Dec 6, 2017] [Citations:6] [Altmetric=1,998. #13 out of 20,877 JAMA papers scored by Altmetric. + Named by New Yorker as one of 5 most notable medical research reports of 2016 Editorial + Washington Post + New York Magazine

Senator Leyonhjelm's comments about my evidence on e-cigarettes.

Senator Leyonhjelm correctly noted that Public Health England had made a supplementary submission to the House of Representatives Committee, following my oral evidence. I have submitted a detailed response to Public Health England's claims which has been published on the Committee's website since Senator Leyonhjelm made his remarks. See https://t.co/XNRNBSsXxF

Comments made by Senator Leyonhjelm in relation to my expertise about wind farms and health

Senator Leyonhjelm: "He [Chapman] said that the majority of Australia's wind turbines have never received a single complaint. The evidence didn't indicate that, but it's not relevant."

Response: I have published the only study of the history and distribution of complaints about wind farms in Australia, in the international peer-reviewed journal PLoS One. The abstract of this paper states:

"33/51 (64.7%) of Australian wind farms including 18/34 (52.9%) with turbine size >1MW have never been subject to noise or health complaints."

This paper was published in October 2013 and has to date been accessed 10,661 times. Not a single letter of correspondence or correction has been published in response to my data. I am aware of no other published data which contradict it.

Senator Leyonhjelm: "He claimed that complaints of adverse health effects from wind farms tend to be limited to anglophone nations — quite false, which the evidence confirmed. There were others."

Response: The Senate committee's (majority) report declared that it had received submissions about non-English speaking nations that 'contradicted' my point about Anglophone nations dominating complaints. In my book, I examine each of the submissions cited in the Senate report which are said to contradict my statement and conclude The relevant section of my book commences at page 70 here https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/17600

Inaccuracies in Senator Leyonhjelm's statement

Neither Becky Freeman nor Maurice Swanson are professors. Senator Leyonhjelm could have easily learned that had he checked and not relied on a report in the Australian newspaper.

Senator Leyonhjelm: "[Chapman] can be found soaking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers' funds to conduct research that always seems tailored to suit his ideological agenda"

I retired from the University of Sydney at the end of February 2016 and no longer have any publicly funded research funds. The complete record of my competitively publicly funded research is found in my CV, linked earlier.

At the request of Senator Collins, I present the 170th report of the Committee of Privileges entitled Persons referred to in the Senate:Miss Lisa Hay and Dr Geoffrey Robinson and I move:.

That the report be adopted.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to incorporate Miss Hay's statement and Dr Robinson's statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement s read as follows—

Miss Lisa Hay

Pursuant to Resolution 5(7 ) ( b) of the Senate of 25 February 1988

Reply to speech by Senator Brian Burston

(6 December 2017)

I wish to bring to your attention a speech by Senator Brian Burston on 6 December 2017, that included false accusations against myself.

I want, as allowed for under Resolution 5(1) (B), to correct the record in order to protect my personal and professional reputation. I also wish to express my disappointment that a senator has used parliamentary privilege to spread false allegations.

All allegations are denied by myself. The reality of my encounters with 'the major' is very different to the sensational claims made by Senator Burston.

I am not guilty of the accusations put forward in the Senator's speech and would have been able to demonstrate my innocence had Mr Burston requested.

Senator Burston's speech has had the effect of seriously defaming me. It has caused me considerable personal anguish and professional harm.

It has exacerbated my physical and mental health conditions, including a previously diagnosed PTSD, severely limiting my ability to pursue my occupation.

I am a librarian currently pursuing further post-graduate studies. My academic reputation is at risk due to this speech.

The allegations were made under the protection of parliamentary privilege, and later published as a video to Senator Burston's public Facebook page, where it has been shared 11 times and viewed over 1200 times. It has also been published elsewhere online.

I seek the right of reply and ask that my response be published by the Senate or incorporated in Hansard.

Dr Geoffrey Robinson

Pursuant to Resolution 5(7 ) ( b) of the Senate of 25 February 1988

Reply to speech made by Senator Brian Burston

(6 December 2017)

I wish to bring to your attention a speech by Senator Brian Burston on 6 December 2017, that included false accusations against myself.

I wish, as allowed for under Resolution 5(1) (B), to correct the record in order to protect my professional reputation, and I also wish to express my disappointment that a Senator has used parliamentary privilege to spread false allegations. All allegations are denied by myself.

The reality of my encounters with the individual that he refers to as victim is very different to the sensational claims made by Senator Burston.

I am not guilty of the accusations put forward in the Senator's speech and would have welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate my innocence to Mr Burston.

Senator Burston's speech has had the effect of seriously defaming me and causing me considerable personal anguish and professional harm.

These allegations were made under the protection of parliamentary privilege, and later published as a video to Senator Burston's public Facebook page, where it has been shared 11 times and viewed over 1200 times.

I seek the right of reply and ask that my response be published by the Senate or incorporated in Hansard.

Response to Senator Burston:

The Senator's speech on 6 December 2017 included false allegations against myself.

One of these allegations was that I am a troll '…who attack mostly innocent people to pander to a celebrity.'

The Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'troll' is:

A person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/troll

Earlier in the Senator's statement he referred to un-named 'trolls' and accused them of creating false social media accounts as part of a campaign of harassment against an individual.

As I am identified as a 'troll' later in the speech this implies that I am guilty of this action. This would amount to misusing a carriage service as per S474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

This claim, which is completely untrue, has had an adverse impact on myself in terms of the resolution:

1. I am a university academic. My employer has a strict social media policy and in recent years one Deakin academic has lost their employment as a consequence of violating this policy. The allegation that I am a 'troll' is a direct threat to my occupation.

2. The suggestion that am I a 'troll' suggests fundamental character deficiencies that would render me unfit to be a university teacher.

3. The Senator claims that as one of the trolls which he identifies I am guilty of the criminal offence of misusing a carriage service which render me liable to dismissal by my employer.