Parents – not bureaucrats – should have a CHOICE in their children’s education and upbringing.
I spoke against the Liberal, Labor and Greens policies forcing both parents to work. Whether mum or dad stays home should be a family choice, not something they are forced into by the cost of living.
Empower parents with school choice and protect family values. Charter schools would give funding power back to families, not bureaucrats.
Transcript
Senator McKim, through his motion, is fabricating a false dichotomy, a false divide. It’s not public schools versus private schools; it’s parents versus woke education departments. The real issue is an undernourished education.
Maria Montessori, arguably the most comprehensive studier of human behaviour and human development, said that the critical years for the formation of both character and intellect are birth to six. We form our view of ourselves, we develop our ego and our view of the world before reasoning develops, because reasoning doesn’t start kicking in until around the age of nine. Babies are sponges. They focus on their parents, and the parents’ role is absolutely crucial—especially from zero to three, and then continuing from three to six. That is primary.
So what do we see? We see the Greens policies destroying families and the role of parents. We see Senator Waters recently speaking enthusiastically in the Senate about increasing women’s participation in work. The corollary is that women are not participating in family. That’s the shame. Parents—fathers and mothers—should have a choice as to whether both work or one stays at home. Parents should not be forced to leave their children in the care of someone else for economic reasons—the rising cost-of-living expenditure due to government and Greens policies; higher energy prices due to Greens policies; higher housing prices due to rampant immigration, due to Greens policies; taxation; high interest rates. Whether the mother or the father stays at home should be a choice for each couple, but one of them should have the opportunity to have that choice.
The Greens want the parenting role contracted out to government indoctrination. The Greens are pushing globalist policies through the United Nations and World Economic Forum alliance, and their stated goals are to destroy families. The Greens policies are destroying families and parenting.
I make the point that it certainly would be better to have charter schools introduced into this country because the government allocates money to the child, and that money follows the child to the school. If the parent wants to choose a private school, they have the funds. If the parent wants to choose a public school, the money goes to the public school. Then we’d give power to adults and parents and principals, not bureaucrats.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/9JJ26-UeSjk/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-01-02 14:50:002025-01-04 08:54:26Parents vs Woke Education: The REAL Battle
During my session with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) at Senate Estimates in November, I questioned them about a number of concerns.
Does the TGA agree that spike protein is pathogenic in COVID-19 vaccines? Professor Langham clarified that the spike protein is not pathogenic and is designed to trigger an antigen recognition and antibody response.
Has the TGA observed or seen reports of any adverse events related to the spike protein? Professor Langham responded that no such events have been observed, as the spike protein is quickly degraded by the body once it’s introduced s part of the mRNA vaccine.
What analysis did the TGA conduct regarding the spike protein’s suitability before vaccine approval? Professor Lawler agreed to provide detailed information on notice.
It has been demonstrated that spike proteins exert an inhibitory effect on the function of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), leading to dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system. Is the TGA aware of this effect of spike proteins on ACE2 and on the renin-angiotensin system? Professor Langham explained that while the spike protein attaches to receptors, it does not cause harm on its own.
Is ‘long COVID’ the result of spike protein in the body coming from the Wuhan and alpha versions of COVID itself or is it from the vaccine products containing spike proteins, which are injected repeatedly in Australians? Professor Lawler responded that there is no accepted evidence to confirm such a link.
Has the TGA received any applications for treatments to remove spike proteins from the body and has the TGA engaged with research institutions on this matter? Professor Lawler clarified that the TGA has not received such applications, does not commission research, and focuses on regulating therapeutic goods.
The TGA emphasised that the overall risk-benefit profile of COVID-19 vaccines remains positive.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does the TGA agree that spike protein is pathogenic?
Prof. Langham: Thank you for your question. The spike protein is not pathogenic. It does not contain any of the other parts of the COVID-19 vaccine that brings about a pathogenetic state. The spike protein is really there to encourage an antigen recognition and an antibody response by the body.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll move on. Has the TGA observed or seen reports of any adverse effects of COVID vaccination that may be associated with the likely effects of spike protein?
Prof. Langham: As I said, the spike protein is not pathogenic. We’ve not seen any adverse events related to the spike protein, because—and we’ve discussed this previously—the spike protein is rapidly degraded by the body once it’s introduced as part of the mRNA vaccine.
Senator ROBERTS: Really? Okay. What analysis did the TGA conduct regarding the suitability of spike protein in the COVID vaccines prior to approval? Could you please provide me with that material on notice.
Prof. Lawler: I’m taking that question to be: what did the TGA know about spike proteins prior to approving the COVID vaccines? Is that a fair—
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know what analysis you did regarding the suitability of spike protein in the COVID vaccines prior to approval, and I’d like that material on notice.
Prof. Lawler: I’m happy to respond to that question on notice. We have responded to similar questions previously.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me about the analysis?
Prof. Lawler: As I said, I’m happy to take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know about the analysis now? The question on notice is only if you don’t know something now.
CHAIR: Senator, the official is well entitled to take a question on notice. It’s not about not answering the question; it’s about taking an answer on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, as I understand it, the guides to the witnesses include that if they want to take something on notice it’s only because they don’t know the answer now.
CHAIR: Yes, or they need to qualify or check the information or they don’t have the extent of the information.
Senator Gallagher: They don’t have the information with them to provide you a comprehensive answer, which is not unreasonable.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Have you received any reports, data or discussion from your pharmacovigilance system highlighting concerns about spike proteins following the introduction of the COVID vaccines? If so, could you please provide that information?
Prof. Langham: Again, I’m at a loss to understand the specifics of your question as to how our pharmacovigilance would relate to the specific aspect of the vaccine which is the spike protein. I think we can answer very clearly what our pharmacovigilance results have been for the vaccine itself. But as to the specific aspects of the spike protein, the reason the mRNA vaccines include the spike protein as the antigenic stimulus results from many years of research that had been undertaken in the US by the National Centre for Vaccines to develop mRNA vaccines.
Prof. Lawler: And I’d just add to Professor Langham’s answer that the purpose of our pharmacovigilance and the way in which it monitors for and identifies to enable us to respond to emerging safety signals and trends is that it’s based on adverse events.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s all it’s based on?
Prof. Lawler: These are clinical events. So, there’s an expectation—indeed, an encouragement—that adverse events are reported, and these are reported on the basis of clinical nature. We also, as I mentioned previously, work with international partners on a network of pharmacovigilance activities that Dr Larter might like to speak to.
Dr Larter: We continue to engage with our international regulatory counterparts to look at not only spontaneous adverse event reporting but also linked data, and many of the rich datasets that are available globally, to inform our safety monitoring. These processes enable us to identify emerging safety concerns well before we understand how they might be occurring, before the mechanisms of action are identified. That’s a strength. We don’t need to know exactly how they’re being caused to take regulatory action to ensure that the safety profile is up to date and available for treating health professionals.
Senator ROBERTS: There has been a multitude of papers about potential health impacts from spike protein on the renin-angiotensin system in the human body. It appears to be basic to human health—if not the key system then certainly one of the key systems to health. Is it your testimony today that the COVID vaccines containing spike proteins are still perfectly safe.
Prof. Lawler: We’re aware of the importance of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Professor Langham is a nephrologist. The reality is—I’m happy to come back if I’m wrong, but I don’t know whether we or any other regulator has ever said that a medication is perfectly safe. There are a number of processes that we follow in the assessment and market authorisation of a number of medicines. We have product information that clearly states the risks and potential adverse events—
Senator ROBERTS: Who is that from? Who is the product information from?
Prof. Lawler: The product information is produced—I guess, to the question, I’d like to say that we don’t maintain that the vaccine is perfectly safe. Every time we come here, we discuss with you the adverse events and the recognised and accepted potential adverse events. So, no, it’s not our position that the vaccine is perfectly safe. It is our clear position, and this is the clear scientific consensus, that the risk-benefit of COVID vaccines has been shown to be very safe and, in fact, the risk-benefit is significantly positive.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay; I won’t explore that any further. It has been demonstrated that spike proteins exert an inhibitory effect on the function of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, ACE2, leading to dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system. Is the TGA aware of this effect of spike proteins on ACE2 and on the renin-angiotensin system?
Prof. Langham: It’s well known that the angiotensin receptor is important in how the virus exerts its effects on the body. As to what you are describing with the spike protein itself, on its own, it’s not able to cause any problems. It connects to the receptor, but there is nothing else there behind the spike protein. It’s the virus itself that does cause problems, and the receptor that that virus attaches to is absolutely the angiotensin receptor.
Senator ROBERTS: Was the potential impact of spike proteins on the ACE2 receptor and the renin-angiotensin system considered as part of the analysis of the vaccines? I’d also like to come back again and ask: on whose advice do you take the product safety?
Prof. Lawler: There are two questions there.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, there are.
Prof. Lawler: I’d like to answer them in turn. Which one?
Senator ROBERTS: The first one is: was the potential impact of spike proteins on the ACE2 receptor and the renin-angiotensin system considered as part of the analysis of the vaccines?
Prof. Lawler: The process of the market authorisation and evaluation of medicines, including vaccines, is a comprehensive process that is based upon a significant dossier of information that goes to the safety, quality and efficacy of that particular medicine. In terms of whether that was a specific issue, I’m very happy to have a look at that and come back to you on that.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice—are you taking it on notice?
Prof. Lawler: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Recently, German doctor Karla Lehmann, in her peer-reviewed scientific paper published in the journal of the European Society of Medicine commented that spike protein is ‘uniquely dangerous’ for use in vaccine platforms—and this woman is generally pro-vaccine—because of the effects of spike protein causing ACE2 inhibition, leading to excessive angiotensin 2 and harmful overactivation of AT1R, the angiotensin 2, type 1 receptor. This analysis is supported by other research providing clear evidence of the pathogenic nature of spike protein and its unsuitability for use in vaccine platforms. Is the TGA aware of this review and analysis conducted by Karla Lehmann and her damning conclusions about the dangers of spike protein based vaccines?
Prof. Lawler: I don’t have that article. It would be useful, obviously, to review that. I think it’s also worth noting that a lot of the theoretical conversations around spike protein are mechanistic in nature rather than supported by phenomenological or observational studies. So there are a lot of inferences drawn between a cellular mechanism and a clinical scenario that is very difficult to distinguish from the disease itself. Professor Langham, is there anything you would like to add?
Prof. Langham: I guess I would just support those comments that, when the vaccine with the spike protein as the antigenic stimulus is trialled in clinical trials, the sorts of physiological derangement of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system that might be described is not seen. So we do not see activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with the clinical trials in terms of understanding the specific safety signals that have come from them. It has been quite widely demonstrated that the vaccines themselves are very well tolerated.
CHAIR: Senator, I’m due to rotate.
Senator ROBERTS: I just have two more questions on this thread.
CHAIR: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: Is ‘long COVID’ the result of spike protein in the body coming from the Wuhan and alpha versions of COVID itself or is it from the vaccine products containing spike proteins, which are injected repeatedly in Australians?
Prof. Lawler: I don’t believe there’s accepted evidence to confirm that that’s the case.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the TGA received any applications for treatments or protocols to remove spike proteins from the human body? Have you asked the National Health and Medical Research Council to advertise a grant for this purpose? Are you working with any university around this topic—anything at all—either to cure spike protein damage for long COVID, if it exists, or for vaccine injury?
Prof. Lawler: The answer to the first question is not to my knowledge. The answer to the second question is that it’s not the role of the TGA to commission research from the National Health and Medical Research Council. And the answer to the third question is it is not the role of the TGA to generate knowledge; it is the role of the TGA to regulate therapeutic goods.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the end of my questions on COVID spike protein. I have two more sets of questions.
CHAIR: Do you mean for the TGA?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, for the TGA but on other topics
The New South Wales government recently withdrew and intend to refund over 23,000 COVID fines, in addition to the 36,000 fines withdrawn in 2022. These fines were unlawful and should never have happened.
I criticise the Albanese Government’s whitewash COVID “review” for ignoring state government actions, including these unlawful “fines”. There is so much about the State and Federal Government actions during COVID that must be examined immediately by a Royal Commission. Only a Royal Commission has the power to subpoena documents and compel witnesses to appear and testify truthfully.
Senator Wong responded to my questions that the fines are a state matter and then defended the government’s approach, saying that they were focusing on learning from the pandemic rather than assigning blame.
I questioned the government’s commitment to transparency, pointing out the lack of a royal commission into COVID-19 despite a promise of transparency. Senator Wong reiterated the government’s focus on preparing for future pandemics rather than prosecuting past health policies.
There is a need for accountability and justice, especially for those affected by vaccine injuries, and I question why the government is reluctant to call a comprehensive COVID royal commission. What do they have to hide?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The New South Wales government has just withdrawn and refunded more than 23,000 COVID fines for offences like walking outside in the sun. This is in addition to 36,000 fines withdrawn in 2022. People who chose to fight these had police charges hanging over their heads for years while the fines were illegal all along. Your voluntary COVID review didn’t say one word about these fines because it was specifically instructed by your government to turn a blind eye to everything state governments did. Why is the Prime Minister so scared of calling a royal commission with the power to take evidence on oath, subpoena documents and look at all aspects of state and federal government responses to COVID? Why won’t you commit to calling a royal commission now?
Senator WONG: Thank you, Senator, thank you for the question. While I do not agree with the view you take of these issues, I will say you are very consistent in the views that you put on these issues. I would make a few points. The first is that the offences or the fines that you refer to are under state jurisdiction, and I can’t comment on how the states are approaching the enforcement or non-enforcement of those penalties. That’s a matter for the relevant state authorities. I appreciate that you have been consistent in calling for a broader inquiry. I did take the time—and I’m sure you did too—to look at not every page but a fair bit of the inquiry that did come down. I thought it was a very thorough, very considered piece of work which focused much less on pointing the finger and allocating blame than on working out how Australia as a country, and particularly how the Commonwealth government, can learn from the experience of the pandemic. That is the approach that the government is taking to this. I appreciate you had a different view about the federal government’s response. There were certainly mistakes made. There were certainly things we could do better. We were very critical, for example, of the failure to assist stranded Australians after the borders were closed and so forth. But the focus of the report was very much on what we learned from something that we have not experienced in our lifetimes before and how, in an age of pandemics, we can ensure that we are better prepared for the next pandemic.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Prime Minister Albanese was elected promising to govern with transparency. Within months of being elected the government called a royal commission into robodebt. It’s now 30 months after you were elected to government, and there is still no royal commission into COVID. Will you govern with transparency and call a COVID royal commission that goes way beyond what your inquiry did, or does your government’s transparency promise only apply when it’s politically convenient to you?
Senator WONG: I’d refer you to the answer to your primary question. We have taken the view that, rather than a process of allocating blame, the most important thing for us to do as a country was to be upfront and very honest about mistakes that were made or areas where we could have done better—state and federal—and focus on how we better prepare the country, in particular the Commonwealth government, for the risk of future pandemics. It is a very thorough report. It is a very thorough assessment of what we did well and what we didn’t do well. It makes, I think, very good recommendations, including near-term and medium-term priority areas where we need to strengthen our capacity and our capability. That is a good thing for us to do. It’s an important thing for us to do. Pandemics are likely to be, regrettably, more prevalent, so we need to be better prepared, and that’s what we’re focused on.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: We agree that accountability and justice are essential. We’re not interested in blame. That’s for future prevention. Throughout state and federal governments’ COVID response, endless things were labelled misinformation that turned out to be true. The tens of thousands of vaccine injured and bereaved are owed massive compensation. Those are just the things we found out without a royal commission. Why is the government so scared of calling a proper COVID royal commission that would answer once and for all whether it was really the government who put out misinformation?
Senator WONG: I think your last question really bells the cat, if I may say. This is not about engaging in an argument around vaccines and health information and the views that you and others have about what is correct and what is not. With respect, I know you have your views. They’re not shared by the government. I don’t think they were shared by the Morrison government, and they’re not shared by many people in the public health space. You’re entitled to those views, but we are not looking to have a royal commission which is about reprosecuting health policy and health facts. That is the subject of independent advice. What we are interested in is making sure that, in a pandemic where we saw so many people around the world die and which had such an effect on the global economy and on Australia’s economy, we improve our response to such pandemics. ( Time expired )
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
