Hon. Mark Butler, MP

Minister for Health and Aged Care

Dear Minister

RE: YOUR REVIEW INTO ALL THE MORRISON GOVERNMENT’S COVID-19 VACCINE DEALS

While welcoming your review, regarding your appointment of Ms Jane Halton to conduct the review for you, I ask whether you are aware of the many reported serious conflicts of interest associated with Jane Halton on this topic, based on her reported statements, relationships, appointed positions and history?

If you are aware of these reported conflicts, how do you intend to manage her work for taxpayers and citizens so that we obtain, in your words, quote – “good independent advice to the government about our existing arrangements – the contracts that we have inherited from previous government both in relation to vaccine delivery … and treatments?”

Based on these conflicts and as a matter requiring transparency and integrity, I would seriously question whether any advice provided, or review conducted by Ms Halton, could be said to be unbiased and sufficiently independent concerning existing arrangements and contracts related to vaccine delivery and associated treatments.

Minister, how can a review be independent and credible without release to senators of the details of contracts between vaccine manufacturers, including intermediaries and suppliers, and the government?

Yours Sincerely

Senator Malcolm Roberts

This was a letter I received after I questioned Meat and Livestock Australia about how they planned to make more money out of cattle without having more cattle in Australia. It all ties into the elites plan to have the peasants eat bugs.

I’m a passionate second-generation butcher, 40 years of age. Your questions to the head of Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) about meat prices were very impressive. The MLA l agree are doing a great job in production of better cattle. But, I’d like to say the reason for sending this letter is the supply chain above the retail sector has not acknowledged that the sharp price increase of meat in the past 8 years is hurting the consumer, who we butchers serve on the front line.

The quickness of the increases is strangling butchers and customers in demographic areas where people are mostly cooking at home and can’t afford to eat out. It saddens me seeing customers changing what they are purchasing from us as they can no longer afford to buy their steaks for dinner, opting for cheaper cuts and minimal weights. I am seeing a major shift in what customers can afford to eat which was never an issue with meat in the past.

Without prejudice I can say that all our suppliers we speak to are nearly happy with the price increases which is concerning me as they look at export profits over our own people. It saddens me to say that what you mentioned in your questioning, I can completely back and say it is what’s been going on in a way that’s hurting our own consumers.

It’s making the wealthy minority happy to a point where middle to low-income people in our own country can no longer afford to eat meat. The direction of the MLA will do nothing except help increase prices. This has been shown to me as a reader and a member of the MLA, it’s all about trying to increase meat prices.

A letter from a constituent

People would be allowed to change their gender every 12 months, while the terms ‘mother’ and ‘father’ would be optional, under a proposed radical shake-up of birth certificates the Courier Mail reports.

No amount of ideology or pontificating by bureaucrats will ever change the biological fact that a father is an adult male with potential to produce sperm and a mother is an adult female with potential to produce eggs. 

Just as a bull who is castrated does not become a cow, a “transgender female” will never be female, even though they choose to live in a female world. 

The scope to choose any gender you want on your birth certificate from 12 years, with the potential to change every year, fuels an obsession with self-identity at an age when the human brain is already scrambled due to puberty.  Genuine gender dysphoria is genuine distress and bureaucratic pandering does nothing to alleviate the distress.

Before the election, as opposition leader, Anthony Albanese said that Assange’s incarceration had gone on long enough and he wanted him freed. Now as Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese must live up to his word and return Julian Assange to Australia.

He’s made equally as extraordinary interventions to keep the Bilo family in Australia, there’s absolutely no reason he shouldn’t do at least the same if not more for an Australian citizen, Julian Assange.

The Albanese Government is sitting back and allowing the United States to persecute an Australian citizen.

This is contrary to the role of the Australian Government, which is tasked with ensuring the welfare of Australian citizens overseas.

Julian Assange should not be treated differently from any other Australian. 

Julian’s action in releasing the Iraq War Logs is not fundamentally different from the information released by Daniel Ellsberg in 1971 which became known as the Pentagon Papers.

In an era where journalism still existed, the Pentagon Papers were detailed by the New York Times and Time Magazine.

Ultimately the release was supported as being consistent with the First Amendment and a matter of public interest by a 6-3 ruling of the United States Supreme Court.

The United States should take this ruling into consideration and be mindful that any prosecution of a journalist for releasing documents that deserve to be in the public domain is fraught with peril.

Further, with the benefit of many years passing, the allegation that the Iraq War Logs placed lives at risk is not supported.

After 1000 days of imprisonment without trial, the Australian Government must now act.

Return Julian Assange to Australia.

Transgender athletes who went through puberty as a male are now banned from competing in female events. The world swimming governing body FINA made the decision on Sunday in a resounding 71.5% majority.

FINA’s decision that only biological women can compete in women’s swimming events and a proposal to create an open category for athletes who do not fit into traditional gender categories is fair, safe and inclusive.

Everyone has the right to access competitive sport and everyone has the right to safety while competing. FINA’s landmark decision is based on the irrefutable science that once males progress through puberty they are physically stronger than females.

FINA’s courage to make a stand for women’s sport is the new benchmark for the rest of the sporting world to measure up to.

My podcasts with Transgender women and motions in parliament on this issue: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/?s=transgender

Dear Minister Hunt

I am writing to you to express my absolute disgust at the way your government and you in particular have failed to manage Covid-19 effectively in Australia.

One Nation is pro-medicine and pro-choice, supporting medicines and procedures that have been fully tested and found to be safe, effective, affordable, and readily available.

Why is it that Australians have been forced to receive injections that were not tested in Australia and never fully tested anywhere and not found to be either safe or effective for everyone.

Taxpayers have born the costs with no choices for those being forced into submission through threats of job loss and worse.

One Nation supports free choice of people to determine what goes into their bodies. This is an issue of bodily autonomy. Consent to such treatment must be freely given and not the result of coercion.

Australians have been denied the free choice to be vaccinated or not. This borders on criminal behaviour.

Government coercion has been a prominent feature of your gross mismanagement and it is disgraceful that a Liberal-Nationals government would be so draconian in its operations.

Voters will not vote for you when they become aware of the lies and misconduct that your actions have spread in the community.

The approval for use of the Covid-19 injections, referred to as vaccines, is still considered provisional in Australia and the injections are in fact still experimental.

You said as much when you told Australians that we are engaged as participants in the world’s largest clinical vaccination trial.

One of the outcomes of your actions has been the destruction of the relationship of trust that used to apply between doctors and their patients.

When a doctor is told by the registration body, Ahpra, that if they speak out against the injections they will risk losing their registration. The insertion of government between the doctor and patient shatters the doctor/patient special relationship.

When a doctor is forbidden to speak freely with her/his patient about the options to be considered before a patient gives consent to treatment, how can that special fiduciary relationship be considered one of trust and good faith if one of the parties is acting through fear for their own livelihood?

Your actions and omissions have destroyed that special relationship.

When reports of adverse reactions to the injections started to emerge, why did you not halt the use of the vaccines until full research was completed to prove or disprove the reports that the injections had the potential to kill or injure recipients?

This would happen routinely for any other drug or procedure, yet this did not occur with the injections. Why were the injections considered a special case?

The injections should be ceased now until the full longitudinal research and testing is completed and done so independent of the manufacturer.

Reports from the manufacturers recognise significant side effects including death from thrombosis and heart anomalies. These are now recognised as foreseeable possible side effects.

Pfizer’s own data acknowledges adverse effects including paralysis and death.

Where is the peer reviewed data from sources independent from the pharmaceutical companies as to the injections’ safety and efficacy?

Where is the evidence showing that injection derived RNA does not integrate into the human genome other than self-serving promises from the pharmaceutical companies?

Are you aware of the current studies that identify non-organic structures within the vaccine components that are of concern to pathologists?

This is dishonest behaviour and I would expect more from you as a Minister.

One Nation has proposed six Covid strategies to rectify your health disaster. Your government’s Chief Medical Officer added a seventh being personal hygiene including hand-washing and confirmed my strategies as complete and appropriate. The strategies are clear and well thought through.

Yet more than two years after the Covid-19 virus’s arrival in our nation your government still has no comprehensive plan for managing the virus. Instead, of managing the virus you have colluded with state Labor and Liberal/Nationals governments to use the virus to control the people, often brutally and inhumanely.

Of first importance now is to hold a Royal Commission into Covid-19 mismanagement. This would examine the roles AHPRA, ATAGI and the TGA have played. It would need to examine the roles and relationships of the federal and state health departments, including the senior bureaucrats and state premiers. The amount of harm these relationships and people caused is staggering in its breadth and severity.

There is an urgent need to rebuild the longstanding doctor/patient relationship that Ahpra’s immoral overreaching actions have destroyed. Whatever happened to doctor/patient confidentiality and privacy and the concept that firstly doctors should do no harm?

Even the commonwealth’s own immunisation handbook states that consent to immunisation must be given freely and voluntarily. Why was this blatantly and calculatedly ignored and violated?

The basic law that applies to consent says that for consent to be valid it must be given voluntarily and must be provided with sufficient information for the patient to decide freely for themselves in the absence of coercion. In terms of negligence, this means the patient must be provided with all material facts in order to provide an informed consent.

This includes all facts about possible side effects, the nature of the injections’ contents, details about alternatives and a full risk profile to enable the patient to decide whether to consent to having the vaccine or not.

Where a possible side effect is death or serious bodily harm, failure to advise a patient of these risks would be grounds for legal action in negligence or if death were to occur, criminal negligence.

Given the complexity of these decisions, it is totally unrealistic to consider that a child or infant could consent to this injection being delivered.

The immoral and inhuman mandates for injecting Covid injections must end now. Your health department and the government in which you are a senior minister have enabled these mandates’ implementation and enforcement.

Agencies and departments under your responsibility and in contradiction of extensive, thorough and widespread medical and scientific evidence, have failed to proactively seek proven safe, effective, affordable and readily accessible treatments and prophylactics. The use of Ivermectin and other medicines and natural treatments have been denied, removed and suppressed while being hailed as rapid cures and effective prophylactics overseas.

As a result of inhumanely suppressing the use of Ivermectin for instance as one example, your government is responsible for otherwise avoidable deaths and for prolonging the impacts of avoidable restrictions that state and federal government implemented in what was wrongly claimed to be due to the virus. Those deaths, the widespread and irresponsible capricious destruction of livelihoods and lives and the crippling costs to families and our nation now burdened with needless debt are due to your actions and omissions.

A comprehensive plan for managing the virus and its variants must now be developed and published as soon as possible as there is not one in existence now.

Australia needs to develop its own plan for Australians and not merely replicate what the United Nations and your former employer the World Economic Forum dictate or call for. This is not a time when one size fits all.

 As the past Director of Strategy for the World Economic Forum 2000-01, surely you would see the conflict of interest that you have faced in your current position as Health Minister?

What is your understanding of the World Health Organisation Pandemic Treaty and its contents? What is the level of commitment of your government to signing this Treaty and what are your expectations in relation to Australia’s sovereignty in the future by potentially giving away responsibility to the WHO for the management of a pandemic within Australia?

It is clear that the Therapeutic Goods Administration has failed in its obligations under s. 22D(2) of the Therapeutic Goods Act (1989) that requires the Secretary of the Department of Health to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of the Covid injections are satisfactorily established for each cohort for which the injections were granted provisional approval.

There needs to be a full independent review of the activities of the TGA with a particular assessment of the TGA approval process related to provisional approvals granted to the pharmaceutical manufacturers of the Covid injections.

The government relationship with Ahpra, a non -government body that wields too much power over the health and allied health sector must be pruned back and the relationship reviewed considering the coercion and the extortion-like behaviour that enabled the mandated injection rollout.

What was the reason for removing Ahpra from the government sphere and converting it to private enterprise beyond the scope of Estimates overview?

Ahpra or its future equivalent needs to be brought under parliamentary scrutiny to ensure accountability. Despite having enormous power over doctors, nurses and health services AHPRA currently is not accountable to the senate estimates process.

Vital data that has been missing from public view must be made available in reasonable time. This includes Covid injection related deaths, adverse incidents, and recent negative research reports. This is instead of the current practice of burying or denying recent findings that contradict the government’s initial or previous position.

Why have the contracts entered into by the government with the pharmaceutical manufacturers been less than transparent?  We still have not been told what the contents of the vaccines are or their manufacturing costs. Commercial in confidence responses do not cut it.

The injections have a serious negative profile that you have clearly tried to suppress, even in the face of growing substantial scientific data to the contrary.

The damage to the Australian economy from the mandates and the unnecessary closures of businesses is unacceptably and inhumanely high. Many small businesses were forced to shut down with many never to recover. The financial stress and loss of jobs that the shutdowns capriciously and negligently imposed has been a factor in the rise in suicides, bankruptcies and mental illness within our community.

You clearly have a large share of the responsibility for these atrocious actions.

You have been responsible for a fraud on the Australian population and worse, trying to impose unproven injections on our next generation. There is no doubt that in time your culpability will become clearer.

Minister, based on your failures to protect the health of Australians and your destruction of much of the Australian economy, no thinking employer should seriously consider that your track record  warrants further involvement in strategic decision making.

Should this government win another term at the coming election I am pleased to hear that you will no longer be responsible for the health portfolio.

Your shame alone should have had you stepping down if not being moved aside or removed.

Australian voters will have their say soon enough.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland

cc

Senator Anne Ruston

Mr Mark Butler, Opposition Spokesman for Health

Visit the original article from the AMPS here: https://amps.redunion.com.au/blog/episode-6-discussions-from-the-front-line

In this episode, we welcome Senator Malcolm Roberts to AMPS Discussions from the Frontline. 

Kara and Senator Roberts discuss the impact of the mandates and the importance of transparency and accountability in Government, all politicians are supposed to serve and listen to the people.

In this video series, “Discussions from the Frontline”, we are discussing AHPRA overreach and the consequent impacts on Health Professionals, the search for evidence-based best practices and overall public health outcomes.

AMPS and NPAA members have repeatedly raised concerns about government overreach and the negative consequences this is having on healthcare, our professions and the public. 

AMPS understands the cost of questioning government policy and politically correct orthodoxy. Questioning “the science” is tragically now often a career-ending decision, a silencing tactic that works by threatening your livelihood and ability to provide for your family.

We believe highly educated health professionals should be allowed to participate in debates on scientific evidence, treatment protocols and in the public square of ideas without government threats of disciplinary action.

Deaths in January were a shocking 2,965 (22%) above the baseline for Australia. This increase coincided with a large increase in COVID-19 infections which is being blamed as the cause. However, if we dig down a bit on that claim it does not stack up.

ABS figures show that only 442 COVID deaths were recorded in January. What is the explanation for the remaining 2,443 deaths above baseline?

Source: ABS https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/january-2022#australian-deaths-by-week-1-february-2021-to-30-january-2022
Source: ABS https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/covid-19-mortality-australia-deaths-registered-31-january-2022#deaths-due-to-covid-19-year-and-month-of-occurrence

Fifteen months ago I asked the Australian Electoral Commission questions around election integrity. I was expecting to have my questions answered and to be reassured our elections were safe. Instead I had bland assurances everything was safe and elections were audited. Proof of those audits was never provided.

After spending all of 2021 pursuing the AEC, One Nation presented our Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021 to the Senate. Special Minister of State Morton finally realised we did have a problem and the government passed a suite of bills to address our concerns. My questions on Tuesday to the Australian Electoral Commission covered the only area the Government was not able to fix because of opposition from the ALP and the Greens – voter ID. The need for voter ID dates from 1995 when the AEC stopped residency checks, which is a way of auditing the voter rolls.

Out of date voter rolls allow dishonest players to vote multiple times, at multiple booths using a different name from the voter roll each time. These are the names of voters who have left the country, passed away, moved away and so on, plus human and data-matching errors at the AEC The only way to ensure every vote comes from a properly registered voter, voting once under their own name is to ask for voter ID.

The answers to my questions to Tom Rogers, the Electoral Commissioner were far from forthright. I will be resuming this matter in the new Parliament. I urge all Australians to enrol to vote, and to exercise your right to vote in the next election.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending again today. Can I start with a compliment to your social media team? It has a nice balance of humour and information in what is sometimes a very hostile environment. That’s reassuring and pleasing.

I’d also like to compliment Minister Morton for his voting integrity bills and for acknowledging the work that I did informing those initiatives with my integrity of elections bill, which preceded them. It’s very important for people to understand, and for voters right around the country to be assured, that their vote will not be wasted and that there is no reason to not vote. There is every reason to turn up now, because we’ll be having audits of the election processes.

My first question today is as a result of multiple reports from constituents who went into a booth in previous elections and were told they had already voted. This may have been human error by the poll worker, yet I think it’s the only issue that Minister Morton’s electoral integrity package failed to address that my bill did.

For clarity, there are two types of multiple voting: one where a person votes multiple times under their own name, and another where a person votes multiple times under different names. The first one, multiple voting under one’s own name, has been well examined, and the conclusion seems to be that it does not make a tangible difference, because we’ve now got electronic rolls in most booths—not all, but most. So let’s turn to the second one, people voting multiple times under different names. Has the AEC done any work on this issue?

Mr Rogers : We look at the entire voting process at the end of every election. We put, as you know, a submission in to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, where we raise issues that we think have been flagged during the conduct of the previous election. Many of those observations are our observations, and many of them have also been passed to us by others. The issue of multiple voting was dealt with in those submissions previously and in supplementary submissions. What you’re referring to there is impersonation, and that’s not something that we’ve had any evidence has had any sort of impact on the election at all. It’s not something that was raised with us in any formal way previously. It’s not something that has been put into a submission to the joint standing committee at all, to the best of my memory. So that’s not something we’re looking at, at all.

The other thing with impersonation is that those sorts of things do become known, because, if someone was doing impersonation on a large scale, we would get feedback from a range of different sources that that would be the case. Don’t forget that many of these polling booths are actually community polling booths, where people know other people in the community as well. It’s not something that’s been personally raised with me. I’m not sure, Deputy Commissioner, if it’s been raised with you.

Mr Pope : No, that’s correct. I would add that there’s another category that is what we call ‘apparent multivoting’, which is actually an administrative error where someone has been marked as having voted, on a paper certified list, and they have put a wrong mark against a person’s name. Sometimes it can be seen as being something else, but it is simply an administrative error.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a phone number or a way of reporting occurrences in order to further investigate the problem, if there is a problem?

Mr Rogers : On our website, there is a—

Mr Pope : fraud email reporting process—

Mr Rogers : and people are welcome to use that.

Senator ROBERTS: The AEC stopped residency checks last century, in 1995. When was the last time the AEC audited a sample of the electoral roll to get an idea of accuracy?

Mr Rogers : We use a whole range of tools to check the accuracy of the electoral role, and we conduct internal audits on that. I think the ANAO also conducted an audit of the electoral roll. I’m not sure if anyone remembers when that might have been—there are a lot of shaking heads—but we could find that out for you fairly easily. So it’s been audited even by the ANAO. In fact, now that I’m warming to my theme, I think it may have been audited twice. I’d have to check that for you. If I’m wrong, I apologise to the ANAO, but I think they came back to check the results of the initial audit. I’m happy to come back to you on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, if you could, please.

Mr Rogers : So there’s more than one way of auditing the accuracy of the roll. The second thing is when we get data on someone’s residence from more than one data source, which is what we do—we effectively triangulate that data to make sure that it’s accurate—we also do, as I mentioned before, our own internal checks of the accuracy of our data entry to make sure that that is an accurate process.

Mr Pope : We do. And we match our data with a range of other data sources, and we also do an annual quality assurance process.

Senator ROBERTS: So, although you say that you haven’t had any evidence or you don’t see much possibility of it, this is surely a case where voter ID would stop someone from voting multiple times under different names or from voting under the names of people who are no longer voting themselves. I know what you’re saying about the community, but sometimes people rock up to a booth that’s not in their community.

Mr Rogers : I might perhaps repeat what we said at the last estimates. I’m loath to get involved in the issue of the voter ID process. I think that’s a highly political issue. It is a matter for parliament. I’m genuinely trying to be right down the centre here. I understand the arguments on both sides of this, but it has become a very polarising debate in places where this has been implemented. So that’s a matter for parliament. What we’re reflecting on here is the processes that we put in place to assure the vote within the legislation that’s currently valid. That bit about voter ID is something that I think I said a little flippantly last time, ‘We have a definite policy not to have a policy on,’ because we’re going to get dragged into that process.

Senator ROBERTS: I can see that. I accept it. It is ironic, Minister, that we need an ID to get into a pub but that we don’t need an ID to get in to vote. That’s just a comment.

Senator Birmingham: Your comment’s noted, Senator Roberts. The government would wish that there had been, or were, broader support for some of the ID measures that, as you acknowledge, Minister Morton had brought forward.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.