Posts

AHPRA’s Cultural Safety Strategy Draws Criticism

,

I asked the representative of AHPRA about the directive that is written into the Cultural Safety Strategy which requires all registered health practitioners to acknowledge colonialism and systemic racism.

Their response? The policy was to denounce racism. I was critical of their policy, which is directing health practitioners what to think, say or do on political and cultural matters in a health setting.

This approach mirrors the strategy that was employed during the Voice Referendum, which was decisively rejected by the Australian public as being divisive.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Mr Fletcher. What’s going on with AHPRA? Since when did AHPRA take on a role to tell doctors that they must acknowledge Australian colonisation and systemic racism, which impacts on individual and community health, presumably? How? 

Mr Fletcher: I’m not entirely sure what you are referring to there. What’s the particular the document or piece that you’re referring to?  

Senator ROBERTS: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Strategy Group.  

Mr Fletcher: We have had now for a number of years an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and Cultural Safety Strategy. The oversight or guidance for that is led by a strategy group that brings together Aboriginal staff within AHPRA—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander board members as well as the national health Aboriginal group. It also reflects that, in our legislation, we have both objects and guiding principles that relate to the promotion of cultural safety for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the elimination of racism. This is a core part of our guiding principles and objects, and that strategy group, and the unit that we have within, AHPRA leads that work and implements that work.  

Senator ROBERTS: That lines up pretty much with what I was about to go on with. This is a national strategy called ‘cultural safety’, as you said, that’s based on totally unproven propositions of a political persuasion. Is this driven by the same elites, academics and vested-interest holders who pushed for the failed referendum on the Voice?  

Mr Fletcher: I don’t accept the premise of your question. The health and cultural safety strategy is about how we intend to address cultural safety and the elimination of racism for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across all of our work as a regulatory scheme.  

Senator ROBERTS: My question was: is this driven by the same elites, academics and vested interest holders who pushed for the failed referendum on the Voice?  

Mr Fletcher: I don’t know who you’re referring to there.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can answer the question—it is.  

CHAIR: Senator, you don’t need to answer the questions; just ask them, please.  

Senator ROBERTS: Wasn’t that referendum soundly defeated, Mr Fletcher? That referendum result showed that Australians rejected outright propositions that would ultimately divide Australians based on race. You’re asking doctors to treat people differently.  

Mr Fletcher: I can only repeat what I’ve said. In our legislation we have, in our objects and guiding principles, a requirement to promote cultural safety for First Nations people and to address the elimination of racism. So what we’re doing is looking at how we can implement that across all of the work we do as a regulatory scheme.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have it here in front of me on, page 2 from your website—’Definition of cultural safety for the national scheme,’ it goes on. Then it says, ‘Cultural safety definition,’ and ‘principles,’ and then it says, ‘definition,’ and then it says, ‘how to’. These are the instructions: To ensure culturally safe and respectful practice, health practitioners must: • Acknowledge colonisation and systemic racism, social, cultural, behavioural and economic factors which impact individual and community health.  

CHAIR: What’s the question, Senator Roberts?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m getting to the question now. The referendum was soundly defeated. How much is AHPRA spending to enforce this untrue fiction that is of no benefit in closing the gap?  

Senator McCarthy: Point of order, Chair.  

CHAIR: Yes.  

Senator McCarthy: The referendum was only about one question: to have a Voice or not to have a Voice to the parliament. That is totally not within the standing orders, in terms of the questions that Senator Roberts is putting to Mr Fletcher. I just point it out, Chair.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll rephrase the question.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. Before you do rephrase it—I have been listening carefully. Senator Roberts, you know there’s a very broad scope here, but you do need to ask questions within the scope of what Mr Fletcher is here to present on, which is the operations and expenditure of his agency. I also remind you that AHPRA attends voluntarily to our committee.  

Senator ROBERTS: And they push directives on and force doctors and nurses—  

CHAIR: Just come to the question, please, Senator. 

Senator McCarthy: Point of order. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, please come to the question.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much is AHPRA spending to enforce this what I call ‘untrue fiction’ that is of no benefit in closing the gap?  

CHAIR: Can I just clarify for Mr Fletcher that you are referring to a certain guideline? I don’t have it in front of me. Perhaps you could table it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.  

CHAIR: Mr Fletcher, it’s open to you, if you feel able to answer that question, if you understand the relevance of that question to your agency.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s as Mr Fletcher said: the national strategy called cultural safety.  

CHAIR: Mr Fletcher?  

Mr Fletcher: There are probably two comments that I’d make to the question. One is that there was a lot of work done in the development of that health and cultural safety strategy to work with stakeholders around an agreed definition of cultural safety. The second comment that I would make is that we do have a health strategy unit within AHPRA that leads our work on the implementation of that strategy, and that is staffed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much is AHPRA spending to enforce this strategy, as you call it, that is of no benefit to closing the gap? How much?  

Mr Fletcher: Again, I don’t accept the premise of your question, but if you’re asking—we have a range of activities to implement that strategy across our work as a regulatory scheme. I don’t have the figure in front of me of exactly what we’re spending on that, but if you want me to, for example, give you an idea of how much we’re spending in relation to work of the health strategy unit, I can take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Fletcher. What is AHPRA prepared to do to enforce such an edict?  

Mr Fletcher: I can give you examples of some of the work that we’re doing. For example, we’re doing work in the area of continuing professional development, looking at what might be some of the elements of continuing professional development for registered health practitioners around questions of cultural safety and elimination of racism for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We do a lot of outreach with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioners in relation to their registration processes because we have a goal to increase the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across all of the regulated professions. We also have a specific board for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioners who are providing a lot of first-line services, particularly in rural and remote areas across Australia, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and peoples. We support the work of that board also.  

Senator ROBERTS: What would you do if a doctor or a nurse said that they are not prepared to acknowledge systemic racism or other factors? What would you do, because you have told them they must do it?  

Mr Fletcher: We would have a concern if there were any examples of racism in the way that the practitioner was treating an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person—  

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that—  

Mr Fletcher: and that would be looked at in the context of our process for dealing with notifications.  

Senator ROBERTS: Racism is abhorrent. I didn’t mention that. I just said that they refused to acknowledge systemic racism. I didn’t say if the doctor or nurse were racist. I asked: what would you do if they refuse to acknowledge systemic racism because they haven’t seen it or don’t believe that it exists?  

Mr Fletcher: As I said, the concern that would come to our attention, typically, would be if a concern were being raised that a health practitioner had acted in a racist way against an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. We would look at that as a notification in the way that we would look at any concern being expressed to us about a registered practitioner, with reference to the relevant code of conduct for that health profession.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying that only racists need to acknowledge it? I’m talking here about a doctor who is not a racist, who doesn’t believe there’s systemic racism, who doesn’t want to acknowledge colonisation, and he or she refuses to acknowledge that. You’re telling doctors what to think.  

CHAIR: Senator, I am listening to you very carefully. I am finding it difficult to make the link between the question you are asking and the operations and expenditure of AHPRA. I’ll allow Mr Fletcher an opportunity to respond, but I remind you that, although the scope is very broad, it does have to go to the operations and expenditure of the agency which you are questioning. Mr Fletcher, do you wish to respond?  

Mr Fletcher: I think I’ve made the comments that I wanted to make. 

Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, Chair, I talked about what it would cost, what they were prepared to do to enforce this—  

CHAIR: And I didn’t rule that out of order.  

Senator ROBERTS: and then I asked what they would do to enforce such an edict. That’s the question I want answered now.  

CHAIR: There was a lot of preamble, which, to me, bordered very much on matters of opinions, Senator Roberts. I haven’t ruled you out of order, but I’m asking you to keep your comments to the operations and expenditure of AHPRA and give Mr Fletcher some flexibility in the way that he answers that, given where I believe it sits on the spectrum of opinion and operations and expenditure. Senator, you have one more question, then it’s time to rotate the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will this direction extend to 750,000 health practitioners and allied health professionals in Australia?  

Mr Fletcher: The commitment to the elimination of racism and cultural safety for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is in our legislation and applies to all of the regulated health professionals.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will this directive extend to the 750,000 health practitioners?  

Mr Fletcher: Senator, I think you’re referring to a strategy rather than a directive, and the strategy is looking at all of the regulated health professions in Australia.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts—  

Senator ROBERTS: It says health practitioners must—  

CHAIR: I will be passing the call now, Senator Roberts, to the opposition. I’m just confirming that’s Senator Rennick. Just before you do—yes, Minister?  

Senator McCarthy: Chair, if I may, in terms of some of the commentary by Senator Roberts, I would like to point out that within Closing the Gap, the concerns around cultural safety for health practitioners, certainly First Nations health practitioners, is a very real issue. I commend Mr Fletcher and AHPRA for the work that they’re doing in this space to support them. 
 
 

/2 Comments/by

AHPRA Muzzled GPs for Questioning COVID Jabs

,

Many doctors have been targeted or notified by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (AHPRA) simply for questioning the COVID injections.

These injections have since been found to be unsafe, not effective, and testing was inadequate. Doctors were targeted by AHPRA simply for fulfilling their professional duty by proactively warning of risks and providing information in reaction to questions from their patients. In providing patients with the advice and information required to give informed consent, health practitioners were providing a standard of care that is universally accepted as competent. Is political interference acceptable?

When questioning AHPRA recently, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) jumped in and said they do not accept any of my three statements. The government still maintains, in the face of overwhelming international evidence, that the vaccines are safe, effective and that they work. During Senate Estimate in February, I asked Professor Skerritt for details about the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s (TGA) testing of the COVID injections in Australia. He responded that they did no testing here. He said the TGA relied on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In turn, the FDA have stated they did no testing. Why? Because they relied on Pfizer’s in-house tests, yet Pfizer’s trials were shut down because of the poor results.

There have been strong criticisms of their methods and falsified results. The post marketing release of papers exposes both the flaws and the risks of these mRNA injections. If health practitioners are choosing to practice their duty of care as professionals in providing the advice that allows their patients to make an informed choice around the medicines they take, then this should be celebrated. Any health authority or regulatory body that vilifies or punishes this standard of care is acting only on behalf of pharmaceutical interests and not in the best interests of patients or the healthcare profession.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. Ahpra has made many unjustifiable decisions against doctors and other allied health professionals. Many doctors have told us this. What proportion of Ahpra members are practising doctors? Why is there such a lack of medical input into Ahpra’s investigations of doctors?

Mr Fletcher: Thank you, Senator. There are about 130,000 registered medical practitioners in Australia. I can give you the exact number on notice. It is roughly that figure. The regulation of medical practitioners in Australia is overseen by the Medical Board of Australia. That board has two-thirds medical practitioner members and one-third community members and is chaired by a medical practitioner.

Senator ROBERTS: Many doctors in Australia were suspended for commenting on COVID vaccinations. Many of the concerns expressed have now been shown to be evidence-based. Can you please explain Ahpra’s actions which deprived Australia of valuable medical manpower at a key juncture when doctors were sorely needed?

Mr Fletcher: I think we have previously advised the committee that there were, in fact, 31 practitioners suspended associated with concerns in relation to COVID-19 and the pandemic. There has been no further use of our IA, or immediate action, powers or suspensions since we last met with the committee. There are 15 practitioners who are currently suspended. In nine of those cases, there is an investigation ongoing. In six of those cases, a referral has been made to the tribunal. We make a referral to the tribunal—it is the independent tribunal in each state and territory—where there is a concern about possible professional misconduct. Those tribunal matters are either at a hearing stage or awaiting an outcome. That’s the current status of practitioners who have been suspended. Of the ones who are no longer suspended, there have been two where we’ve completed tribunal proceedings and the tribunal has taken action. In other words, it has upheld the view that there was a finding that required action on the part of the tribunal. Six of those practitioners have either surrendered their registration or moved to a form of non-practising registration. We’ve closed those matters on the basis that there wasn’t a public interest in continuing to pursue those matters. One has surrendered, awaiting a tribunal outcome. Five have had their suspension lifted. Another restriction was imposed by a board. That might be a condition on their registration or an undertaking that they’ve agreed to accept in relation to certain requirements on their registration around additional education, training or supervision.

Senator ROBERTS: Are we able to get the details of those cases on notice?

Mr Fletcher: I can certainly provide that data to you, yes. We need to be careful not to identify individuals. We can certainly give you some of the general themes in relation to the actions we’ve taken.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. I know a number of doctors who have said, ‘To hell with it’, and they’ve left medicine. They are very good doctors. That is because of the way Ahpra has chased them. Ahpra has been reported as having targeted 20 of the 60 addiction medicine physicians in Victoria. It also targeted a leading addiction medicine physician in Queensland. The Queensland doctor’s and the Victorian doctor’s stories were covered in the press. In both cases, they were reinstated. Why was that? Please explain this vendetta against addiction physicians across the country. How can Ahpra suddenly forget their case against community minded doctors who are supported by the media?

Mr Fletcher: Senator, I can’t agree with the opening statement in your question. We don’t target medical practitioners. We don’t target any registered health practitioner. We respond to—

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. A lot of doctors think you do. A lot of doctors.

Mr Fletcher: Well, they are wrong to think that. We don’t target practitioners. What we do is respond to concerns that are raised with us, often by members of the public, sometimes by employers and sometimes by other practitioners. We assess each of those in the context of the concern that has been raised and the context of that person’s practice. If there is a concern that we have about a potential future risk for patient safety, that’s when a board would take regulatory action. So we don’t target practitioners. We certainly don’t have a campaign against particular areas of medical or clinical practice.

Senator ROBERTS: So how is it that some doctors have been targeted by Ahpra or notified by Ahpra simply for questioning the COVID injections, which have since been found to be unsafe and not effective and were never tested? Why is it that those doctors have been questioned by Ahpra simply for giving informed information and asking patients to give informed consent?

Prof. Kelly: Before Mr Fletcher answers, we don’t accept—

Senator Gallagher: We don’t accept that proposition.

Prof. Kelly: any of those or all of those three statements. The vaccines are safe.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, let’s have a look at the one they tested.

Prof. Kelly: They are effective—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you need to let the officials answer.

Prof. Kelly: and they do work.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s have a look at the one they’re testing. I asked Professor Skerritt, and he said, ‘No, they did no testing here.’ That was in February Senate estimates. He said they relied on the FDA. The FDA said they did no testing. They relied on Pfizer. Pfizer shut down its trials because of the poor results. They’ve been heavily criticised. Where is your testing of the COVID injections?

Prof. Kelly: There was a full regulatory assessment, Senator. Our colleagues from the TGA, when you get to ask them, will assure us of that. They were safe, they were tested and they were effective.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll come back to that.

/16 Comments/by

Medical Professionals Silenced by AHPRA

,

Ten medical professionals have had their registrations suspended by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) simply because they spoke out about the COVID injection risks — 4 doctors, 5 nurses and 1 pharmacist.

Even now, AHPRA officials remain in denial about the risks that these injections pose, despite the growing body of evidence that contradicts the marketing slogan of safe and effective.

Australians forced against their will into getting these shots to continue their job, education or see family and loved ones did not have the benefit of ‘honest advice’. Although they should have been able to freely discuss their needs, they were not given this opportunity because the statement AHPRA put out to clarify existing health advice and media coverage around it served to effectively muzzle healthcare providers through fear.

At no time did the agencies involved in providing public health advice reassure medical professionals or their patients that they still had the right to privacy and confidentiality. Patients receiving medical advice before undergoing treatment were entitled to be warned of risk.

Let’s not forget these injections were only provisionally approved due to the experimental nature of the mRNA and vector technology. If our best and brightest medical professionals are feeling silenced by government bodies that will punish any criticism of novel medicines, what have we become?

We now know the jab roll-out is a military/health response which is why it by-passed the usual safety protocols. These were products that were not ready to be injected into the arms of people and yet the only ones protected are the manufacturers.

It’s time for the Health Minister, AHPRA, TGA and ATAGI to loosen the stranglehold they have on our healthcare professionals and let them be free to do their jobs. Australians deserve nothing less.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing today, Mr Fletcher. How many health practitioners has AHPRA suspended for being outspoken, contrary to the joint statement of 9 March 2021?

Mr Fletcher: In relation to concerns that we’ve received about any aspect of the conduct of a practitioner related to COVID-19, 31 registered health practitioners have been suspended since the commencement of the pandemic, and 10 of those suspensions were solely with reference to a breach or an alleged breach of the code of conduct related to the vaccination statement. Just to complete that: that’s four medical practitioners, five nurses and one pharmacist.

Senator Roberts: How many health practitioners have had their registration cancelled because of being outspoken contrary to the joint position statement of 9 March 2021?

Mr Fletcher: I might ask the general counsel, Dr Jamie Orchard, to join me, because, just to remind you, neither AHPRA nor the Medical Board nor any of the boards have the power to cancel the registration of a health practitioner. A suspension is an interim measure while we investigate the concerns.

Senator Roberts: Who has the power to cancel it?

Mr Fletcher: That’s done by the independent tribunal within each state and territory. If we have a concern that there is professional misconduct, which is the most serious finding we can make, we then have to refer that to the tribunal, and it’s only the tribunal who can make a decision about cancellation. We’ve got five tribunal outcomes to date, but I’ll just ask Dr Orchard to give you the details.

Dr Orchard: So far a number of matters have been referred to tribunal in respect of practitioners relating to COVID related issues. We have five decisions so far from the tribunals. We can’t go into the details of the other matters because they’re still pending before the tribunals. Those matters relate to one dentist whose registration was suspended and a registered nurse who was disqualified. There was another registered nurse who had been the subject of suspension from the board but was not suspended by the tribunal. There was an enrolled nurse whose registration was suspended for 11 months. There is one final matter, where the tribunal has found professional misconduct but hasn’t yet decided on the sanction.

Senator Roberts: All five are associated with COVID?

Dr Orchard: All related to COVID in some way, but not necessarily solely in relation to making antivaccination statements.

Senator Roberts: How many health practitioners have either been suspended or had their registration cancelled because they made statements that supported the use of ivermectin in the context of treatment of COVID-19?

Dr Orchard: We’d have to take that on notice and have a look.

Senator Roberts: In the 9 March 2021 position statement, it threatens regulatory action for criticising the COVID-19 injections and/or the national immunisation campaign. Is that still in effect?

Mr Fletcher: Senator, the statement you refer to, just to remind you of the context, was issued by all of the 15 national boards with AHPRA.

Senator Roberts: It’s a joint statement.

Mr Fletcher: So it’s a joint statement. Essentially, it was issued in response to queries from practitioners about their obligations in relation to COVID-19 and vaccination, and the statement essentially aims to make clear how existing obligations on a registered health practitioner, through codes of conduct and the like, applied in the context of COVID-19 and vaccination. That statement is still in force.

Senator Roberts: When can we expect this statement to be amended or removed in light of the best available medical scientific advice, which now shows the COVID-19 vaccines, the injections, to be unsafe and not effective? The risk-benefit is undoubtedly terrible.

Mr Fletcher: The statement has always been aligned with the public health advice at the time. We look to jurisdictional health departments, the TGA and ATAGI as the primary sources of public health advice. We will certainly be consulting with them in the near future about the current status of that public health advice and whether any amendment to that statement is needed.

Senator Roberts: Health practitioners like the GPs I’m about to mention—they’ve given me permission to use their names—Dr Mark Hobart, 19 months; GP registrar Dr William Bay, nine months; and emergency department registered nurse Beulah Martin, 11 months, continue to have their health practitioner registration suspended for allegedly engaging in conduct not supportive of the COVID-19 injections. Why are they still being punished?

Mr Fletcher: We’re going to need to be a bit careful about what we say publicly about individual matters, but I’ll just ask Dr Orchard to comment about what we can say publicly about at least two of the practitioners you’ve named there.

Senator Roberts: The context is why they are still being punished in regard to what’s now emerging about the injections?

Mr Fletcher: Let me ask Dr Orchard to explain what we can say publicly.

Dr Orchard: Senator, the action in respect of any practitioners—including those that you’ve mentioned—that was taken by the relevant boards at the time to suspend those practitioners was taken pursuant to the provisions of the national law, either for the purpose of preventing serious risk or in the public interest, and that’s the basis on which they were suspended at the time. Those matters are currently still before the courts because there are appeals going on in respect of each of them, so we can’t really go into further detail while the matters are still being considered by the courts.

Senator Roberts: Let’s come back to national law in a minute. Despite lengthy delays in investigation and AHPRA’s commitment to the Senate to achieve timely investigations and keeping in mind that the section 156 suspension powers under so-called national law are meant to be only an emergency and temporary measure for the most serious of threats to the health and safety of the public, how long can we expect AHPRA to keep maintaining the suspension of doctors, nurses and medical professionals around Australia who have expressed concerns regarding these vaccines, these injections, when now, in light of the best available evidence, those concerns are well justified? You have been suppressing medical professionals giving their honest advice and forcing them to go against the Hippocratic oath or to surrender.

Mr Fletcher: I reject the assertion you made that we have in any way been censoring practitioners. What we have said in that statement is that we expect that people dealing with patients use the best available evidence and their clinical judgement. That is an obligation that has been in the code of conduct for health practitioners that predates COVID-19. There is no change in that. Suspension is an interim measure while we investigate, and it has to meet a legal threshold under that national law. Sometimes one of the reasons that suspension is extended or takes a period of time is because a practitioner exercises the right to appeal their suspension, either to a tribunal or a court. Obviously, while those appeals are underway, we put our work on hold. Essentially, the suspension is there, as I say, on the one hand to allow us to ensure there is appropriate public protection meeting a legal threshold under the national law while we investigate each case.

Senator Roberts: Are you aware that some of the country’s best medical people, best specialists, are telling me that they are silent and changing their behaviour because they are suppressed by AHPRA? Are you aware of that?

Mr Fletcher: I have read the commentary on that, yes.

Prof. Murphy: I’ll make a comment. Senator Roberts keeps asserting that there’s new evidence that the vaccines are not safe or effective. We completely refute that suggestion.

Senator Roberts: I knew you would.

Prof. Murphy: There is no credible scientific evidence that the vaccines, other than—

Senator Roberts: That’s a false statement.

Prof. Murphy: No, I’m going on the best available scientific evidence, and I do not think you should be able to make that statement continually.

Senator Roberts: I will keep making the statement based on science.

Senator Gallagher: It cannot be left unchallenged.

Senator Roberts: He can challenge it, but I’m not going to quit.

Chair: Senator Roberts, I was listening carefully. Before you ask your last question, I am going to remind you that it is important that you put these as questions rather than as statements. I believe you did that with your last question, but the question before was a sentence without a question at the end of it. I think it is appropriate in that case for the witnesses at the table to respond, but the best way is to put questions and then we can hear answers.

Senator Roberts: I am happy to show you my questions.

Chair: Senator Roberts, I was listening carefully. I am happy to have a discussion if I have misheard, but in the question before your last question I didn’t hear a question; I heard a statement. You have a supplementary question, and I remind you that it assists the process of the committee if we frame questions for answers, as I’ve said from the start.

Senator Roberts: Many health practitioners have been suspended under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. Is it not true that such a singular national law does not exist, and that the national law is not a Commonwealth law at all but a collection of state based health laws such as the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria)?

Mr Fletcher: I defer to my general counsel to talk about the legal construct of the national scheme.

Dr Orchard: You’re correct in saying that it’s not a Commonwealth law; it’s not. It is a cooperative piece of legislation amongst the various states and territories of Australia. The legislation was initially passed, and any amendments that are passed are passed through the Queensland parliament and then the various states and territories have different mechanisms by which they apply both the original law and any amendments to that law in their own jurisdiction.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for confirming. If so, how can AHPRA accurately and lawfully enforce one national law across Australia, when in fact it is not a national law but many state laws, each with its own amendments, across each state and territory of this Commonwealth? We have state laws being enforced by a national body that’s responsible to the states.

Dr Orchard: I will say, when you talk about the differences, there are very limited differences across the various jurisdictions. It does operate largely as a single national law across the country, subject to some exceptions of course. We ensure that, in the course of our regulatory role in applying that law, we do so consistently across the country so that it operates in a sense in a seamless way and practitioners who operate in one jurisdiction are able to move into another jurisdiction and continue their profession without having to worry about the difference in the state laws that might apply to them.

Chair: Senator Roberts, I’m passing the call to the opposition.

/10 Comments/by

AHPRA forces Doctors to break informed consent

Doctors across Australia have told us that they’re being intimidated into complying with the so-called government health advice – even against their own judgement.

Isn’t that bullying, and more over, isn’t that breaking the law?

/8 Comments/by

AHPRA denies bullying doctors while more than 100 are threatened

,

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency is the professional body that registers medical practitioners. For example a doctor or nurse cannot work in those professions without approval from the AHPRA. AHPRA can suspend a medical practitioner for breaching the Practitioner’s Code of Conduct.

Recently AHPRA amended the code to include instructions to medical professionals that they must support the Government’s vaccine agenda in their words and actions, or their registration would be reviewed. Senator Roberts asked AHPRA how many medical professionals they have cautioned for wrong speak, placing their registration at risk. The figure was 108.

Of those 16 were then suspended, and a further 11 were suspended after defending their patient’s right to informed consent.

Unless a medical professional can talk openly with their patient, explain the procedure, explain the risks and explain alternatives a patient cannot give informed consent. AHPRA’s actions are in conflict with long-established legal principles surrounding patient care.

One Nation will continue to pursue this matter.

/28 Comments/by

The COVID Inquiry 2.0

,

The COVID Inquiry 2.0 is a cross-party, non-parliamentary inquiry held on the 17th August 2022. The COVID Inquiry 2.0 followed COVID Under Question to interrogate breaches of the doctor-patient relationship and the regulatory capture of Australia’s health and drug regulators.

Witnesses from a range of backgrounds presented personal and scholarly evidence that was shocking and revealing. The day of questioning from 8am to 7:30pm was livestreamed and recordings of all witnesses are available below.

Please note: Captions on videos are machine generated. They contain a number of errors. The audio of the videos or transcripts linked under each video should be relied on as the accurate statement of what was said.

Welcome Video and Introduction

Transcript

Schedule of Presentations

CONTEXT AND DATA

Brook Jackson

Transcript. Brook Jackson was regional director of Ventavia Research Group. That company was contracted by Pfizer to provide three phase three test sites for the vaccine trial, the Pfizer vaccine trial, in Houston, Fort Worth and Keller, Texas. 12.22min

Dr Peter Parry

Transcript. Dr. Peter Parry, discusses mental health of children and adults. Associate Professor Peter Parry is a child and adolescent psychiatrist whose career encompasses that of a medical officer in the Royal Australian Navy, a GP and palliative care, prior to training in psychiatry from 1990. 11.15min

Dr Pierre Kory

Transcript. Dr. Pierre Kory from America. He’s a medical doctor, a master of public administration, a specialist in pulmonary diseases and critical care medicine. Won many awards, but two major international awards he received during the COVID are, in 2021 from South Africa, the SAHARI Foundation a Certificate of Appreciation to Humanity, in 2021 again from Malaysia, the Cheng Ho Multicultural Education Trust Benevolent award. 24.51min

Suzie Pollock

Transcript. Suzie Pollock graduated from the Queensland University of Technology in 1995 with a Bachelor of Law. She spent 11 years working for one of Australia’s big four banks. That’d be enough to do it in for you, wouldn’t it. Followed by roles in top tier law firms in Australia and Hong Hong Kong in international banking and finance law. 12.37min

Dr Philip Altman

Transcript. Dr. Phillip Altman, who has a bachelor of pharmacy honours degree in master of science and a PhD. He’s had a background in clinical research and regulatory affairs, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and biotechnology. 48.26min

Mary-Jane Stevens

Transcript. Mary-Jane Stevens who’s a mother of four, four children and until late September, 2021, she was a registered nurse in the emergency department of a Queensland Health hospital. She’s now been de-registered due to an Ahpra March, 2021 directive. 15.27min

Alan Dana

Transcript. Alan Dana learned to fly in the United Kingdom in 1988. He holds British, United States and Australian professional airline transport licences, including an FAA Accident Prevention Counsellor Designation. His total experience, over 35 years, is now exceeding 23,000 flight hours. Alan took the time on a career route for pilots, instructing pilots for 32 years. 17.13min

PFIZER AND THE VACCINES

Christine Dolan

Transcript. Christine Dolan is an American senior editor and chief investigative correspondent for CDM.press. She has a long history of tackling corruption, having worked at four American networks, served as CNN political director, covered three wars, and has investigated human trafficking in 140 countries for over 22 years, as well as the Catholic church globally. 28.03min

Warner Mendenhall

Transcript. Warner Mendenhall, who’s a United States lawyer. He’s a prominent activist attorney from the United States who is currently representing Ms. Brook Jackson in her lawsuit against Pfizer. Warner has a strong history of representing people being abused by government decisions and protecting whistleblowers fighting against injustice. 13.16min

Dr James Rowe

Transcript. Dr. James Rowe is a pharmaceutical scientist with over 40 years experience in the pharmaceutical industry and academia in the design development and testing of novel drug dosage forms. He has held academic positions at the University of London, University of Sydney, and Western Sydney University. 13.56min

Senator Gerard Rennick

Transcript. Senator Rennick was elected in Federal Parliament in 2019 representing the people of Queensland. He’s one of only a handful of politicians who is holding the government to account regarding the mismanagement of COVID, and he’s willing to question the science behind it. He did that not only with the current government, but he did it with the previous government, which was of his own party. 43.42min

Dr Robert Brennan

Transcript. Dr. Robert Brennan, is a man of a very high integrity. He’s co-director of Australian Medical Network, Australia’s largest and longest running dissident doctor group in the COVID era. He’s a member of the founding executive, so he dares to question things and he speaks up. A member of the founding executive of the Australian medical professional society, and a regular commentator and host on TNT radio.live. 13.32min

THE DOCTOR PATIENT RELATIONSHIP

Dr Chris Neil

Transcript. Dr. Neil became a cardiologist mid-career having been continuously engaged in medicine or the study of medicine for 26 years, quarter of century, since specialisation he has undertaken doctoral and post-doctoral studies being successful in obtaining research grants, completing investigation driven studies, and supervising, and co-supervising higher degree research students to completion as well as supervising and mentoring multiple physicians in training. Discusses doctor patient relationship. 24.22min

Julian Gillespie

Transcript. Mr. Julian Gillespie, who’s a lawyer and a former barrister. Julian is currently closely involved in the federal court judicial review case involving vaccine mandates. He’s deeply involved with issues relating to the oppressive approach that the government has taken with management of COVID-19 in the community. 29.16min

Dr Duncan Syme

Transcript. Dr. Syme winner of the Nicholas Collins Fellowship Achievement Award, the Australian Hospital in the Home Society 2018. Dr. Syme graduated from Monash University in 1987. He’s been in clinical practise for 34 years and a general practitioner for 27 years. Currently, his registration is suspended due to providing exemptions for patients who do not want to be injected by the COVID-19 medication. 24min

Dr Gary Fettke

Transcript. Dr. Gary Fettke is an orthopaedic surgeon and vocal proponent of nutrition being a major component of prevention and management of modern disease. In 2014, he became repeatedly targeted by the processed food industry for his opinion, culminating in a silencing by the AHPRA medical board. Prevention is the key to management in this recent COVID pandemic and future pandemics to come. 21.34min

Peter Fam

Transcript. Peter Fam is a lawyer on human rights. He’s a human rights specialist and the principal lawyer at Maat’s Method A human rights law firm in Sydney. He holds a degree in journalism as well. Peter is a defender and advocate of universal law, his aim is to assist restoring truth, justice, and balance to our world. 24.19min

Julian Gillespie

Transcript. Julian Gillespie talks about government manipulation. He spoke in his first session about the doctor-patient relationship being destroyed. Now he talks about the government manipulation that orchestrated that, and then about new legislation and declaration of demand. 47.01min

Dr Robert Brennan

Transcript. Dr. Robert Brennan, speaking about public health. 13.38min

CONDITIONING AND ETHICS

Dr Peter Parry

Transcript. Dr. Peter Parry, discusses social engineering. A psychiatrist perspective on social engineering based on human behaviour. 19.53min

Professor Iain Benson

Transcript. Professor Iain Benson, discusses medical ethics, not only the problems, but the solutions. He has four degrees, including a PhD. He’s professor of law at the University of Notre Dame, Australia. He’s published many academic articles and book chapters, work cited by both the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, and in April 2019, the High Court of Gauteng, which is in Johannesburg, South Africa. He discusses the ethical problems involved with the forced use of experimental drugs. 29.05min

Carla Mardell

Transcript. Carla Mardell, who has a Bachelor of Education, is an EFT practitioner, Postgraduate Certificate of Digital and Collaborative Technology, NLP Coach Practitioner. She discusses how we have been programmed in our beliefs with conditioning. 27.47min

SUMMARY AND SOLUTIONS

Dr Gary Fettke

Transcript. Dr. Gary Fettke discusses solutions as to how people can better prepare their own health. 16.04min

Dr Philip Altman

Transcript. Dr. Altman talks about two things. One is a summary of the day. What have we learned? Then secondly, solutions. 24.27min

/47 Comments/by