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.