I spoke in support of a motion that big companies who had a profitable COVID year and paid millions in executive bonuses should be made to pay back JobKeeper. JobKeeper was meant for companies that were struggling to keep their doors open, not to pump up executive bonuses.
Transcript
One Nation supports this motion. Many broad-stroke policies were voted through in the early days of COVID due to the uncertainty at the time. And yet mistakes were made, and these must be admitted and addressed. In some cases, JobKeeper payments went to companies with no need for the money and who used the money for purposes having nothing to do with the intent of JobKeeper, which was to protect jobs and to help workers and families get through tough times. Mega car dealership, Eagers Automotive, claimed JobKeeper and then paid out dividends for almost the exact same amount—$67 million. Star Casino received $64 million and then gave CEO, Matt Bekier, an equity bonus of $800,000.
Without basic governance, greed has come out to play. Company executives purloining JobKeeper for their own financial benefit does not pass the pub test. It’s time this government stopped running the country for the benefit of its big-business mates and started caring about the people paying for all of this—Australian taxpayers, current and future.
After failing to get some of the answers we were seeking on vaccines, I went back to the Department of Health and Dr Murphy to ask some more questions about informed consent and vaccination by coercion with a vaccine passport. I think you’ll find their answers in this part 2 just as interesting as part 1.
[Malcolm Roberts] And one that I touched on briefly, the intergenerational effects of the vaccine are unknown, the effect of the vaccine on transmission is unknown, GPs are not even allowed to say which vaccine they have available. Well Australians have a right to know the foundation of informed consent is accurate and full information. How is it possible to achieve real informed consent in this information vacuum?
So, I think the GPs are certainly able to say which vaccines they have available and they provide informed consent-
[Malcolm Roberts] Just to interrupt there, We had a presentation, I attended a presentation by you and Professor Kelly saying that the vaccine injection rooms would not be disclosing which vaccine was given at that time. Where people go to get their injection.
They’re not given a choice. They’re not given a choice
I think you’re talking two different things, Senator, so, clearly, at this stage of the rollout, the GPs are distributing AstraZeneca. The issue would’ve been the choice and perhaps there might’ve been some other issues that…
[Malcolm Roberts] It was certain, nonetheless, Minister, with so many effects unknown, how can there be an informed consent?
Well, Senator, I’m not going to try and give you health advice, and so I’ll prefer to-
Professor Kelly might be able to address that, but just to be very clear that people undergoing the informed consent process are very clear about which vaccine they’re getting, we’re not disguising the vaccine. So Professor Kelly can can go through the informed consent process.
Yeah, so, informed consent is a very important component of any medical medical procedure or treatment. And doctors do that with their patients every day, every time they see them pretty much is talking through the pros and cons of various, in this case, vaccines. As the Secretary has said, it’s pretty clear if you turn up to a GP at the moment with a couple of exceptions, but almost all GPs are only using one vaccine and it’s only for those over the age of 50 if it’s AstraZeneca. And there is some benefits of that in the particular circumstances of the person in front of them would be discussed in great detail. We’ve provided a lot of information, very detailed information based on the ATAGI advice in relation to that risk and benefit equation for GPs and other medical practitioners and nurses to use.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. My first question goes to the, question of mandatory vaccination. Is the government considering mandatory vaccination?
Government’s repeatedly said it is not considering mandatory vaccination for COVID vaccines or any other vaccines.
[Malcolm Roberts] So is the vaccine passport still under consideration?
The only situation that, as we referred to early today, where people might be on a public health, state and territory, for example, may say that they would refuse entry to a residential aged care facility, that’s the position that AHPPC is considering. That is not mandating vaccination, it’s basically saying that in certain situations it may be not possible to participate in a certain activity unless you’ve been vaccinated. But there has not been a position that we’ve taken so far, AHPPC is reconsidering it.
Can I just add Senator? So, obviously the issue of medical advice is the extent to which and whether and when you might want to limit access to aged care facilities, which the Secretary’s talking about, the broader issue of whether there’s a vaccine passport to identify you’ve had a vaccine and what impact that might have, internationally or otherwise, is a matter for the Department of Home Affairs. You should refer it to them.
But we are providing citizens with evidence of vaccination, they can get a vaccination certificate and they can use that in whatever way they choose.
[Malcolm Roberts] So that’s essentially a vaccine passport then isn’t it? Ms. Edwards?
It’d be a certificate. I mean, at the moment, it’s a long… The Australian Immunisation Register has been around for quite a long time, it got expanded a few years ago to cover all vaccinations and it will have the evidence of your vaccination of COVID-19 vaccine in it. And you have access to it in a printed form or electronically. That’ll evidence you’ve had the vaccine. There is no activity, at the moment, of that you’re either permitted or prevented from doing by virtue of vaccine status but as obviously medical information for you.
[Malcolm Roberts] So that vaccine register should be confidential, shouldn’t it?
It is.
It is, but any citizen can print their own certificate and they can use it as they choose fit.
And we use it for aggregated data. So a lot of the data we’re getting about how many people have been vaccinated not just for COVID-19 vaccine, but for the range of vaccines that we know is drawn out of the Australian Immunisation Register in a de-identified aggravated form.
[Malcolm Roberts] So a vaccine passport, though, could be established for restricting movement of people or entry of people to a specific venue?
Well, it’s a hypothetical question, not one within the remit of the health department. All that we’re talking about is having evidence that you’ve had the vaccine, which is really important, apart from anything else, so that people know what your risk is if you come into contact with COVID-19. And also, it’s used in vaccination clinics to check that it’s your second dose. So if you turn up for your second dose they’ll check the register to check that, yes, Senator Roberts has had one dose of AstraZeneca and here’s the time for the second one. So used for those safety reasons for an individual and it’s evidence of the medical treatment that you’ve had. But any further use of it, one’s not in contemplation that I’m aware of, we’re certainly not involved in that. And the questions about how it might be used internationally, or so on, is a matter for Home Affairs.
[Malcolm Roberts] So Home Affairs, where would they get their advice from? It would be from you, wouldn’t it?
They seek health advice from us,
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.
and also advice about how the Immunisation Register works and so on, together with Services Australia, and they would be engaging with other agencies as well.
[Malcolm Roberts] So as I see it, threatening Australians with the loss of privileges of free movement, or a job, or even a livelihood without a vaccine passport, that’s really a digital prison.
I’m not aware of any proposal to do any of those things, Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] You’re not aware of any? So is the government enforcing vaccination through coercion, if that would occur?
[Secretary] Well, Senator, that’s a hypothetical and it’s an opinion, Senator, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to ask the officials that question.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, going back to the vaccine, people expect the vaccine to do more than prevent deaths, more than not cause deaths, people expect the vaccine to bring back life as we know it, the removal of all restrictions and the resumption of international travel. Clearly, while acknowledging the many unknowns that you commendably and openly acknowledged this morning, what percentage of vaccination unlocks the gate and removes the restrictions, and when?
I think Professor Kelly can address the fact that that’s still an unknown parameter and our knowledge is evolving, but Professor Kelly has been asked this question on many occasions.
And I’ve since answered it. Thank you, Secretary, just on the-
[Secretary] They’re still asking it.
Yeah, I will get to your question just on the proof of vaccination. On my phone through my Medicare app, I have proof of my vaccination, it arrived within 24 hours of that vaccination happening, and it’s just shows that this is already happening. Anyone who’s had a vaccination will be able to access that, and if it’s needed to be shown it’s there.
[Malcolm Roberts] We’re not worried about that. My constituents are very worried about it becoming a condition of entry to a venue or to travel or something like that.
Well, as the associate Secretary has mentioned that it’s a matter for other parts of government to consider but we will provide medical advice about how that information can be verified in terms of a vaccine that we trust and know that works. So, to your question about where’s the target, this has come up on multiple occasions, I guess my answer is that these are non-binary states. So every single extra person that’s vaccinated in Australia is part of our path to the post-COVID future you’re describing. There’s no magical figure that says when we get to that, we’ve reached herd immunity and everything will be fine, rather it’s a process of getting towards that. We do need quite high coverage, though, to be able to get to the situation where, for most of the time, a seeding event, such as what we’re experiencing in Victoria, right now, will not lead to a large outbreak. So, that is, modelling that is being done at the moment by colleagues at the Doherty in Melbourne, and others. It’s part of the work that AHPPC has been asked to do to provide information into Mr Gaetgans’ committee, which is in turn providing information and advice to the national cabinet.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Where’s the government’s plan for managing the COVID virus because, the six components we discussed, the three of us discussed at the last Senate estimates, isolation lockdown, testing, tracing quarantining, restrictions, treatments, such as cures and prophylactics, and the fifth was vaccines. And then I think Professor Kelly added personal behaviours as number six. Perhaps we could add a seventh, and that is prevention through health and fitness because we’re seeing now that obesity and comorbidities are a big predictor of people dying from COVID. When will we see action in number four, which is treatments, cures and prophylactics, and health and fitness?
I can perhaps address treatments. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, which is the committee that looks at the vaccines also as a watching brief on all treatments and has considered whether there are any treatments that we are recommending government to purchase. There’s also the TGA obviously also is reviewing treatments as they appear at this stage. And we also have an evidence taskforce that looks at the real-time evidence of treatments. At this stage there really is very limited options for treatment other than vaccines, but Professor Skerritt can perhaps give you more information.
Thank you Secretary. So, at the moment in Australia, the Clinical Evidence Taskforce endorses three TGA-approved treatments. The first is, and may depend on how sick you are, whether you need oxygen and so forth. So if you’re in hospital requiring oxygen, corticosteroids are recommended for use with COVID patients. And I would venture to say that, globally, they’ve probably been the most successful intervention. A drug called Remdesivir is approved for moderate to severely ill patients who don’t require oxygen or ventilation. And more recently, there’s a drug that was originally an arthritis drug, known as Tocilizumab, T-O-C-I-L-I-Z-U-M-A-B, I don’t get to name them.
[Malcolm Roberts] You barely get to pronounce them.
No, no, no, no. But it’s tricky, If they have unpronounceable names, everyone uses a trade name. That’s the trick. But Tocilizumab is for people who do require oxygen. Now, what we don’t have yet, and I think I may have said this at last estimates is a antiviral drug that’s up there as effective as the recent antiviral drugs for Hepatitis-C or for HIV. But trust me, there’s a major effort of companies working on that area. The other thing that has been coming through the system, and seem to be getting better, are these antibody-based treatments. And we’re currently looking at a drug, or an antibody, called Sotrovimab. It’s S-O-T-R-O-V-I-M-A-B and it has some very promising early results, and we’re currently assessing that. But we have always said that antivirals and other treatments will be important for a range of reasons. One of which is that even with the greatest adherence to, say, the three week gap for Pfizer vaccination, or the 12 week gap for AstraZeneca vaccination, neither treatment is 100% effective against catching or transmitting the virus. They seem to be very effective against death or hospitalisation, but we do know that treatments will play an important part in getting on top of this virus.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, just building on that, you didn’t address item number seven, which I suggested, health and fitness. But the focus on the vaccine is not addressing the end to end from prevention to resiliency to treatment. Don’t we need the full gamut? A comprehensive and complementary approach, what would that look like? And would it not include Ivermectin, assuming someone sponsors it and other treatments for those who want alternatives to vaccines? Because there are people who want alternative.
Well, very briefly on general health, the fact that people are going to many general practitioners and having the COVID vaccination is always an opportunity for the GP to have a quick discussion, “well, hey, smoking doesn’t actually help your respiratory chances with COVID.” There are some mixed messages out there and some mixed results. For example, a lot of people with asthma were very worried early in the COVID pandemic, but some of the asthma drugs, there’s a drug called Budesonide an orally inhaled steroid, inhaled steroid, which is actually quite effective in the early stages of COVID. People with asthma, for example, in general, especially if they’re on those drugs don’t seem to have been affected. But it is true that if you have co-morbidities such as diabetes and so forth, your risks of COVID infection are greater. And that’s why in Phase 1b a number of people who, for example, had drug resistant hypertension or had diabetes and so on were prioritised early for vaccination. Going back to other therapies, we’re always interested in evidence-based submissions for any other therapy. The challenge is that some of the early papers that suggested, for example, with hydroxychloroquine there was a lot of promise, when the blinded trials were done objectively the early promise very sadly didn’t hold up.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you, Chair. I’ll leave it there.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Ua4DLlEL-cw/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-02 12:42:242021-06-02 12:42:33Informed Consent and Vaccine Passports – Department of Health Part 2
IF THERE’S ONE VIDEO YOU WATCH FROM SENATE ESTIMATES MAKE IT THIS ONE.
I questioned the Government about vaccines, the indemnities it has provided to vaccine manufacturers and whether the government actually has a plan to stop restrictive lockdowns. These are common sense questions about liability and informed consent, let’s see if the tech-censors agree.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair. And thank you for appearing today. Many Australians have heard that getting vaccinated does not stop us from getting COVID, and that if we do get it we could still infect other people. Is that true?
– Yes – I guess Dr. Kelly onto that.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What is the risk of being infected by a vaccinated person with COVID compared to an unvaccinated person with COVID?
So, just repeat the question.
[Malcolm Roberts] What is the risk of being infected by a vaccinated person who has COVID compared with an unvaccinated person with COVID?
Well, it’s lower. I’m not sure I can give you an exact amount. I think Professor Murphy earlier talked about the issue and also Senator Colbeck, about the issue of transmission and how the vaccine affects that. We’re getting more information, and it seems like there is a definite influence on transmission, decreasing transmission somewhere between 30 and 60% less likely.
[Malcolm Roberts] Is that a mass figure or is that if you had COVID and you were vaccinated compared with if you had COVID and weren’t vaccinated, would I have the same risk or lesser risk?
You would have a much lower risk, but it’s not zero.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. What decrease in transmission of infection would stop restrictions such as lockdowns, masks, and social distancing?
So, that’s a matter that we’ve been charged by national cabinet way as in Australian Health Protection Principal Committee of which I chair, by the national cabinet to look at. And so, it’s a matter for the national cabinet. There will be, there’s a series of papers that we’re preparing exactly to answer those questions. Some have been produced already and presented and there’ll be more in the coming meetings.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. How many times and how often would each of us need to be injected for the vaccine to be effective and for each time, for how long does the effect last?
So, as I mentioned earlier in the hearing, very good protection from one dose of vaccine, either the AstraZeneca or Pfizer particularly in relation to severe infection, but also to symptomatic infection, and to a lesser extent asymptomatic infection. So, that’s a single dose. The second dose is important for both of those vaccines. And most of the vaccines that are currently being used around the world require two doses to give a longer effect and a more deep effect, if you like, in terms of protection. I think it’s very important that Australia knows that this is the start of our vaccine programme. It will almost certainly not be the end. There will be a need for boosters into the future particularly in relation to the variants of concern of which there are four now that have been designated by the World Health Organisation. And some of those we already know do affect the vaccine efficacy. So, it’s likely we will need to have boosters into the future. How long the two dose effect works is still, we don’t know. We know it’s at least six months because that’s the studies of, been looking at it for six months. It’s almost certainly longer than that for the original strain, but the variance of concern adds another complexity to it.
[Malcolm Roberts] Can you guarantee Australians that all the vaccines you have obtained are 100% safe?
I can’t say that they were 100% safe, Senator, no.
[Malcolm Roberts] I do appreciate your honesty. How many years will it be before we know the long-term and intergenerational effects of these vaccines that only have provisional approval?
I might ask my colleague from the TGA to come up to answer that one.
John Skerritt, Deputy Secretary, Health Products Regulation, also responsible for the TGA. So, TGA, unlike the U.S. and the UK, for example, did a provisional approval of a vaccines as opposed to an emergency use authorization. The reason why it is a provisional approval is because we don’t have, for example, as Professor Kelly has just said, information on the duration of protection from these vaccines. And we require that the companies to give us that sort of information in the coming years. I mean, no one has those answers now. There’s some encouraging results, but as Professor Kelly has said, it’s likely that further vaccinations will be required. As part of the approval of any medicine or vaccine, big companies together with us are involved in very extensive safety monitoring. And we publish the results of the safety monitoring of that vaccine every week including mild or 24 hour adverse events, right through to those that might be much more serious and require hospitalisation. And no medicine or vaccine is without adverse events, but on balance, the number of adverse events, especially serious adverse events for these vaccines are comparatively low. The overwhelming majority of people vaccinated from them at worst suffer the 24 or 48 hours sore arm or tiredness, fatigue, et cetera.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, thank you. It’s a very comprehensive response. So, to summarise, we don’t know yet, but you’re relying upon company, the vaccine makers, to feed you back information as time moves on.
No, information on safety comes from a wide range of sources. It comes from the states and territories. For GP vaccination agreements, the GPs make an undertaking to also report any adverse events. The companies are legally bound to report adverse events not only in Australia, but also globally. And of course we share, and in fact at nine, 10 o’clock tonight we’ll be having one of our regular fortnightly video conferences. We share information on adverse events with all the major regulators globally. So, and the final sources from a medical scientific literature. So, while the companies have this legal requirement to report, it’s only one of a number of inputs to understanding adverse events. And many of our adverse event reports come directly from doctors or even individuals. Any individual can report an adverse event directly to us.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, moving onto another topic away from vaccines for a minute, the vaccine only has provisional approval. Is it true that provisional approval is only possible where there are no approved pharmaceutical treatments available?
The provisional approval is possible where there is not a similar treatment available in that, for that group of patients. And so, if there’d been an approved vaccine, but say it had been on the market for several years, fully approved, then it wouldn’t have been possible to provisionally approve a vaccine, but at the time of the submissions of those vaccines, and indeed we have provisionally designated the Novavax vaccine as well and the Johnson & Johnson or Janssen vaccine, it is possible to provisionally designate and potentially provisionally approve those vaccines.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Ivermectin is an antiviral that’s been proven safe in 3.6 billion human doses over 60 years. It’s now demonstrating success in treating COVID internationally, including in certain Indian states that are performing far better than the other states without it. Last time you were here, sorry Dr. Murphy and, Professor Murphy and Professor Kelly, you acknowledged that cures and preventatives are a fundamental and complimentary part of a virus management strategy. What is your timeline for the assessment and use of Ivermectin in light of the emerging evidence and it’s historical setting.
Senator, we have not received a submission for Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID. I have had a number of people write to me and say, “Why haven’t you folks approved?” We can’t make a medicine submission to ourselves for regulatory approval. There’s no provision in law for us because it requires a legal sponsor. But we have said to people if you come with a dossier of information we will review it as a priority. Now, if you go to the broader community including the company that is the main originator company that is a sponsor of Ivermectin, they do not believe that the overwhelming balance of evidence actually supports that Ivermectin being effective in the prophylaxis or prevention or the treatment of COVID. However, our doctors and scientists would look at that evidence with open eyes. And so, it is open for any sponsor to put an application in for Ivermectin to the TGA for regulatory approval.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Moving back to the vaccine, the government has provided an indemnity to vaccine suppliers, as I understand it, and multinational pharmaceutical companies who have caused harm in the past. What is the nature of the indemnities that government has provided, and are they full indemnities?
Yeah, just give me a moment. Sorry, Senator, going to a wholly different part of my folder.
[Malcolm Roberts] You’ve got a lot on your plate.
So, just to go to your question, I understand it. You’re wanting to know exactly the nature of the indemnities provided, obviously–
[Malcolm Roberts] That the government has provided to the vaccine manufacturers and suppliers.
So, in the first instance to say that the actual detail of the indemnities is part of the Commercial in Confidence contracts, but I can provide you some information about the nature of what’s provided. So, we’ve agreed to certain indemnities with the COVID-19 vaccine suppliers. They’re contained in commercially confidential contracts. The indemnities are designed to operate if there are problems with the flow on from the vaccines themselves, as opposed to the manner of administration and so on, they don’t cover that. Details of the agreement are Commercial in Confidence, but nothing in any of the contractual agreements from individual companies would stop individuals from seeking to litigate should an individual seek to do so in the future.
[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, could you repeat that again, please.
So, the actual detail of the indemnity, it relates to the nature of the vaccine itself as opposed to the manner of administration or any other issue to do with how it’s transported and so on. But it is absolutely the case that nothing in the indemnities prevents an individual from taking an action against the manufacturer or against anybody, if there’s an issue that arises from the impact of the vaccine. So, the summary of the arrangements are that they ensure that manufacturers have the significant indemnity in place to allow them to come into the marketplace and provide the protection, but they don’t prevent any action being taken by an individual who might be affected by a vaccine.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, what would they be? Why would they need an indemnity if they, they can still be sued? I don’t understand that. I’m not a lawyer, but.
I was once, but it’s a long time ago.
[Malcolm Roberts] You could say, I’m honest with you. Now, we’ve got lawyers as good friends. We’ve got good friends.
So, no one’s saying I’m . It’s to do with the relationship between the government and the company.
[Malcolm Roberts] What is the nature of that relationship?
Well, those are the things that are confidential in the contracts. You’d appreciate in order to get these vaccines into Australia so that we have access to them, there are strict requirements in the way the contracts are done with the companies and confidentiality. And the nature of the indemnities are part of that confidentiality.
[Malcolm Roberts] In the event of an injury or death from the vaccine, who pays compensation?
Not a question I can answer in the abstract. It would depend on the circumstances and so on and how the legal process would go on. As I say, the indemnities with manufacturers relate only to the flow on from the vaccine itself. So, in the event that negligence happens in any mechanism then it could be actionable against the person who had done the negligence, but there’s no simple answer to who pays compensation ’cause compensation would have to be found to be payable and attributable to someone and so on.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, it’d be pretty challenging, Ms. Edwards, for an individual to sue that they’ve just lost their spouse or their son or daughter, because, I’ll just go through some of the settlements in the past or some of the fines. Pfizer has paid the second largest pharmaceutical settlement in history, $2.3 billion in 2009, off-label promotion and kickbacks plus US$ 430 million in 2004 for off-label promotion. AstraZeneca has paid US$ 520 million in 2010 off-label promotion and kickbacks and US$ 355 million in 2003 for Medicare fraud. Johnson & Johnson has paid US$ 2.2 billion in 2013 for off label promotion and kickbacks plus millions in Australia last year for defective pelvic mesh implants. It’d be a pretty brave person that would hope to get anything out of this if they tried to sue any of these companies. These guys have a history of dodging.
Well, I’m not aware of any of the instances you’re referring to, but clearly there have been instances in which action has been taken against these companies.
[Malcolm Roberts] Are these companies appropriate to be entered into an agreement in this way? I mean, look at the history.
So, the Australian government and Australian consumers have the advantage of pharmaceutical products produced by companies such as these and many others. Obviously, enormously important to the health of Australians that they have access to medicines, including vaccines. We rely heavily on the scientific advice from the CMO, from the TGA and from experts as to what is the appropriate vaccine to be approved and used in the country. And those are the vaccines which we have purchased and are administering.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’m going–
[Member] Senator Roberts…
Senator, I think that perhaps I might throw this in In relation to this. The approvals for the vaccines have been based on a considerable amount of data. The approvals haven’t been provided lightly. And we have had the advantage of the visibility of the application of the vaccines in a number of other jurisdictions. It’s an important question that you ask, I think. And so, it’s not a company reputational issue, it’s actually the data that supports the application of the vaccines that is assessed by not only our regulatory authorities, but also the regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. And also the fact that, as has already been indicated, there is a lot of discussion between those authorities in relation to that data. So, it’s interrogated as a part of the approval process not only in this jurisdiction, but in others, and I might…
[Malcolm Roberts] I understand it’s, perhaps you could also include reference to this Doctors Skerritt that some of the overseas nations that are using these vaccines have suspended their use.
Well, there’s several questions. I’ll return to suspension of use although it’s been relatively limited in countries like Norway. But to talk about those fines for the companies, I should clarify that it’s a consequence of one of the things that personally I hope Australia never follows. And this is the U.S. widespread advertising directly to the public of prescription medicines. And it is legal and extremely commonplace. You only have to have the TV on for five minutes in your hotel room to see an advertisement for prescription medicine in the United states. And however, it is tempting for some of these companies. And they’ve been found with major fines from court cases when they push for sorts of conditions, what we call the indications for which a medicine is approved. So, a medicine may be approved for certain sorts of arthritis and their marketing people think it’s a great idea to talk about arthritis in general, and that’s where they get these multi hundred million dollar fines. So, if you go into those cases in the U.S. it’s not about them providing defective vaccines or cheating with their quality data or cheating with their clinical data. Almost all those cases come down to inappropriate promotion because of the, I guess the temptation the United States systems offers of allowing to advertise prescription medicines directly to the public. Now, thank God we don’t have that system in this country.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s still a matter of ethics, though, isn’t it? That the companies are pushing that, it’s their marketing people they are employing.
It’s their marketing people, and of course, we could mention many well-known Australian corporations who have also had challenges with marketing, including of telecommunication services. Now, we also —
[Malcolm Roberts] But they also go to the essence of integrity of the company?
But in Australia, we do look closely at promotion, including to doctors. So, recently we fined a particular company over $300,000 for what we concluded was inappropriate promotion of opiates to doctors. This wasn’t of a general public, but it was still inappropriate in our view. So, we will take action if we believe promotion of a product is inappropriate. Now, talking about companies in countries that have suspended vaccines, there were a number of short term suspensions of vaccines. For example, when some deaths in aged care were reported very early in the new year, they were then lifted off after further investigation where it was found that sadly people die in aged care. And the death rates were not all that different from the expected death rates. There were then short term changes, suspensions in some countries after the initial clotting cases were found AstraZeneca. In most countries, although Norway, for example, was an exception, most countries have re-introduced those vaccines, but like Australia, many of them have age recommendations. And those ages vary between countries.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.
Senator Roberts, you’ve just run out of time. So, if you’ve got one more question.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. After the TGA had already provisionally approved the AstraZeneca vaccine, Minister Hunt said of the vaccines quote – “The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”. Australians later died of blood clots due to the vaccine, a side effect that was not known prior to provisional approval. Why should Australians be the lab rats of a drug trial?
So, the word trial really, I mean, the treatment of COVID. And none of us has a crystal ball, where we’ll end up, whether it’s opening the borders or changes to the way we live our lives in a year or two is probably one of the biggest societal trials we’ve had since World War II. So, it’s true to say that because we don’t know whether vaccines are 100%, 90%, 80%, 70, 50, 60 in preventing transmission because we don’t know about the duration of protection, all those things. It is a trial in the sense that anything is new. So, that was a context. If you look at the wider context in which the Minister made those comments. Now, on the issue of benefit versus risk, every medicine or vaccine has significant risks. There’s been many dozen deaths due to Panadol in this country. And yet, if we didn’t have that drug for the relief of simple fever and so forth, there’d be a lot of people suffering. And so, every medicine has its benefits and its risks. Now, because the clotting thing is very rare, even though the trials were extremely large as trials go, 20, 30,000 people, and there’s been another 30,000 people on a follow-up trial of the AstraZeneca. Those numbers were still too low, but you would predict something would be seen 10 in a million times. And so, that’s why the clotting thing was not picked up.
[Malcolm Roberts] Isn’t there still something really big, outstanding though and that is that these are an RNA vaccine?
[Professor John] No, the AstraZeneca vaccine–
[Malcolm Roberts] Some of them, sorry, are RNA. How long before we know the intergenerational effects?
[Professor John] There’s no evidence at all from animal or human studies that the RNA vaccines, if you’re talking about them, incorporate into the genetic material of human beings. They wouldn’t have been approved for regulatory approval and that includes by much bigger regulators such as the FDA, if these bits of mRNA incorporated into the human genetic material. In fact, medicines that incorporate into human genetic material and are inherited are currently not permitted in most major countries, including Australia.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, what you’re saying is that it is okay to have a few deaths?
I’m saying that every medicine or vaccine is assessed both before it goes onto the market and once it’s on the market based on benefit and risk. And in Australia, we’ve had, sadly, one death. We’ve had a number of cases of this clotting syndrome, but the really encouraging thing is that many of our cases seem to be milder than in our countries. And that’s because of such widespread awareness. These cases are picked up early, they’re put in hospitals, even if it’s minor clotting, and the really good news is that, the overwhelming majority of those people were already out of hospital.
Ivermectin has been proven as a safe treatment over 3.7 Billion doses across the world. Why it isn’t at allowed as one option to treat COVID is perplexing. Have the vaccines available sure, but also have the proven safe anti-viral treatments available as well.
It’s no silver bullet, but we should have everything we can get in our arsenal to help save lives.
Transcript
[Gary Hardgrave] And he went different ways. I mean, Malcolm Roberts, that’s the point that it’s like, Oh I sort of joke, You know, we’re not all in this together. Part 53, the latest example, the frequent flyers the people that are able to jet overseas and many times over the last 12 months. Well, good luck to them, I guess because there’s plenty of countries in the world a lot worse off than we are, but they’re landlocked.
They’re connected to other countries, we’ve got that part of it pretty right, there’s no doubt about that. But somewhere along the line this fear factor has gotta be stared down. We’ve got to muscle up and say, well if the celebrities and the highly paid and the really rich and their private planes can jet here and jet there and in their tens of thousands then the rest of us should be able to do it too.
[Malcolm Roberts] What we need, Gary is a plan. On Monday the 23rd of March last year, we assembled for the first for the first simple first single day sitting of the Senate on this COVID supposed crisis. And I stood up and spoke and said, look we’re going to wave everything through. This is, we’ve seen people falling like flies overseas, so we don’t know the scope, the size of this but we’re just going to put, the government giving them everything they need, job seeker, job keeper but I said, we expect you to collect the data.
We will hold you accountable. And we expect you to build a plan. I have not seen a plan. What I’ve seen is lots of fear as everyone has talked about on this show and always behind fear there’s control. And that’s what we see Bronwyn nailed it again, as she always does. We’ve also seen a lack of a plan. In Senate estimates in late March this year I had checked with the chief health officer and the deputy chief health officer for this country.
And I said let me just check that we’ve got the understanding of what’s needed to manage a virus. So the first thing is lockdowns and border lockdowns in particular. And I said, but even the UN world health organisation which I see as corrupt incompetent and dishonest and it’s been proven, such, even they say a lockdown is only used initially to get control. So that means Anastasia Palaszcuk, Mark McGowan and Dan Andrews in Victoria.
And I leave out Gladys Berejiklian because she’s done the best job so far. It’s not a good job, but she’s done the best job so far. That means they’re using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and what they’re doing is they’re admitting they have not got control of this virus. The second thing, and I checked this with the, with the chief health officer. The second thing is testing, tracing and quarantining of the sick and the vulnerable. Testing and tracing to track the virus and nail it quickly. Third thing, individual restrictions things like masks and so on. Yes.
They agreed with me so far. And I said the fourth thing is to have an antiviral treatment a prophylactic, a cure. And they said, yes. Then the fifth thing is a vaccine, if it’s tested and if it’s found to be safe. And they said, yes, and then they added one more. And they said, individual behaviours, things like social distancing. And I said, okay. So I rattled off the six that we agreed on. Anything missing? No. Anything that shouldn’t be there? No.
So my point is what happened to number four, the antiviral treatment? I’ve taken Ivermectin when I came back from India to get rid of a condition that I caught over there. Ivermectin has been given to 3.7 billion people around the world, no health problems.
It’s proven safe over six decades, six decades. And on top of that, it’s cheap. And on top of that it’s now being used successfully with the virus in South America and various European countries and in Asia, why aren’t we discussing it here? I mean, the chief health officer and the deputy chief health officer have said it’s part of the plan and we can open up borders. We can relax a lot of things if we provide what is now a proven, safe cure, in addition to the vaccine, let those who want a vaccine have it. I will take the Ivermectin, I’ve already taken it once for something else. And it worked. And I’m still here mate, I’m not going anywhere.
[Gary Hardgraves] No, I can tell you’re very much so still here. Look before we go to the break,
I talked to Marcus Paul last week about our motion to keep our Judaeo-Christian values in our education system and questioned why ivermectin wasn’t available in Australia when it has been proven safe.
Transcript
[Marcus Paul] Tell me about this motion you put in front of me here. I give notice that on the next day of sitting, I nearly said another word then. I shall move that the Senate, what?
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, that the Senate actually makes sure that the national curriculum, includes Judeo-Christian heritage as the basis for our laws and customs.
[Marcus Paul] Right?
[Malcolm Roberts] We want that in the national curriculum, because in 2014, there was a review by two people called Donnelly and Wiltshire, into the national curriculum. And they recommended more emphasis, more emphasis on our Judeo-Christian heritage Because that’s the role it played in Western civilization and contributing to our society and making our laws and our culture. And lo and behold, when the 2020 national curriculum recommendations came out, they had a de-emphasis on our Judeo-Christian heritage and going over a bit more to the, what could you say, the flavours of the month? You know, the fads.
[Marcus Paul] Like?
[Malcolm Roberts] And so what we wanted the basics back.
[Marcus Paul] Hang on. Like?
[Malcolm Roberts] Well they want to emphasise that the First Nations people think that there was an invasion. They want to emphasise that there are other multicultural aspects of Australia. Now we’ve got no problems with that at all but we’ve got to make sure that the basis of our culture the basis of our laws, gets prominence and not, is not removed.
[Marcus Paul] Yeah, or we could just focus on teaching kids how to add up and to construct a sentence.
[Malcolm Roberts] Ah Marcus, that’d be wonderful.
[Marcus Paul] All right. The federal budget, you say that there’s been a lack of spending on visionary infrastructure to improve our productive capacity. We’ve continued to ignore the basics, energy and tax which are vital for manufacturing.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes, that’s right. You know, we talked many times about tax and about energy costs. The energy costs are artificially high. We went from being the cheapest electricity in the world, Marcus, to being amongst the most expensive all because of artificial regulations that are not needed. We are exporting our coal to China where they sell electricity made from our coal at 8 cents a kilowatt hour. Our cost here, our price here is three times that all because of the rubbish regulations.
[Marcus Paul] Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts] And so what we’re really doing is we’re exporting jobs to China because our manufacturers leave here and go to China or other places in Asia that use our coal and don’t have our stupid governance. So what we’ve got to do is get back to basics and stop all the subsidies destroying our electricity sector and also fix the tax system because, you know, we talked about that at length last week. So probably don’t need to go into that, but they’re the things that are really destroying our country. And instead of killing jobs, we need to create jobs and we need to build our productive capacity in terms of our infrastructure, things like dams in particular, power stations, so that we have cheap reliable water and cheap, reliable, stable power. They’re the basics for any society. And, you know, we’re letting the UN, Warragamba Dam wall. They wanted to raise that and they’re not allowed because of the UN’s world heritage agreement. Well, I didn’t elect the UN I want, I want to budget for us.
[Marcus Paul] Yeah. Very true. All right, mate, now there’s plenty in there for women’s services in relation to domestic violence, which all of us agree is worthwhile. You say, but nothing for men. What do you mean by that?
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. And that’s a really good point that you raised Marcus. I know an outstanding group. That’s doing phenomenal work on a voluntary basis and they’re really supporting men and women. They’re not specifying only men, just men and women and also kids and families. Family law system is really crook and it’s devastating people’s lives. It’s the slaughter house of the nation. And what he’s finding is that he can get no support from the federal government in terms of providing counselling services that he is putting on voluntarily and getting volunteers to do. I mean, it’s an amazing network that he’s got. He’s just opened offices in Newcastle, Australian brotherhood of fathers. So, but the point is that we know domestic violence is perpetrated by men on women. We also know that domestic violence is perpetrated by women on men, but only one side of the story comes out. And only one side of the equation gets the funding. So men are vulnerable too, and they need to be protected and need to be funded.
[Marcus Paul] All right, there was plenty of money for mental health, the national disability insurance scheme, aged care. But the reality is, is that the money will never get spent. You say.
[Malcolm Roberts] Much of it won’t get spent Marcus, because we don’t have the professionals. I mean, I was at an aged care rally here, aged care health and safety, health services union on Monday. Sorry. Yeah. Monday morning.
[Marcus Paul] Yeah. Monday it was.
[Malcolm Roberts] Here in Canberra and I mean they’re wonderful people I know from my parents care is they’re wonderful people and they work very, very hard. They’re under extreme emotional stress but they can’t get enough because of the pay rates. But the other thing is they can’t get enough of the professionals and registered nurses and they can’t get enough of the psychologists in when it comes to the NDIS and other professionals. So we won’t be able to have the services anyway. We’ve got to focus on getting these areas fixed.
[Marcus Paul] Okay. Well, I mean, I don’t disagree at all. I mean, the whole thing in particular, in my opinion has been packaged to look pretty good. You know, it’s a, it’s a budget that’s full of plenty of promises, almost like a labor-esque budget if you like, but there’s apparently more money. And this is what, a point I wanted to come to. And this is where I think people like you and Pauline Hanson need to really hold these people accountable in parliament. Apparently there’s some sort of war chest. So there’s billions of dollars that’s been set aside for, you know, the election campaign not too far away. So in other words, they’ve held off on some things and rather than spend the money now or put it toward, you know, extra money toward mental health or extra money toward the aged care sector, et cetera people suggesting that they’ve kept it aside for, I dunno future pork barreling or promises ahead of the next federal election.
[Malcolm Roberts] That could be right. And you raise a fantastic point there because what’s happening is that with both the main old parties the tired old parties, they do exactly what you’re saying. And what voters don’t seem to realise is they’re having an auction with the voters money.
[Marcus Paul] There we go.
[Malcolm Roberts] And the voters are bidding those prices up. So we’re doing it to ourselves as voters but we need to hold these people accountable. And that’s what Pauline and I will be doing. She was, budget papers are very, very thick and detailed. So she was already discussing with me in the Senate in a quiet moment, some ridiculous expenditure. I can’t remember the exact one that, that she raised but it was just outlandish. So they’re the things that we will do in the coming weeks going through the details and exposing them. But you’re absolutely right. We’ve got to stop this budget that puts us on an annual cycle of making promises and stealing money from taxpayers to give to other tax payers.
[Marcus Paul] Some of it, to be honest is borrowed anyway but we’ll deal with that another time. We can’t travel overseas as we’ve learned probably until mid 22. The budget itself, many of the promises and many of the figures announced you know, predetermined on, you know the whole joint being vaccinated in time, et cetera. International students will be let back in in small phase programmes later this year. I mean, and I noticed yesterday in question time in the house of representatives, that we couldn’t get a straight answer from the prime minister. And even the health minister had to jump in and have his say. And he just muddied the waters further. Vaccines and whether or not our borders will be reopened is something that the government just can’t seem to answer at the moment.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. And that’s right. And there are too many uncertainties here and too many unknowns Marcus. First of all, the vaccine that the prime minister himself has come out and said it may not stop the spreading of the virus. What, well, hang on. It’s all based on that, and yet he’s admitting that it won’t necessarily stop the spread of the virus. The other thing Marcus, that people may not be aware of, is that there’s a drug called ivermectin. It’s been used for treating people in Africa all over the world. In fact, I’ll tell you someone else who’s been treated by it in a minute. This ivermectin is an antiviral and it’s been used for around six decades, 60 years ago.
[Marcus Paul] This was the stuff that Craig Kelly was spruiking. Yes?
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, he’s just picking it up from overseas. I mean, Craig’s doing a wonderful job that man I can tell right now, every interaction I’ve had with Craig, he’s solid on the data and he doesn’t open his mouth. But anyway, without the data, now, the thing is that ivermectin has been given in 3.7 billion doses to 3.7 billion people. It’s proven safe. It’s an antiviral.
[Marcus Paul] Why then, why then Malcolm is not on the list as a as a well I don’t know, as a as a vaccine for COVID-19. I’ve heard ivermectin, we’ve had we’ve heard all of the stories that was originally criticised as a bit of a conspiracy theory vaccine proposal. I respectfully understand that there are many scientists who agree that it could be used, but I just wonder, I mean we’ve just spent, what we’ve just bought another 25 million cases of a new vaccine, Moderna from the United States. If ivermectin was all it was cracked up to be, surely it would have already been authorised.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, that’s the real point Marcus. That I was getting to. In many countries now ivermectin is legal and is being used and they’re desperate to get it into into place because it’s very safe. I went to India and developed a condition in India as a consultant over there in the mining industry in 2014. And I was given ivermectin by an Australian doctor here quite legally, I had no side effects. It was fantastic. So we know it’s proven around the world. There are more and more countries that are doing two things, bringing ivermectin in and more and more countries are now stopping the use of some of these vaccines for COVID vaccines because the blood clotting and other issues. So the reason I believe, well we’ve got to ask this question why aren’t we using ivermectin when it’s completely safe? It’s got no side effects. It’s killed no one. And, and it’s also being proven as effective with the virus. Why are we not using that when these unproven, untested vaccines or partially tested vaccines? And when we know so much, so little about them, why are we doing that? Is it because if there is a viable solution in ivermectin that the vaccine makers wouldn’t get their money?
[Marcus Paul] I dunno it could be you’re the Senator. And these are the questions that you will ask. I’m sure. Mate, I’ve got to go. I really appreciate it. Talk soon. There he is. Malcolm Roberts.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Capture.png?fit=927%2C924&ssl=1924927Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-18 10:46:002021-05-26 15:29:43Ivermectin – 2SM with Marcus Paul
Even though the government says they don’t want to mandate vaccination, they haven’t ruled out attaching it to everyday activities. That means they won’t rule out that you might have to be vaccinated to go to the pub which sounds as good as mandating it to me.
I believe in the vaccine being available to anyone who wants to take it, but it should be every individual’s choice whether they take it or not. I do not believe they should be government mandated. Where do you stand?
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts]
Thank you chair. And thank you all for attending. What percentage of the population, that will, will receive a COVID 19 vaccine? Do you expect or plan?
[Brendan Murphy]
Well, we were, our target at present Senator, is to vaccinate all the adult population, the over eighteens off by the end of October, give them a first dose. So that’s I think approximately 20 million, I think?
About, about 20 million going on.
Yeah. Now we may then go on and vaccinate children. If we have vaccines that are registered and approved for children. And if they prevent transmission and that helps us with herd immunity, but there are no vaccine. There’s no trial data on children at the moment. So the vaccines are only registered for adults.
Or 16 to 18 in the case of one. But no nobody under 16 has a registered product at this point.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Will that include the elderly, the frail?
[Brendan Murphy]
Absolutely. Unless there is a medical contraindication which is very rare. So if someone is very close to end of life it may be decided that it’s not appropriate. But in general, absolutely. That’s what we’re doing in residential aged care. Vaccinating a lot of very elderly and very frail people.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Thank you. Do you have the constitutional or legislative power in your opinion, to impose mandatory vaccination?
[Brendan Murphy]
The government policy is very clear that we’re not. We’ve never imposed mandatory vaccination in Australia. We take the approach that we want to encourage, promote and provide the evidence for vaccination. There have been situations where, for example, with flu vaccination last year in aged care where there was a public health order that the States and territories made. That decided that you couldn’t enter a facility unless you had proof of flu vaccination. But that was that’s very different from, from making, from mandating a vaccine. It just means that you have to make a choice about whether you go into an aged care facility. And obviously for childhood immunisation similar rules have applied. With again, mostly enforced by the States and territories, with no jab no play and government policy with no jab, no pay. But none of those have said that you are by law required to be vaccinated.
[Malcolm Roberts]
In the States?
[Brendan Murphy]
Yeah, In the States. Nobody can force a medical intervention on another citizen. We can do a lot of things to encourage, promote. And in some cases to restrict situations of risk if you’re not vaccinated. But we have never taken the view that we can force a citizen to have a medical intervention.
[Malcolm Roberts]
And you won’t be taking that view.
[Brendan Murphy]
I, I can’t imagine. That’s not, we wouldn’t recommend it.
[Witness]
There is absolutely no proposal from the government to make any COVID vaccine compulsory for anybody.
[Malcolm Roberts]
So are there any policies or plans or ideas or has it been discussed to make something unavailable without the vaccine? Effectively making it compulsory?
[Brendan Murphy]
Well, again, there has been discussion at HBPC. About whether, and Professor Kelly can comment on that, whether, at some stage we might use the same approach that we used for flu last year. To say that if the COVID vaccine is really effective at preventing transmission, that to say that to work in aged care or to enter a facility you need to have a vaccination. But HBPC has decided that; A, there isn’t enough evidence on prevention of transmission at the moment. And, B it would be silly for such a public health order to be introduced until such time as all of those workers and community members who might visit aged care have had the opportunity to be vaccinated. So that is, that’s a live matter for consideration that will be reviewed as the evidence evolves.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Okay.
[Witness]
No, I’ll just be very clear here though, that the current position of the government is that this vaccine is voluntary and not withstanding that the HPCs work and the, and the health departments work. But the government’s position is very clear, that the vaccine is voluntary.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Thank you. And thank you, Dr. Murphy. I’ll just jump outside of vaccines for a minute. To understand the overall context, and then come back to vaccines. What are the main factors in managing a pandemic? I’ll just test my own knowledge with you first. Is isolate and arrest the vaccine, which is called a lockdown, I understand. Then there’s number two is, identify the location and the spread to get on top of the quickly. What’s that? testing, tracing and quarantine. Then there are attempts to reduce the transmissibility through restrictions like masks, gatherings, criticism, movement of people, sorry, not criticism, movement of people. Then the fourth one would be cure and prophylactic areas to try and prevent, to try and cure people of the virus. For example, antivirals. Number five would be vaccine. Have I, have any, have I included any that are wrong? Have I missed any?
[Brendan Murphy]
Well you’ve missed international borders, which is probably…
[Malcolm Roberts]
Isolate and arrest.
[Brendan Murphy]
Yeah, well, certainly that has been one of our most successful interventions. Was to prevent the importation of a virus from, despite all the impact that it’s had on our citizens overseas. It has been one of the most singularly important parts of our success in controlling COVID.
[Malcolm Roberts]
So there’s just isolate and arrest, which I include international borders. Identify the location and spread through testing, tracing, quarantine. Reduce the transmissibility through restrictions. Cure and prophylactic approach and vaccine.
[Malcolm Roberts]
That seems pretty complete Professor Kelly?
[Professor Kelly]
individual behaviours.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Sorry?
[Professor Kelly]
Individual behaviours. So the hand hygiene, cough into your elbow, that sort of stuff.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Okay. Thank you.
The following line of questioning occured after the end of the attached video clip(see HANSARD)
[Chair]
The last question.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Sure. Can I get, on notice, an assessment of the characteristics of the virus? We were told initially it was a respiratory disease and we shoved ventilators at people. Some people were telling us that it hinders the blood absorbing oxygen or uptaking oxygen. We were told about various treatments. Perhaps you could tell me, on notice, what are the characteristics you measure to assess the virus’s mortality and transmissibility, and any other characteristics of the virus, and perhaps rank it relative to, for example, the decreasing order of impact. We’ve had the Black Death, the Plague of Justinian, smallpox, the Antonine Plague, the Spanish flu, the third plague, HIV/AIDS and now COVID-19, which is a fraction of the population affected. Is it possible to get that summary?
[Brendan Murphy]
We can certainly provide it. This virus is now well studied. Essentially, as we’ve said on many occasions, for most fit, young people it’s a relatively mild disease, but 126,000 people have died in the UK, a very similar country to us. We have avoided a very large death rate by controlling this virus, and we’re very proud of that achievement, Senator. Whilst it may be a mild disease, that means it transmits wildly. Older people and people with underlying conditions are at risk of getting severe respiratory disease and dying, as they have done in their millions around the world.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Jm-ys1WT1tw/mqdefault.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-03-25 15:29:062021-04-06 10:12:43Is the Government considering mandatory vaccination? Questioning the Department of Health Senate Estimates
Senator Roberts rejects an extension to the QLD Chief Health Officer’s extraordinary powers in his submission to QLD Parliament’s Health and Environment Committee.
The sweeping powers, that allowed the state’s Chief Health Officer (CHO) to regulate people’s behaviour during the COVID pandemic, were initially introduced without consultation or debate.
Senator Roberts said, “A strong health response is the critical initial response to a pandemic, yet it is the Premier’s job to show political leadership and be accountable for the broader impact for Queensland.
“While lockdowns can be a solid initial strategy, the continued knee-jerk use of them after 11 months is an admission of failure. The ongoing damage to the economy will undermine people’s future physical and mental health.
“The Premier has been hiding in the shadows of the CHO’s health dictates since March and the economy, small businesses and Queenslanders have been left to languish.”
The role of the Chief Health Officer, an unelected bureaucrat, is to provide health advice for the Premier’s consideration as our elected representative.
“Over the past months the Premier has consistently abandoned the running of the state and instead allowed the CHO, who has responsibility for our physical health not our economic health, to be our defacto Premier.
“Only an elected government can be held accountable over the curbing of our rights and liberties, which is now beyond what is necessary,” stated Senator Roberts.
The ongoing extension of the delegated powers to the CHO puts her in a difficult position and may breach fundamental legislative principles, since the CHO’s unilateral decisions are way beyond her remit and her professional expertise.
Senator Roberts added, “Queenslanders voted for the Premier to be the ultimate decision maker, yet she shows reckless indifference to the importance of managing our state’s physical, mental and economic health.
“Anastacia Palaszczuk has surrendered her responsibility as a Premier. “The Premier needs to get back to work and the CHO’s extraordinary powers should be stopped and the position be returned to its intended advisory capacity only.”
Hi, one nation has voted to approve the government’s JobMaker scheme. You know, at first with JobMaker we had concerns and raised these openly in the Senate as we do. As senators, it’s our job to get the facts straight. So Pauline met with the treasurer and discussed the concerns we received from people about JobMaker.
The treasurer to his credit provided solid data and we have the courage and integrity to change our view and I want to tell you why. Firstly, it became clear that our youth have been hit particularly hard in terms of access to jobs. After the COVID-19 workplace restrictions started, the unemployment rate for 16 to 35-year-olds is 10.5%, 10.5. And for over 35, it’s 4%.
When we learned that it disturbed us and I’m sure it’ll trouble all Australians because we need our youth in jobs as soon as possible. They’re our future. And they’re also our future taxpayers for decades to come. And it costs our community and economy dearly when they disengage and languish at such a critical time in their lives.
You know travelling around Queensland, I’ve had many conversations with local business leaders and citizens who highlight that when our young people are not employed trouble follows, drugs, crime. Secondly, our concern was that jobmaker will allow a company to sack an older worker and replace them with a subsidised younger worker on JobMaker.
The treasurer showed us, this is not the case. The government has addressed this by ensuring an employer can only get JobMaker if the number of employees goes up. So there is simply no point in sacking an older employee to put on a younger worker, as this will not lead to any increase in the number of employees.
JobMaker would not be available and therefore would not motivate or drive this behaviour. Plus, there are serious penalties for such behaviour built in to the legislation. Finally, there were concerns that workers are worried that they will have their hours cut back so that a new worker can come in under JobMaker.
The protection put in place by the government is the requirement that states the number of hours must go up. It’s clear that JobMaker is only available to a business that can demonstrate extra hours being worked. There’s no point in cutting back hours of an existing employee to give to a new employee because JobMaker would not be available.
Plus there are serious penalties for such behaviour. Now we accept and we know that some employers don’t do the right thing. And that’s why there are financial penalties for employers who do the wrong thing.
And if a person feels they have been fired or had their hours cut back unfairly because of JobMaker, then that person can ring the tax department hotline anonymously to report the situation and have it investigated. Any employee is also free to report an employment matter to the fair work ombudsman for either a permanent reduction in hours or a dismissal.
Those protections have always existed for every Australian worker and one nation will ensure they always exist. One nation are for workers of all ages and we believe JobMaker will tackle the task of job recovery at its most critical point for our future economic prosperity.
Now I’m sure all people young and old care, really care and want to ensure the young are supported in this challenging period with very high unemployment for the young. All Australians care about our country’s future.
Yesterday I spoke in the Senate about the lack of a plan to live with and master COVID19 rather than hiding behind advice from bureaucrats in the health departments. There is no guarantee when or if there will be a vaccine. Where is your plan Prime Minister?
Transcript
I know that there are many grieving families, fearful families and concerned families. I raised the fact that in my correspondence to both the prime minister and to the premier of Queensland.
I expressed concern over their use of insufficient and flawed modelling to lock us all away and cause untold damage to our economy, businesses and jobs. Their responses to my letters avoided addressing the real issues.
Yes. If the federal government and state governments had learned, as I suggested in March from nations like Taiwan and promptly adopted rigorous testing combined with strict isolation of their sick, aged and vulnerable then many Australians could have stayed at work with minimal economic disruption and better health.
The difference is that Taiwan had a plan and relied on solid data. And as a result, Taiwan had seven deaths in the time we’ve had 517. They have a similar population to ours in terms of total population. Yet they are under greater threat because of the highly densely populated country and they’re closer to China.
The honourable John Houston in the Sydney Morning Herald, recently referred to quote, “planning or the lack of it has been the great failure of the Morrison government. It has been building over years of neglect and poor policy, but now it has been laid bare by both COVID-19 and the Royal commission.”
Queensland’s own chief health officer, Dr. Jeanette young, has stated this past week that she is only looking at the health issues. Mr. Acting deputy president. And this is very concerning. Who is looking after the big picture for us all? What about mental health, economic health, jobs, families, businesses?
The Queensland Premier referred us to the website location of her data. We checked there’s no relevant data, weak premier, irresponsibly abdicating, again, hiding behind the chief health officer, abdicating her duties. The Morrison government and the Queensland government need to both step up and to demonstrate leadership and to tell the truth.
They need to show us the data and the plan across all aspects of managing our way out of this pandemic and the resulting recession, and in the process, ensuring security for all Australians.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Capture-4.png?fit=821%2C451&ssl=1451821Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-08-26 08:58:542020-08-26 08:59:17Where is your COVID19 plan Prime Minister?
State and federal politicians need an urgent plan for Australia to master COVID-19, rather than being held captive in fear of the next wave of infections.
Senator Roberts said, “The ad-hoc opening and closing of our economy and politicians praying for an elusive and unlikely vaccine needs to transition to a longer-term plan of how to master COVID-19.”
The rolling debate of suppression versus elimination strategies are short-term and unsustainable and we cannot continue as we are. At current infection rates it could take until 2040 for Australia to achieve herd immunity.
Taiwan, with a population similar to Australia, has had just seven deaths despite great exposure to COVID-19, yet unlike Australia it did not destroy its economy.
“There is a deafening absence of political leadership that has the courage to look beyond the immediate waves of COVID-19 infections to the horizon of how to live with COVID-19 in our community,” stated Senator Roberts.
Queensland’s state 2019-2020 mid-year Fiscal and Economic Review, pre COVID-19, states “An increased capital program of $51.8 billion over the forward estimates, supporting 41,500 jobs in 2010-20”.
Part of Queensland’s Economy Recovery Strategy Stage 2 for COVID-19 also states “$51.8 billion state infrastructure program over the next four years to give the building and construction industry certainty and confidence.”
“This is duplicitous and untrustworthy leadership that pretends this is new money for recovery, when it is in fact an existing capital works program re-branded as a recovery capital works program.
Senator Roberts said, “Clearly the Queensland government’s exceedingly poor financial management has left Queensland on the back foot with no additional resources to bolster economic recovery.”
“With no vaccine in sight, no money in the bank and no confidence in the Premier’s leadership to look beyond the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, then Queenslanders need to get back to work.”
“The Premier needs an urgent plan, based on data, on how we master COVID-19 so we can return the economy and our community back to prosperity.”
