Posts

Financial Assistance means nothing if there is no plan (Treasury Laws Amendment (COVID-19 Economic Response No 2) Bill 2021)

, ,

The government is stumbling from thought bubble to thought bubble and looking more like dictators at each step. Australians are right to not trust them and believe they’ve got not idea.

Transcript

I speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (COVID-19 Economic Response No 2) Bill 2021.
This bill is notable for what it Is not. Before financing economic response packages using taxpayer funds government must pay taxpayers the respect and courtesy of a comprehensive definition of the problem being addressed and then a comprehensive detailed plan to which taxpayers and our parliament can hold the government accountable.

Yet state and federal governments are lurching from one Covid event to another with no detailed plan. This breeds confusion, duplication, waste and as we’ve seen, contradictions within and between governments that are, in plain language, stupid and leave taxpayers incredulous.

This is driving fear, confusion, frustration, insecurity and anger. Everyday Australians have had a gutful of states blaming and bickering with each other and with the federal government – while imposing arbitrary Covid lockdowns and restrictions killing businesses, employment and our economy – and killing people.
People need leadership, competence and integrity – people want to be heard and want a proper plan.
What’s involved in a comprehensive plan for managing a virus? Data, truth and care.

In March and April 2020 I spoke in the Senate and indicated that after seeing reports of tens of thousands of deaths in Italy, Spain, France & China we would vote for the Covid-19 measures the Government introduced.

At that time I repeatedly warned the government that in the months ahead we would hold the government accountable and I expected them to provide the people with data and with a proper, detailed plan for their Covid response.

I’ve been holding government accountable since May 2020. Yet we’ve not seen a proper plan. The govt has not even shared the underpinning data on the virus characteristics nor the Doherty Centre modelling nor the erroneous, flawed UK modelling on which the Doherty modelling is based. Yet the government has splashed a huge bucket of taxpayer cash – hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money – like swill.
Instead, economic measures need to be based on a solid plan.

In senate estimates hearings in March and May this year the Chief Medical Officer and head of the federal department of Health both agreed with my list of strategies for a proper plan to manage a virus. These are:

  1. Isolation – Lockdowns, national border closure – initially;
  2. Testing, tracing and quarantining of the sick and the vulnerable;
  3. Restrictions such as social distancing, masks;
  4. Injections – Vaccines; (provided properly, fully tested and safe)
  5. Treatments using cures and prophylactics;
  6. Personal behaviour such as washing hands – they added that;
  7. Health and fitness.

Both confirmed that my list is complete, it does not miss anything. It does not contain anything that should not be in the plan. All these strategies need to be considered. I’ll return to this list in a moment.
I asked these officials for data characterising the virus – in terms of severity, or, mortality and transmissibility. I specified clearly that I wanted data relative to past respiratory diseases such as SARS, MERS and severe flus including the 1918 Spanish Flu and 1997 H5N1 Avian Flu.

Their later written answer included a diagram showing that while COVID-19 is highly transmissible, contagious, it’s severity is LOW to moderate. The diagram does not show that some people with Covid-19 have no symptoms. Many people diagnosed with Covid show symptoms typical of flu. A few small groups with co-morbidities can die. Having that breakdown into groups is crucial to having a proper plan for managing the virus. Where is it?

Why has government not shared this data with the people? By the way, Texas and Florida have opened their economies and removed Covid measures – including lockdowns, masks and business closures.
These jurisdictions have experienced an almost identical pattern of infection, hospital admission and mortality as other American US States that are still in lockdown.After Florida’s only lockdown, state Governor Disantis apologised to his residents and has had no further lockdowns despite Florida having a high proportion of aged residents.

How many of the seven strategies are our govts adopting? Firstly, the states are capriciously using lockdowns killing our economy, killing small business, killing the regions – and killing people through increased suicides and attempted suicides. That’s slamming a trillion-dollar debt on Australians not yet born.

Even the UN’s World Health Organisation – a corrupt, incompetent and dishonest body – now admits lockdowns are a blunt instrument to be used only initially to get control of a virus.
In continuing to use lockdowns, states are revealing they have not mastered the virus. Instead, the virus is managing the states.

Six days ago, the NSW Deputy Premier and Leader of the Nationals openly admitted that the NSW state government has no clue what is happening with lockdowns. We welcome his honesty.
Lockdowns are a form of controlling people, useful for increasing widespread fear.
Fear is a weapon, not only for control. It’s used to win elections. Invoking a crisis is a well-known tactic to help incumbent governments.

The federal government’s partially closed national borders are a form of isolation yet there are valid, proven strategies for better managing this that are based on data.Due to a looming election it seems the Prime Minister has taken a lesson from Qld, the Northern Territory and WA that ramped up fear of the virus before state elections to invoke the power of incumbency. What a disgrace. When politicians and media talk about the cost of Covid they are lying. The truth is it’s the cost of politically driven government restrictions. Testing, tracing and quarantining of the sick and vulnerable.

Although improving, testing and tracing in Australia have been poor. Vulnerable people are largely NOT adequately and fairly quarantined. Taiwan, a small island crammed with a population similar to Australia’s, has achieved an amazing performance with no interruption to its economy and no legacy debt. Taiwan did not lock up everyone. Instead it protected the sick and vulnerable. Taiwan’s economy continued to hum along because this proven strategy drastically cut Covid’s economic costs. Restrictions such as masks and social distancing.

Initially there were not enough masks available and authorities here and overseas told us that masks were not important. Yet later when masks became available the same authorities told us masks are vital. When Qld’s Health Minister earlier this year forced mask use she was asked whether drivers alone in cars would have to wear masks. She clearly did not know and then hesitatingly said “yes”.

When Brisbane in one corner of our state had three Covid-19 cases in January this year the Labor government mandated masks across the entire state – including the tiny town of Bamaga 2,700 kms away on our state’s northern tip where there were no cases. Masks are becoming a form of conditioning people to follow orders and to submit to government.

Vaccines or Injections.

The federal Chief Medical Officer, head of the federal Dept of Health and the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration all have refused to guarantee the safety of these expensive injections. There have been reversals of advice and the public is now afraid and hesitant. Health authorities do not know the dosage needed, don’t know the number and frequency of doses – and admit that injections will not prevent transmission of the virus, will not stop people getting the virus, will not end restrictions.
The effect on children in the womb and on future generations is not known. The long term effects on people injected is not known. Why the hell is the government injecting people with an untested drug? Serious adverse-effects including deaths due to the injections have occurred here, and overseas, thousands of people have died.

Governments, state and federal, have repeatedly contradicted their own earlier advice and assurances.
Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt publicly admitted, quote: “The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial.” We are not lab rats. Governments are using threats of digital passports, or as I call them digital prisons, that withdraw services and prevent access to work and livelihoods, to events and to travel. Government wants to remove basic freedoms. No wonder vaccine hesitancy is spreading. Never before have western governments injected healthy people with a substance that can kill.

At the same time our government is depriving us of Ivermectin, a known treatment for, and preventative for, Covid-19. Over a period of 60 years and for various diseases it’s proven SAFE in 3.7 billion doses.
It’s already approved in Australia to treat a number of health conditions. In April last year I raised the topic of promising Ivermectin in-vitro trials on Covid in Melbourne, yet the government did nothing.

Ivermectin is easily affordable and over the last year overseas has become a highly successful and proven treatment for Covid. Plus, over 40 medical/scientific papers now hail Ivermectin’s success. Prominent doctors across many fields of medicine including immunology and respiratory diseases advocate Ivermectin for treating Covid-19. Yet the federal government in Australia sits on its hands, is not exploring Ivermectin’s potential and refuses to authorise its use for Covid. The government is ignoring a proven medicine that could end this virus’ reign as it has overseas. The government has blood on its hands.
Overseas, this proven strategy is drastically cutting Covid’s economic costs and keeps people healthy and economies healthy.

Ivermectin has one hurdle: its use will eliminate the hundreds of billions of dollars revenue for vaccine makers from vaccines that have bypassed standard testing and approval processes. Personal hygiene such as hand-washing, personal behaviour and practical actions – the same as for stopping the flu or a cold – another strain of Corona virus.

Health & fitness.

Obesity and other diseases increase the risk of Covid-19 yet government has done nothing. Although this is mostly personal responsibility, there’s a role for government providing data and advice. Of the seven strategies that senior federal health officials confirmed, the government is relying on only one expensive strategy of injections with known adverse health effects and on partial closure of borders. Instead of data, governments are pushing fear. Instead of a detailed plan, governments are pushing paranoia. Instead of strengthening our economy governments are lining BigPharma’s pockets. Covid-19 exposed our country’s core problem – atrocious state and federal governance. Atrocious and deadly. Governments talk about a new Covid-normal. That’s nonsense.

If governments cared and wanted us to feel safe they would have an end-to-end solution for Covid. A solid plan based on solid data and specifying WHAT actions will be taken, WHY they will be taken, WHEN they will be taken, WHERE they will be taken, WHO will be responsible and HOW they will be taken.
A solid plan. Before an economic package is produced, there must be a plan. Then it must be costed and a business and health case made for it.

When organisations, whether a business or government or not-for-profit work to a plan, the plan can always be changed as circumstances changed. Yet our state and federal Liberal-Labor-Nationals governments have never attempted to make a detailed plan. That shows Liberal-Labor-Nationals do not care about people’s health and lives, do not respect the taxpayers of Australia, do not provide solid governance. Governance of any entity has three aspects:

  • Trusteeship for the entity’s values. Yet governments are trashing Australian values;
  • Custodian for the entity’s future, for those Australians not yet born. Yet governments are trashing our children’s future and burdening them with a trillion dollars of avoidable debt;
  • Stewardship for the entity’s resources. Yet governments are wasting taxpayer funds and killing our country’s productive capacity.

Instead, the government in this bill is just going to spend taxpayer money and tell other departments who they’re giving it to. This is not a plan. It’s an excuse to splash cash and not be accountable.
It will motivate unaccountable Premiers to waste more taxpayer money while destroying our country’s tax base. It’s the very opposite of our constitution’s foundation. Instead of competitive federalism, it’s yet another example of competitive welfarism.

The core issue this bill perpetuates is shoddy governance. Atrocious governance. Repeatedly this government shows it cannot plan. That means it cannot govern. It is based on hollow marketing slogans. It’s intent is to look good not do good. It aims to be re-elected not to serve. The only thing this government has going for it is … Anthony Albanese and the Labor party. This bill discusses government making, quote: “disaster payments”. It dishonestly does not discuss the fact that state and federal government caused the disaster.

Australia needs honest, competent, consistent leadership using solid data. Government needs to serve the people and serve Australia’s national interest. We need to restore governance that cares for people’s lives, people’s livelihoods, people’s security, people’s future. Governance that cares for our country’s security, our country’s values, our country’s economy, our country’s future.

We need a government that is honest and serves the people.
We have one flag. We are one community. We are one nation.

We will be supporting one of the Greens’ second reading amendments to recover financial support from entities paying executive bonuses and Senator Patrick’s third reading amendment to instil a register of entities receiving taxpayer cash.

/2 Comments/by

ON FREEDOM

, ,

Governments are squashing freedoms like never before. History will show that those on the side of freedom will always be on the right side.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak tonight on freedom. On many occasions in the last year I have addressed the Senate in regard to freedom as a counterbalance to medical tyranny. And I recently addressed the Canberra Freedom Rally, remotely. The side that is locking people up for the crime of being healthy, arresting protesters, pepper spraying kids, beating up grannies, banning books and electronic messages, censoring social media, sending threatening letters, forcing small businesses to close, urging people to dob in dissenters and banning safe drugs that have worked for 60 years are all on the wrong side of history.

In a frightening development, New South Wales has called in the troops to keep innocent, healthy citizens locked in their homes in what can only be called martial law. Recent freedom marches showed what happens to citizens who exercise their democratic right to protest. People are demonised, hunted down; the media vilifies them to discourage others from questioning the control state. If the government can decide who is free and who is not, then that is not freedom and no-one is free. A crisis will always be found to justify measures designed to protect the government, not the public—a crisis that is as is easy to create as turning up the PCR test from 24 cycles to 42, where a false positive is the most likely outcome, as has occurred.

Actions such as these have created a crisis of confidence in government, and that, fellow citizens, is on the Senate. We are the house of review. We’re tasked with a duty to ensure honesty, transparency and accountability in the government of the day. We have failed in that solemn duty, our duty to our constituents. We have failed those who are yet to vote, our children, who are now being injected with a substance that has not undergone meaningful safety testing. The Liberal, National and Labor parties have colluded to waive these measures through this place, reducing the Senate to the status of a dystopian echo chamber.

Each new restriction, although met with rightful public opposition, has not led to a re-evaluation but, rather, has led the government to crack down even further. The Morrison government is behaving like a gambling addict who loses a hand but doubles down instead of admitting error and walking away. With troops now on the streets, it’s frightening to contemplate where this will end. Everyday Australians are being deliberately demoralised to extract a higher degree of compliance. When COVID first arrived, there were few masks, and the experts and authorities told us masks were not necessary. Now, those same medically ineffective masks are used to condition people to fear and obedience. Crushing resistance crushes hope, and without hope we have no future.

Is it any wonder that small businesses are closing permanently? Every small business that closes is a family that was being provided for through hard work and enterprise. Who will look after those families now—the government? With whose money? The Reserve Bank, using electronic journal entries, can only create fiat money out of thin air for so long before it runs down our country. The government can only sell bonds until buyers stop coming forward. Then what happens? We will have no tax base left to pay government stipends to people who were once able to pay their own way.

Since when has the Liberal Party, the supposedly party of Menzies, been dedicated to making huge sections of the population totally reliant on the government for survival? The bad joke here is that the excuse used to justify the sudden rush to Marxism—public health—is moot. Death from all sources, including coronavirus and the flu, are at historic lows. Australia’s death rate in 2020 was less than in 2019, and 2021’s death rate is lower again. We’re strangling Australia’s economic life and future for no reason. Power has gone to the heads of our elected leaders and unelected bureaucrats, who are exercising powers yet do not feel the consequences themselves.

Never in history has Lord Acton’s famous quote rung more true: ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ It’s been calculated that the civil disobedience tipping point—which is the maximum capacity of the police to arrest people, of the jails to hold people and of the courts to process people—is in Australia around 100,000 people. Anything more than that and the system comes crashing down. Attendance at the freedom rallies last month shows we’re almost there.

No wonder the Morrison government has been scared into resorting to the refuge of tyrants—using the military to intimidate civilians into compliance and to mandating injections and threatening to rip away people’s livelihoods.

Everyday Australians are seeing through the smokescreens of fear and intimidation. People now see that the costs of the restrictions to family and community exceed the medical cost of the virus. Everyday Australians have spoken. We will not be divided, we are united, we are one community, we are one nation.

/36 Comments/by

Is the Government considering mandatory vaccination? Questioning the Department of Health Senate Estimates

, ,

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.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

/8 Comments/by

Letter to Home Affairs Minister: Foreign Departure Ban

Dear Minister

I write in support of Mr Martin Thomson and his son Harry’s application for an exemption from the overseas travel ban to travel from Australia to Scotland.  Separately, and without impinging on that request, I ask the government to adopt a more supportive approach to persons wishing to travel from Australia.

Mr Martin Thomson

I am informed of the following:

Martin Thomson is a UK National with permanent residency in Australia.  I believe it is important to note that Mr Thomson is a non-citizen trying to leave Australia.  Mr Thomson’s father, James, is in Scotland and has prostate cancer.  James is on treatment for his cancer and does not know how long he has to live.  Mr Thomson’s mother, Susanna, is unable to drive and has arthritis which makes caring for James very difficult.  Mr Thomson wishes to leave the country with his son to care for and see his father, in what may be the final stages of his life.

Mr Thomson has booked a one-way flight back to the UK for both him and his son, has resigned from his workplace in Australia and will be freighting his belongings in Australia back to the UK.  He understands the quarantine requirements in the UK upon arrival, due to his stopover in Dubai, and has undertaken to comply with them fully.

I have seen handwritten letters from Mr Thomson’s parents pleading for our government’s compassion on this issue.  Susanna writes, “… my arthritis is making everything harder! I do need them home very badly!  To help!” Heartbreakingly, 80 year old James writes, “I do not know how long I have to live and as you can imagine I am in my later years, I would dearly love to see my son and grandson back home in Scotland before I pass on out of this life”. 

I struggle to think of circumstances that deserve our compassion as much as the one Mr Thomson finds himself in.  We are Australians and we pride ourselves on fairness.  Allowing people to leave this country to take care of dying family members is the absolute least we can do to live up to that pride.

I ask and encourage in the sincerest terms possible that the Government consider favourably the applications of Mr Thomson and his son, and also any others who find themselves in similar circumstances.

Let people leave

Separately to my support of Mr Thomson and his son’s application, I wish to request that the government relax its restrictions on people exiting the country.  Many Australians are not aware the government has currently banned them from leaving the country without a permit.

I understand that of the more than 90,000 applications made to leave the country from 25 March to 31 July, Australian Border Force has approved 22,640, around only 1 in 4.  As far as we know, Australia is the only liberal democracy in the world with a blanket ban on citizens, let alone non-citizens, leaving the country.

We have heard of people being refused exemptions to leave the country to return to where they hold citizenship, to see a daughter’s marriage and, in the case of Mr Thomson, to care for his dying father.

The only justification presented for this ban on leaving the country has been that if we let people out, they might come back one day.  The outgoing travel ban was implemented at a time when states and territories were picking up the bill for hotel quarantine.  However, this is no longer the case.  Taxpayers are not footing the bill and anyone leaving the country understands they will personally pay up to $3,000 for hotel quarantine if they choose to return. 

I suggest that this request is reasonable given the Government is considering welcoming international visitors who are prepared to quarantine and is already trialling bringing in international students.  No comparable countries to Australia, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, the United States of America and others have this restriction on departures in place. 

We must manage the risk of COVID-19 not by preventing Australians from leaving but controlling their return to Australia as well as foreign arrivals into Australia.  We already control the return of people to Australia with user-pay hotel quarantine.

The current policy regarding leaving Australia is causing a great deal of unnecessary heartbreak and is an unjustified infringement of liberty.  I ask the government to reconsider its current approach to the prohibition on departures from Australia and to adopt a much more compassionate and practical approach.

Yours sincerely

Senator Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland

200827-MartinThomson

/by

Throw the book at Black Lives Matter lawbreakers

,

It is vital that our premier takes a tough stand on any unnecessary and risky marches/protests in our State. We can not risk going down the path of Victoria.

Transcript

It’s so pleasing to see the New South Wales Police Commissioner in response to the Black Lives Matter protests, coming out tomorrow, saying to his policemen that they must fine as many people as they can for taking part in that protest.

That’s a welcome change from Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, who said when the last Black Lives Matter protest occurred in Brisbane, that “Please don’t attend. “But if you do then maintain social distance.”

And as a result, 30,000 people followed her invitation to maintain social distance. Premier Dan Andrew pretty much did the same and just waved them on through and encouraged the protesters

And now look at Victoria and now look at New South Wales. So what we need to see is Premier Palaszczuk in this state, take the lead from New South Wales and be hard on criminals.

The Labor Government in Queensland has a history of being soft on criminals and very hard on everyday Australians.

/by

Senator Roberts Concerned about Australia’s reliance on Professor Ferguson’s exaggerated COVID-19 modelling

,

Senator Roberts has expressed deep concern that our national and state management of COVID-19 maybe responding to the exaggerated modelling predictions of Professor Ferguson.

Senator Roberts said, “Professor Ferguson’s assumptions that form the basis of his modelling have produced sensationally inaccurate predictions and this is not the first time Ferguson’s predictions have been wildly overstated.”

Professor Ferguson’s track record includes, but is not limited to, predicting 50,000 deaths from mad cow disease, reality was 177 deaths; 65,000 would die of swine flu, reality was 457 deaths and 200 million people may die from bird flu, reality was 282.

The Department of Health website cites the use of the Peter Doherty Institute Report, which references reliance on assumptions from the Imperial College COVID19 NPI Modelling Report, of which Professor Neil Ferguson is the first author.

“It is irrefutable that Professor Ferguson’s modelling predictions are exaggerated and his work has had far-reaching devastating impacts on national economies.”

Foot and mouth disease, which cost the British government £10 billion, was an extraordinary overreaction to an exaggerated claim made by Professor Ferguson.

The Australian Government has enacted a record $320 billion package, the economy is dismantling, the employment rate is rising and the nation’s mental health issues are starting to show themselves. 

Senator Roberts has written to the Prime Minister and Queensland’s Premier asking whether these significant health and economic responses, which will affect future generations, are based on the Doherty Institute Report and by default, the assumptions in Ferguson’s Imperial College Report.

“No business, economy nor community can hibernate and then just return to normal.  There will be devastating consequences from these decisions for some time to come,” Senator Roberts said.

“The people of Queensland and Australia deserve to have confidence that the Government’s serious and far-reaching decisions during this health crisis are based on credible and robust data and modelling,” Senator Roberts added.

200519-Professor-Fergusons-exaggerated-COVID-19-modelling_

/by

Questions to the Minister: COVIDSafe App

,

This morning I asked a number of questions of the Foreign Minister about the COVIDSafe App, its performance so far and necessary improvements.

Disturbingly, she claimed not to know how many times a COVIDSafe App user had tested positive with COVID19 and their tracing data uploaded. “We do not have access to that information nor should we.”

/by

COVID Safe App

,

This afternoon I spoke on the governments COVIDSafe App and why I won’t be downloading it. I understand this Government feels the need to get this app in wide use and is prepared to write good data protection rules to achieve that.

I would ask the Government to show it really cares about the privacy of everyday Australians by revisiting the wider issue of Government use of private data.

Transcript

Senator Roberts.

Thank you Madam Acting Deputy President. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I have pleasure in saying that One Nation will be supporting this bill. That doesn’t mean that I will be downloading the app as I’ll explain.

But firstly, I would like to compliment the attorney general for the work that went into this bill. When Minister Hunt’s regulations came out to accompany that app launch, my office had a number of reservations about the level of security provided on the data.

This bill is needed to clear up those issues and it has done so. I will mention these in passing for the benefit of our constituents. Then I’ll move on to the security risk that the app itself still represents. I did have a concern that the government was giving bad players an opportunity to access data on the server without detection.

So there are two aspects to this Madam Acting Deputy President, there’s the app itself and then there’s the uploading of data to the server and the storing of that data and the use of that data. So I did have a concern that the government was giving bad players an opportunity to access data on the server without detection.

The decision to ask the Office of the National Data Commissioner, the commissioner, to overview data storage and access is a wise choice that addresses this concern. We are pleased with that. I was also worried about Amazon having access to both the client file, which is needed, to identify app users and the data file for COVID positive users.

This in effect gave Amazon access to significant personal information of app users. So let me explain a bit more. The separation now of the key file and the data access, the data file itself, under the supervision of the commissioner is the best way of making sure Amazon and the government keep each other honest, well done.

So in other words, we’ve got the government storing the data, we’ve got Amazon storing the data and the government having the keys. Both are needed. It can’t be separate. There is one reason not one party can have control. There is one issue here to do with the cryptography on the unique user IDs.

The open-source app that the COVID-safe app took as a starting point only requires 32 bit encryption. I would have hoped the app developers have taken that up to 128 bit and we’d ask the commissioner to consider that. Now let me turn to a number of security issues in the app itself that need to be addressed.

My office has put out a detailed sheet on this, so let me quickly mention them here and move on. The user ID can stick in the phone case causing a phone to broadcast multiple different user IDs over extended periods of time, which increases the chances of a phone being tracked.

Secondly, the COVID-safe app overrides phone security settings to use the same handshake address for a phone over the life of the app instead of changing every few minutes. This is a major security issue in the app. Thirdly, the COVID-safe app stores the make and model of the other phones it has matched within plain text where it can be easily read.

This approach is not necessary since this data could easily be trapped when the app is registered instead of storing it in the phone. Fourthly, if someone has named their phone such as, in my case Malcolm’s iPhone under some circumstances, this real name is what the other phone stores, app users who have named their phone with their real name may be exposing themselves to danger.

This results from the app using different ways of broadcasting data to maximise the chance of a match. This tells us that the developers have taken a deliberate decision to compromise safety to achieve the most number of matches. Fifth, data stored to the cloud is not deleted.

If a cloud service is used to backup or sync a phone, the COVID-safe app contact blog gets backed up to the cloud. This can be viewed by anyone with a sign in without the phone user’s knowledge. So I acknowledge that this bill makes the behaviour illegal, but not storing some of the data in plain English would have been a far better choice.

Sixth, an app running in the background will not match with another app running in the background on an iPhone. The app does not meet the government’s, number seven the app does not meet the government’s own standard for app accessibility.

WCAG 2.0 A. It fails accessibility tests on font size and field width and people with a disability the first people that need to get this app. So that was sloppy. Eight errors that were detected early in the release of the app have still not been fixed. Registration fails over WiFi, which is used in poor reception areas.

Bluetooth conflicts with external devices. Power management on an iPhone interferes with the app. 3% of older phones cannot use the app an alert message advising users that they have tested positive for COVID was being accidentally triggered. This was fixed by deleting the message.

So currently the app can’t be used to alert users when they actually do test positive. I must however compliment the government for the sudden concern about security. Where was the concern about people’s privacy in this government’s capture and use of the metadata of every Australian?

This government is storing texts, telephone call details, social media posts, websites visited and website comments for every Australian. At Senate estimates, we discovered that in 2019 there were 297,000 accesses of the metadata records of everyday Australians by 22 different government agencies.

How many of these accesses were accompanied by a warrant? Madam Acting Deputy President? None. Not one warrant. Now I understand this government feels the need to get this app in wide use and is prepared to write good data protection rules to achieve that.

So I’d ask the government to show it really cares about the privacy of everyday Australians by revisiting the wider issue of government use of private private data. Because the government’s track record on security is poor.

So as I’ve explained Madam Acting Deputy President, the shortfalls initially in our assessment of the app were to do with the data storage and access of that. That has now been resolved or will be resolved once this bill, Privacy Bill passes. However, the reverse is the case for the app.

We were originally happy with the app. We now see a number of flaws in it. So that leaves security issues in regard to people being able to track the phone owner, the phone user and that is not acceptable. I also wanna make a comment about the blackmail that’s being used by the government to push this app.

Minister Hunt said, “you wanna go to the 40?” “Download the app.” We’ve just heard here Senator Bragg saying, “this is that ticket to freedom.” No it’s not. There are far more effective tickets to freedom.

The Australian people have already shown a highly responsible approach to managing this COVID virus and we need to extend that. We need to stop the blackmail stop the control that is pushed over us. We need to get back to the freedoms that are inherent and being everyday Australians.

That is part of our birthright, part of our citizenry that we have, are entitled to rights and freedom. When we have permission from something to do something from a government that is not a freedom, that is the reverse because there is being withheld until the permission is granted.

So we need to rely upon the trustworthiness and the competence and a sense of responsibility of everyday Australians right around the country. So Madam Acting Deputy President, let me summarise by saying that this bill is necessary, and that is why One Nation will be supporting it. It is welcome.

Secondly, the app is not up to scratch and that’s why I won’t be downloading it. And thirdly, we need to get back to freedom properly.

/by

No COVID-19 Stimulus Money for Universities

,

Australian universities have their hands out for COVID19 stimulus monies.

When you pay your Vice Chancellors over $1 million and spend taxpayers money on non-core building activity, I say NO. 

Transcript

Mr. President, I move the motion as amended.

Senator Ruston.

[Ruston] I seek leave to make a short statement.

[President] Leave is granted for one minute.

[Ruston] The Morrison Government Community Group to support those in need, including international students, universities, together with states and territories of established hardship funds, and other supports. Australia’s universities are autonomous institutions governed by university councils. Reporting of liquidity across the sector as of the 31st of December 2018 showed total cash and investments of $20.3 billion. Universities are eligible for job keeping if they meet the relevant criteria.

Senator Roberts.

[Roberts] I seek leave to make a short statement.

[President] Leave is granted for one minute.

[Roberts] Thank you. One Nation opposes this motion. We are concerned that everyday Australians who are doing it tough right now may have to bail out the universities that have become dependent on foreign students. These universities expose us to significant financial risk when they’ve spent vast amounts of our money on overseas students to create more revenue for them.

So where was their detailed business case in their risk analysis? If government did a utilisation study on these campuses before approving more building, they would find that their existing buildings are underused. And universities should not be in the accommodation business.

James Cook University has just tendered to develop student accommodation at a time when I found 216 vacant rental properties in Town’s Hall today. James Cooke University should give us our money back. We value their research and teaching, but they must act professionally.

If the universities were serious, then they would lead by example and cut the million dollar plus vice chancellor’s salaries. Why won’t they? Because they lack accountability.

/1 Comment/by

COVID19 plan is fundamental for trust and hope

While Australia has been able to mitigate the deaths from Coronavirus, the Prime Minister still hasn’t given the country a plan for how we now get out of the lockdowns that are crippling the country. We need the modelling, we need the facts and we need a plan as soon as possible.

23rd of March speech

Coronavirus Speech

8th of April speech

Questions for the Prime Minister – COVID19

First letter to the Prime Minister

Letter to the PM: COVID-19 Strategy

Second Letter to the Prime Minister

Letter to the PM: COVID-19 – What is your plan?

Transcript

Hear that ticking? People’s frustrations. Building, with being kept in the dark. Because when it comes to the coronavirus, COVID-19, the government is sharing only part of the truth, and vital information seems to be withheld. To explain that, I will explain what seemed to be these three options.

Firstly, ending isolation with a sudden mass release, and why that is not on. Secondly, waiting for release until a vaccine is developed, and why that could hurt. Thirdly, isolating the sick and the vulnerable, and releasing the healthy, has proven successful overseas. And an added point, on treatment, for those with coronavirus. While I empathise with the government’s very difficult challenge, people need answers. There’s no manual on how to do this.

Yet people are feeling confused, afraid, concerned. Some feel lost, grieving for those dying, and grieving for our country. Some feel angry. Many are still living in disbelief, and plagued with uncertainty, and fear over how to pay their bills. People want to know what has to be done, why it has to be done, how long before it’s over, and what will be the cost, financial, social, personal, mental, emotional. It is the people who have to repay these huge bills of up to around 300 billion dollars, to which the government has committed Australian taxpayers.

People have a right to know the facts, yet the prime minister’s first discussion of modelling, on the 7th of April, lacks specifics on the expected duration of isolation, lacked a plan, lacked triggers for releasing people. Simply repeating the words, six month hibernation, is not enough. It kills people’s hope and raises their concerns. A solid plan is fundamental for trust and hope.

People expect governments to lead, and expect leaders to have a plan based on solid data and facts, and to share that plan, and the information behind the plan. We need to acknowledge successes, the government, and Australians generally, can claim success in avoiding the overwhelming of healthcare services, and avoiding a high death count. Sadly, 63 people have died.

Yet that is way better than many nations. In my speech in the first special one-day parliamentary session, on Monday the 23rd of March, I stressed the need to take hard, strong, and quick action. Because many politicians are afraid of being seen to be making mistakes, or being wrong. What would have happened if it had just been mild?

Two days later, I repeated that call in my letter to the prime minister. A little over two weeks later, in the second special one-day parliamentary session, on Wednesday the 8th of April, and in my letter to the prime minister yesterday, I discussed the need for a plan for recovery, and for sharing that plan with the people.

Now there are two health and safety aspects. Individual health, protecting people’s lives. Preventing an overwhelming of the healthcare services. After a lot of public pressure, the prime minister was pushed into a media conference on Tuesday the 7th of April, to discuss the government’s modelling of the virus’s potential impact. Disappointingly, he was light on details and fact, and big on words.

He did not release the modelling, did not discuss the key assumptions of infection, transmission, and fatality rates, did not discuss the variables modelled, discussed no results from the modelling. How then could people make meaningful conclusions? We couldn’t! The prime minister did not discuss various alternative strategies for a national plan. Our staff found the New Zealand modelling report, and, it’s worth noting, the Kiwis thanked Aussies for helping them build their model.

Yet the Kiwis released their report many days before the prime minister’s media conference! And the UK’s Imperial College of London model has been released for some time. Both show that unrestrained release of people from isolation would lead to an epidemic, unless successful treatments or vaccines are released. A key point is that the virus still exists in the community, and releasing restrictions without monitoring would be disastrous. Because when we’re let out, the virus will still be waiting for us.

Now the graph you see is from the Kiwi modelling report. The left-hand side, with blue background, shows isolation, the period of isolation. And the government strategy of lockdowns could be seen as the green line, the number of infections that hugs the baseline until isolation ends. Then, in the white background, that’s the period where isolation ends.

And the epidemic breaks out, because the virus is still among us. Now I’m no expert, and want you to make sure that you know that I don’t think I purport to be. I’m not an expert. I simply accessed information, and listened to people, including our staff who have done our basic research, and I convey the basic ideas and options to you.

The first option of quick, mass release of people from isolation, would mean an epidemic, many more people dying, and possibly our health system being overwhelmed. We can’t do that. That means we either need treatment, or a vaccine, or somehow build people’s immunity across the entire nation. A second option, is to keep people in isolation, lockdown, until a vaccine is developed.

We can’t do that for two reasons. Firstly, the emotional and mental health toll would be too high. And secondly, our economy would be slaughtered. There’s a third option, and that is to adopt something like an Australian version of the highly successful strategy used in East Asian nations, especially Taiwan, and latter, South Korea.

That involves isolating the sick, and those who have the virus, and isolating the vulnerable, the aged, and those with compromised immune systems, adding massive screening of healthy people for elevated body temperature, and then testing those with high temperatures, and with other symptoms of the virus. Then those with the virus are sent to isolation.

Those without the virus go back to work, or keep working. The point is that Taiwan has a population of 24 million people, almost the same as Australia, yet has recorded just six fatalities, despite heavy contact with the virus, before Australia, because it is near to China. And their economy had hardly missed a beat. So far, the prime minister and his medical advisors spend their time telling us what has happened, when we need to know what is going to happen next.

The prime minister has not shown us two things, the whole plan, including what happens next, and how long this will continue. The second half of the model seems to be missing. We the people deserve to know, and want to know, the whole story. On what basis is the prime minister spending 300 billion dollars of our taxpayer money?

The prime minister needs to tell us his government’s plan, and the triggers for strategy changes. This builds understanding, trust, and hope. The government does not trust the people. And eventually the people will not trust the government. The government has put parliament, and therefore democracy, in hibernation.

So in my second letter to the prime minister, I asked three sets of questions, on the modelling, the data, and the plan. Some medical specialists are asking, does COVID-19 attack our vascular, our blood circulation, and oxygen absorption system, or our respiratory system? We need to know, honestly. The chances of developing a vaccine against a virus that attacks our respiratory or blood system, that determines our fate.

People have dreamt of vaccines for the common cold. A type of corona vaccine, virus, rather, for a century or more. Yet there is still none. SARS is a coronavirus, and after 17 years intense research and billions of dollars, there’s still no vaccine. Experts say chances of a COVID-19 vaccine are very low. What about treatment, treating people with a cure?

What are the government’s plans to consider using Ivermectin to treat people who have the virus? It’s been a hundred percent successful in laboratory tests at Monash University. Are there any plans to treat people with a proven drug, like the malaria drugs, including hydroxychloroquine, that reportedly is having wonderful results in New York.

In summary, Australians want to know, how long will I be working from home? Or not working, and stuck at home? When can we get back to work and school? When will we be safe from this virus? Politicians won’t solve the COVID-19 problem. Research and science will. Until a vaccine is found, and despite all that we are doing, COVID-19 is still out there, waiting for us.

From what I’ve seen of Australians behaving, as we have in recent weeks, it’s marvellous. And from what I’ve learned from successful strategies overseas, there is a reason for optimism, and real hope. We must, though, continue to be disciplined, and the government must base policies, strategies, and plans, on solid data, on empirical evidence. And share that data accurately and fully, and honestly, with the people.

When this is over, everyday Australians of all backgrounds expect to see, and deserve to be, a healthy, secure people, with a proud, independent Australia once more, that reflects our lifestyle, culture, values, freedoms, democracy, and potential. All people want is a fair go, and governance that we can trust to serve us and work for our country.

If you’re concerned about this issue, please contact your local member of parliament, and get your friends and relatives to contact your local member, and demand to get a fair dinkum explanation, because we all deserve to know.

I’ve spoken on your behalf in the Senate, and I’ve written to the prime minister twice, and will continue to hold the government accountable on your behalf.

/by