Posts

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

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.

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_

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.”

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.

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.

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

8th of April speech

First letter to the Prime Minister

Second Letter to the Prime Minister

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.

This is the third in a series of letters between the Prime Minister and I in regards to COVID-19. You can read my first letter and the Prime Minister’s reply below.

Dear Mr Morrison 

RE: COVID-19 RECOVERY PLAN 

Thank you for your reply dated 14 April to my letter of 25 March 2020

Noting that the government has put Australia’s parliament – and therefore democracy – into hibernation, I now raise questions that would in normal circumstances be asked of Ministers in the Senate or of their departments in Canberra. 

Before doing so I acknowledge again that there is no manual on how to respond to the serious and dynamic health and security crisis now confronting all Australians. I note that although we disagree with some aspects of your government’s COVID-19 financial packages, in the interests of ensuring swift support to people whose lives have been jolted through loss of income we voted to support both packages in full. In doing so, and of necessity, we gave your government an open cheque. 

As a Senator it is my duty to ensure accountability. Firstly, I note that your government and Australians generally can claim success in avoiding the scenario of overwhelmed health care services. Secondly, experience here and overseas is now such that the questions below need to be asked on behalf of the constituents I serve. 

While I empathise with the government’s challenge, people need answers. People are feeling confused, afraid, concerned; some feel lost, grieving for those dying and for our country. Some feel angry. Many are still living in disbelief and plagued with uncertainty. 

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 and emotional? It is the people who have to repay these big bills of up to around $300 billion to which your government has committed Australian taxpayers. 

People have a right to know the facts, yet your discussion of modelling lacked specifics on the duration of isolation nor the plan and triggers for releasing people. 

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.

These are questions that I ask on behalf of our constituents: 

1. Modelling 

a) What delayed your government so long before publicly discussing modelling as attempted in your media conference on Tuesday 7 April 2020? 

b) Does your modelling, like that from NZ and the Imperial College of London, show that after the lockdown the virus will still exist in the community and that unrestrained release of people from isolation would lead to an epidemic, unless successful treatments or vaccines are released? 

c) Why did your government not release the modelling at your conference? 

d) Why did your government not discuss the underlying assumptions including infection, transmission and mortality rates? 

e) Why did your government not discuss the variables modelled because without that people can make no meaningful conclusions? 

f) Why did the modellers release the draft version separately from you and not release the model? 

g) Why did your government not disclose and discuss the modellers’ result and various alternative future scenarios that could be the basis for a national plan? 

h) Did your government use the modelling as the basis for its COVID-19 support packages legislation? 

2. National Plan 

a) What is the government’s plan for maintaining health and safety while restoring the economy, and what is the time frame? 

b) On what medical or scientific data do you repeatedly state that people will be isolated in hibernation for six months? 

c) Is the government considering the latest data and facts from nations like Taiwan, and to a lesser extent South Korea, that are highly successful in combatting COVID-19, and if so what is your government learning? 

d) Is your government considering adopting their strategy of isolating the sick and the vulnerable, combined with wider screening of elevated body temperature and more widespread testing of the population for the virus, so that instead of isolating healthy people and destroying livelihoods we can isolate the sick and the vulnerable thereby allowing the healthy to get back to work and restore our economy while protecting lives and livelihoods? 

e) Experts are saying the likelihood of a vaccine for COVID-19 is low because after 17 years no vaccine for SARS, a coronavirus, has been developed despite massive investment. Despite possibly one hundred years of effort no vaccine has been developed for the common cold, another coronavirus. What is your plan for releasing people from isolation before a vaccine is developed? 

f) What is the government’s plan for treatment of people with the virus? Is it considering using hydroxy-chloro-quine, reportedly showing positive results in New York, and Ivermectin being 100% effective in Monash University’s laboratory tests? 

g) What is the plan for mental health issues that experts warn will likely rise as the isolation continues? One of the worst things that can be done to a person is to take their job from them. Humanity needs security, connection, family, and friends. The government’s shutdown is a ticking time bomb. 

3. Data 

a) Some medical specialists have suggested COVID-19 attacks human vascular, blood circulation and oxygen absorption, while other experts claim it attacks the human respiratory system. What is the government’s conclusion? 

b) Are casualties and deaths from influenza and pneumonia, both here and overseas, being reported as being due to COVID-19? 

c) How many people die WITH the virus and how many die FROM the virus? In some nations is the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 inflated? 

d) Data suggests Australia’s testing for the virus is narrowly focussed and well below the world’s best in terms of testing per capita. Why? 

e) Will your government establish a website at which it will openly post the scientific data and basis for its plan and allow public scrutiny – a cornerstone of science? Will it openly post the modelling on which it depends? 

f) To ensure a diversity of medical views and to prevent group-think, will your government establish a fully funded independent scientific team to question and hold accountable the government’s medical advisers? 

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 that reflects our lifestyle, culture, values, freedom, democracy and potential. 

All people want is a fair go and governance that we can all trust to work for our country. What many Australians want, looking beyond our health and financial safety, is to make sure that we leave COVID-19 behind us with the same, or more, freedoms and liberties that we had before. 

Yours Faithfully 

Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland

200416-PM_ltr2

On 25 March I sent a letter to the PM in regards to COVID 19. You can read that here:

This is the reply I received from the Prime Minister.

Dear Senator

Thank you for your letter of 25 March 2020 about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
The priority for the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments is the health and wellbeing of Australians, their livelihoods, their jobs and ensuring that Australia is positioned to emerge strong and resilient.

We are working together as Australians do. We all have a part to play: employers, employees, governments, health workers and every one with social distancing.
From the earliest days, Australia has understood the seriousness of COVID-19.
We quickly established travel bans and scaled up screening on our borders. We evacuated Australians from virus hotspots and set up quarantine facilities.

We funded a $2.4 billion national health response plan to set up more than 100 pop-up clinics, and to provide extra support for those more at risk including the elderly, those with chronic conditions and Indigenous communities.

We have increased funding to public hospitals and aged care, boosted our National Medical Stockpile of essential medicines and masks, and have secured alternative supplies of vital personal protective equipment for our healthcare workers.
At the same time, we are taking action to keep Australians in jobs and businesses in business.

Already we have announced $320 billion in measures across the forward estimates, representing 16.4 per cent of annual GDP.

We are focusing these efforts on those in the frontline – those who will be feeling the first blows of the economic impacts of the coronavirus. Our measures support households including casuals and sole traders, retirees and those on income support. They include doubling the JobSeeker Payment, through the introduction of a temporary coronavirus supplement.

We are providing a historic wage subsidy to around 6 million workers who will receive a flat payment of $1,500 per fortnight through their employer, before tax. The $130 billion temporary JobKeeper Payment scheme will help businesses significantly impacted by COVID-19 with the costs of their employees’ wages so more Australians can retain their jobs and businesses and can restart quickly when the crisis is over. Further detail is available at the Treasury website (www.treasury.gov.au/coronavirus).

We are working to ensure Australia can bounce back stronger than ever once the virus has run its course. As our economy bounces back, so will our Budget.
We can take this action now because we have worked hard to bring the Budget back into balance, to maintain our AAA credit rating and work with State and Ten-itory Governments to provide a world-class health system.

As well, a National Cabinet has been formed with myself, Premiers and Chief Ministers. This is Australia’s first National Cabinet made up of all Australian governments.
I have also publicly reiterated the role that all Australians play. By practising social distancing, maintaining good hygiene practices and looking out for one another we will be able to limit to spread of the virus.

I trust this information will be of use to you.

Yours Sincerely

Scott Morrison

P.S. I strongly disagree with your assessment of the Government’s approach and the comparison made to Italy.  To the contrary our experience more closely follows that in South Korea.

I followed this response with a second letter, which you can read here:

Transcript:

Thank you Senator Keneally, Senator Roberts.

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to discuss our people’s health and safety, the security of our national economy and thirdly, our national economic recovery in the near future and the long term because no one is discussing the key issue, and One Nation has solutions.

I remind people of government’s three primary roles, protect life, protect property and protect freedom. Importantly, in democracies, those governing do so only with the permission of the people governed and those governing are responsible to the people.

I will in this speech discuss a former prime minister who I had respected until I did my research. I want to thank everyone who is caring for us and keeping us safe, including healthcare workers, police, defence, emergency workers and everyone serving others including helping to supply and feed us, electricity generation, cleaners, garbage collection, water supply and many more.

Many of us feel gutted that this year will be the first time Anzac Day public commemorations have been called off. This illustrates the seriousness of the threat we face. Firstly, health and safety, this must be every government’s primary focus.

Now there is no manual on dealing with COVID-19. So while I empathise with government’s challenge, people want answers, people are feeling confused, afraid, concerned, some feel lost, grieving for those dying and grief for our country.

Some feel angry, many are still living in disbelief, why? Because people want to know what has to be done, why it has to be done and how long before it’s over and what will it cost, financial, social, personal, mental, emotional.

Remember, we have to pay these bills. People have a right to know the fair dinkum facts and right now, many people are, like me, in the dark or plagued with uncertainty. Two and a half weeks ago, in this place, I praised the success of East Asian nations in combating COVID-19, particularly Taiwan and South Korea.

Their focus is on people’s health and safety. Both are democracies and government provides strong, clear leadership. The people trust those governments because they used facts, instituted rigorous widespread testing of body temperature and virus infection, relied on sharing data and had solid processes and systems with medical supplies and facilities.

Both those nations quickly arrested the virus and instead of isolating everyone, they quickly and rigorously isolated the infected and the vulnerable, allowing the majority of healthy people to continue working.

This is their lesson to us, acting decisively to make health their first priority, minimised disturbance to their economies. Western nations though have tried to balance health and the economy and as a result, both have been compromised.

Australians are asking serious questions. Why did it take so long for the government to publicly discuss modelling, as it pretended to do so yesterday yet not release the modelling. Why did the modellers release the draught version separately yet not release the model?

Why did the government not discuss the underlying assumptions including infection, transmission and mortality rates? Why did the government not discuss the variables modelled? Without that we can make no conclusions.

Why did the government not disclose the model’s result? Did the government gather data and facts from successful nations like Taiwan and South Korea? And if so, what did it learn? Now modelling is often flawed yet in this case, isn’t failing to get the data or failing to model acceptance of needless deaths?

When did state and federal health ministers last get together to scenario plan the effects and management of a virus pandemic? Have they ever? Have they considered their interaction with border security and who to allow into our country from planes and ships?

Did they involve the hospitals and medical colleges? Data suggests Australia’s testing for the virus is narrow and well below the world’s best per capita. Why is the government’s data on number of cases continually revised with dramatic changes to its graph?

Are casualties and deaths from flu and pneumonia here and overseas being reported as from COVID-19? How many people will die with the virus compared with how many people die from the virus? In some nations, are deaths inflated?

What is the government’s plan for treatment using hydroxychloroquine showing amazing results in New York and elsewhere? And ivermectin being 100% effective in Monash University’s in-vitro tests? What is the plan for mental health issues?

Everyday Australians want to know, how long will I be working from home? When can we get back to work and school? When will we be safe from this virus? I now turn to the Chinese Communist government that harmed the Chinese people and people worldwide.

It hid the outbreak, suppressed the views of the virus and punished the doctors who wanted to inform and prepare the world. That meant the virus spread rapidly around the world. What will it do now to people in poorer countries, Africa, India?

Instead of it protecting its people, the Chinese Communist government neglected, controlled and punished them. Worse, in January, the United Nations’ World Health Organisation spread the communist government’s lies that there is no human to human transmission of the virus.

Then in March, the UN’s World Health Organisation said the time to act was two months earlier in January. The World Health Organisation, gutless, bumbling, incompetent, hopeless, dishonest, inherently corrupt just like the whole UN.

This virus needs to be renamed the Chinese Communist Party UN virus, the Chinese Communist Party and UN need to be held accountable. Compare the Chinese Communist government with that of Taiwan’s democratic government, Taiwan’s 24 million people responded freely and as of today, had just five deaths.

Freedom works, freedom works providing the government serves the people. With freedom comes responsibility and self control, always far superior to imposed control. The communists gave us the virus, democratic Taiwan gave us medical equipment.

Now let’s turn to our fragile economy. People expect government to lead and expect leaders to have a plan based on solid data and facts. Economies are living organisms comprised of families, economies depend on human interaction.

Isolate people and economies wither. So what is the plan for bringing back our economy? What are the government’s trigger points for changing strategy from isolating everyone to wider testing and then isolating only the sick and vulnerable so the healthy majority can return to interacting, producing, exchanging, getting back to work like Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore?

The government shutdown is a ticking time bomb. It is necessary but it is a ticking time bomb. Humanity needs security, connection, family, friends. The worst thing we can do to a person after all is take their job off them.

I note now, for now rather that this bill needs to be structured as an open cheque to the government to ensure the flexibility to support people. Thirdly, this crisis has highlighted a huge gap in our country’s security.

Shortages of critical equipment like basic medical supplies, worse, an inability to manufacture medical equipment, cars, many goods that we once made ourselves are now imported, why? Because the Whitlam Labor government signed the UN’s Lima declaration in 1975 and the Fraser Liberal National’s government ratified it the very next year to transfer manufacturing to third world countries.

Worse still, an inability in Australia to grow our own food. We were exporters of basic food commodities like rice and wheat, now we cannot get enough rice and due to the virus, Vietnam has blocked exports for us to ensure supply for its own people.

Durum wheat for pasta is in shortage, why? Because the Howard government under the guidance of Liberal Senator Robert Hill, National’s Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson and Liberal Prime Minister John Howard in 1996 stole farmers inalienable rights to use the land they bought.

And to avoid paying compensation, colluded with Queensland Nationals’ premier Rob Burbidge and later Labour’s premier Peter BD and with New South Wales Labour’s state minister Bob Carr, why? For the Howard government to comply with the UN’s Kyoto Protocol.

The UN, let’s get it out and who buys our farms? The Chinese Communist government despite banning Australians from buying Chinese properties. Water, what about water?

Farmers lost their water as a result of the Turnbull Howard Water Act of 2007 that according to world renowned John Briscoe, took the world’s best national water policy under the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and made it the worst under the Turnbull Howard Murray-Darling Basin Authority. How?

Infecting it with politics, UN rules and regulations. The UN exit, this week, yet another farmer Tanya Ginns in New South Wales asked, please help us, help her against the government, the global corporates, the UN.

Our own farmers asking for help against the government so she and her family can produce food for our people. And then energy, never before have humans materially advanced so quickly as in the last 170 years and it was due to ever decreasing real prices of energy, electricity, oil and gas.

The miracle that raised living standards gave us independence from weather and eliminated famines. It gave us longer, healthier, safer, easier, more productive, more comfortable and secure lifestyles.

We are the world’s second largest exporter of coal and largest exporter of liquefied natural gas yet we now have high domestic energy costs. In just a few decades, we went from the world’s cheapest electricity, thanks to our clean high energy coal to the world’s most expensive electricity, thanks to the Howard government policies based on the UN lies and fraud.

Eight years after John Howard was booted from office, he admitted in Britain, that on climate science, he was agnostic. He had no science yet he destroyed all these industries. We now export our coal to China so it can produce cheap electricity because China sensibly uses hydro, coal and nuclear being the cheapest forms of electricity generation.

The Chinese already produce about eight times more coal than does Australia entirely and they’re rapidly increasing their production. India is furiously increasing its production, why? Because they know cheap energy is the key to productivity and productivity is the key to wealth generation and wealth generation is the key to raising everyone’s living standards.

At the same time, China exports wind turbines and solar panels to us that wreck our environment and steal our precious farmland. We subsidise Chinese companies to install these inefficient monstrosities that raise our electricity costs, destroy reliability of supply and drive our manufacturers and jobs overseas, why?

In our renewal plans, this must be reviewed and dumped. Mind you, it provides entertainment with Barnaby Joyce and Senator Canavan first speaking clearly as climate sceptics, then contorting and converting to speaking for the UN’s climate rort and now, now back-flipping to copy One Nation’s stance.

Yet although they now speak like us, they still vote like Trent Zimmerman, Zali Steggall and the Greens. Despite the recent droughts, Despite the recent drought, farmers with water could not afford to pay for electricity to pump irrigation water to grow fodder in a drought because of electricity prices.

China and the UN are doing this, exit the UN. Seafood, we have the world’s largest continental shellfishing zone yet import almost three quarters of the seafood we consume, why?

Because we have 36% of the world’s marine parks that previous ministers like Labor’s Mr. Tony Burke and Liberal Senator Robert Hill handed to the UN as World Heritage areas, all now managed under UN rules and who is our largest supply of seafood imported by?

China with its tiny coastline and 56 times more mouths to feed compared to ours, China and the UN, exit the UN. In Queensland, we have 31 major federal and state policies gutting farming and as Charleville farmer, Dan McDonald says, “With every farm input now completely under regulatory control, farming is nationalised.”

We have lost our food security, our manufacturing, our farmers’ land use, our water, our energy security. We have lost our productive capacity, our ability to produce, we have lost our economic resilience, our ability to rebound all to globalism in the name of interdependency.

The corporate elites benefiting from our bureaucrats’ gift of farming land and water and benefit from owning Chinese manufacturing. Interdependency is a con, it means we are dependent on others, we are dependent.

This virus crisis is exposing a huge gap in our security from face masks to food to loss of our independence. We voters have allowed our government since the formation of the UN, especially since 1996 to sacrifice our country’s productive capacity, our economic resilience, our economic independence and security.

Did you elect UN bureaucrats to be in charge? I didn’t, our national debt now is around 600 billion, Queensland’s around 90 billion before this package. Members of parliament and senior federal public servants need to share the burden, stop the perks like flying business class, cut our superannuation rate, reject or defer salary increases.

Let’s look to the future. What will the world look like after the Prime Minister’s quaintly named six-month hibernation? In just three to four months, what will people be doing? Will people emerge from hibernation?

When we look around, will we as a nation feel supported, excited or depleted, hungry and angry? We need two plans, one for now and one for bringing back our productive capacity and economic resilience.

One Nation will return with their detailed analysis. When this is over, though, everyday Australians of all backgrounds expect to see and deserve to be a healthy, secure people with a proud, independent Australia that reflects our lifestyle, culture, values, freedom, democracy and potential. All people want is a fair go and governance we can trust to work for our country. Thank you Madam Deputy President.